Thread: Well, that's a conflict of interest

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

See but here's the problem. At the time those were the appropriate names. Global cooling was used because of a cooling trend and an expected ice age that was over due. Global warming was used because they figured out the cooling was a temp thing. Climate change was used not because it was appropriate but because they already looked liked fools twice over.

Now while I agree those that are serious about it are doing those things i feel that is the much smaller part of the group. The larger group is far more concerned with making money off of the current trend.





There can't be a lack of understanding. As Smokin already stated these are facts and they are not disputable or open for discussion. Well at least thats how they are treated while people like him spew the garbage they have been sucked into. Not sure if comparing medical science for a disease treatment carries over to climate change but i believe i get your point even though i don't think it works well.




We viewed school for a different set of eyes. School did not teach me certainty, it taught me to question everything and look for multiple answers to the same question even then because my school was probably more advanced then most at that time. So to cut the question at the end you make multiple variable answers and acknowledge we don't truly know the question much less the answer. With that it should be clear we most certainly cant act like we have facts sitting in front of us when at best we have a theory.

Like the theory of gravity, or the theory of over compensation. lol.

Here, you I'll let you dissect that.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Fr...er_AGU2013.pdf

That is Dr. Patrick Frank, One of the 400 mentioned in someones link, of dissenting scientists. He apparently has 50+ peer reviewed articles, but I'll be damned if I can find even a single one. The "gem above" is pulled from a comment on a blog. Hardly peer reviewed by the sciencey definition, but I guess, you could say his demographic may or may not look at the internet sometimes......

I looked at others, and they're all a hodge podge of people who are sciencey...( i use that term knowingly it's not an actual word, Sciencey)
Not real verifiable scientists, just people who took a biology course at Localcommunitycollege.edu.freepreview.br and post on sciencey blogs. Kinda funny.
Please though continue on this line of reasoning, jumping to conclusions based on cool sciencey sounding words and anecdotal intertube researchy bits. I mean hey, did you even expect to be trolled this long by actual facts and evidence based on verifiable data sets present in fancy colorful gold and white, Black and Blue graphs?

My list of links fer researchy bits.
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/downloa...831&download=1
Winter predictions: Analyzing the Farmers' Almanac | Weather - KETV Home
Bad Request
403 Forbidden
Three Facts Most Sceptics Don
https://www.google.com/#q=Dr.+Patrick+Frank+chemist

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont need to go through it. We've been down this road before and i posted the direct quote then. Nothing has changed.

Then is this really a debate?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Who you aimed what at is not only irrelevant its ridiculous. Your claim is there is nothing to discuss on this topic when it appears quite obviously there is and what makes that even more laughable is you haven't even demonstrated that you understand what the actual debate is.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont need to go through it. We've been down this road before and i posted the direct quote then. Nothing has changed.

So you either do or your don't want to participate? Wtf is it, and why every time one of these topics come up you gotta be the ignorant AND the opposition all at once. Pick one! if you got a beef with me say it, or shoot me a Pm, but don't post bullshit like "i said it before."
This type of behavior is exactly why congress is so mired in mud, the willfulness to fight on every level for no other reason, to defy sound logic because "theory", to waste peoples time for no other reason than because, I'm liberal (or you think i am).

Originally Posted by AetheLove

If he's going to argue then he must take up a contrary position.




I won't say you haven't posted a quote, but Heavy may have a point: do you have a position on the matter?

From what I can tell, your position is that everyone sucks and that everything is bullshit.

The OP was about a conflict-of-interest story; some engineer who has received more than $1.2 million from the oil and coal industry who has also published papers that support the same points being made by the PR departments of the companies that funded him. Your response was to sarcastically imply that the other "side have made a shit ton of money" too.

And maybe that's true.

But it seems to avoid the larger issue.


Æ