The Australian prime minister Is a conservative who believes in climate change though? Same in UK. Why are they believing the weird lefty science thing?

---

The Australian prime minister Is a conservative who believes in climate change though? Same in UK. Why are they believing the weird lefty science thing?

 

Because politicians?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Great news if he can pull it off!

 

http://www.weaselzippers.us/273672-trump...-programs/

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/p...an-tragedy


Bunch of hooligans down there

---

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/p...an-tragedy


Bunch of hooligans down there

 

That shows that the UN climate report is more politics than science.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That shows that the UN climate report is more politics than science.

 

That's an interesting take...

 

:teehee:

---

Obama said yesterday:

 

"as climate continues to change, hurricanes are only going to become more powerful and more devastating."

 

Only?  He is saying we can NEVER have a hurricane less powerful and less devastating than previous hurricanes.

 

Do any of you who claim "the science is settled" agree with Obama's statement, or will you back away?  I predict crickets.

---

Holy hell it's hot.. Global warming is real..


Wait.. Forgot it's June..

---

Obama said yesterday:

"as climate continues to change, hurricanes are only going to become more powerful and more devastating."


Only? He is saying we can NEVER have a hurricane less powerful and less devastating than previous hurricanes.


Do any of you who claim "the science is settled" agree with Obama's statement, or will you back away? I predict crickets.

The science is settled because every major scientific agency in the entire world agrees with the statement that anthropogenic global warming is real.


And yes, that's what the scientists predict re hurricanes.


If you don't think that's right, show me.

---

The science is settled because every major scientific agency in the entire world agrees with the statement that anthropogenic global warming is real.


And yes, that's what the scientists predict re hurricanes.


If you don't think that's right, show me.

 

 

Below is a graph of the global accumulated tropical cyclone energy (ACE) since 1972. The 1970's were the coolest decade since the 1930s warming, so starting in 1972 should provide a cherry-picked start date in favor of the "scientists" prediction if they are right about warmer == more powerful hurricanes. 
While ACE goes up and down with the two highest years in the 1990s, there is no long-term trend. If that's what the "scientists" predict re hurricanes, then the "scientists" are wrong. Reality always trumps theory.

 

Also, the US mainland has not had a major (Cat 3 or higher) hurricane since 2005. The longest previous period in history (i.e. what the Climastrologers would call "ever") was 8 years in the 1860s. Note the link below was from a year ago, so add another year to the lull.


http://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The science is settled because every major scientific agency in the entire world agrees with the statement that anthropogenic global warming is real.


And yes, that's what the scientists predict re hurricanes.


If you don't think that's right, show me.

Anyone who says "the science is settled" is not a scientist.  'Way back when the Earth was flat, "the science was settled" and nobody dared claim otherwise lest they be jailed.  If "the science is settled" then no more progress is possible.  Not a very progressive idea, that. 

---

Anyone who says "the science is settled" is not a scientist. 'Way back when the Earth was flat, "the science was settled" and nobody dared claim otherwise lest they be jailed. If "the science is settled" then no more progress is possible. Not a very progressive idea, that.

Oh, there's plenty left to hammer out. But they are extremely confident that anthropogenic global warming is very, very real. There is really no denying that.

---

Oh, there's plenty left to hammer out. But they are extremely confident that anthropogenic global warming is very, very real. There is really no denying that.

 

I would be "extremely confident" that the Earth was flat if I was being well-paid for having that opinion.  What else you got? 

---

I would be "extremely confident" that the Earth was flat if I was being well-paid for having that opinion. What else you got?

Since when are scientists well paid? Do you think people study science for the big bucks? Like really?


Ok, let's say that is the way it works just for fun. Is it just climate science then? If so, why?


If it isn't just climate scientists, and this problem is pervasive amongst scientists in general, which is necessarily the implication since climate scientists are no different from other scientists, please explain scientific progress. Because if scientists are just getting paid to spout nonsense for money than how do we have any sound science at all? Or you trying to say that we should throw out all science?


We can't know biology or physics, chemistry or computer science. We don't know about geology or meteorology. Is that really the world we live in?


Is all that true? Or is it more likely that some politicians are lying about a problem they do not have a viable solution for?


Honestly, if you need a conspiracy theory, look no further than the republicans in congress.

---

The real goal is totalitarianism. Scratch an evironmentalist and he bleeds commie red, same as its ever been.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The question should be:  Since when does science pay for itself?  Answer:  Almost never. 

---

The question should be:  Since when does science pay for itself?  Answer:  Almost never. 

 

But they just do it out of the goodness of their hearts and the curiosity in their souls.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Since when are scientists well paid? Do you think people study science for the big bucks? Like really?


Ok, let's say that is the way it works just for fun. Is it just climate science then? If so, why?

 

 

It doesn't have to be "big bucks." Most people just want a steady paycheck.

 

From what I've read medical research, and particular drug research, is far more corrupt.


 

I think most climate scientists honestly believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (but not Catastrophic warming, that's mainly the leftist press). Most clergy honestly believe what they preach. But it's a lot easier to keep your belief if it pays your mortgage. If there's no perceived problem then government funding for climate science would drop down to the level of the funding for physics, and 90% of the climate scientists would no longer be able to pay their mortgage. Climate scientists are not going to go out of their way to correct the Guardian's predictions of catastrophe when those articles keep the paychecks coming.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The question should be: Since when does science pay for itself? Answer: Almost never.

Sooo....complete cop out. Par for the course.

---

Sooo....complete cop out. Par for the course.

 

You asked 10 questions, most of which do not require answers.  So I asked and answered a relevant question, just to show you how it's done. 

---