Quote:'Lying' is a strawman. Believers will state what they believe. Are Catholic Priests 'lying' when they state their religious beliefs? What the scientists publish is mostly very modest compared what comes out of press releases. Press releases state a worst case scenario. Scientists who depend on federal funding will emphasize the worst case scenarios because that's what keeps the funding coming. That's not a lie, it's what they believe. Of course the probability that the worse case will happen is very close to zero, but it's not a lie as long as they believe it's not zero.


 

'Conspiracy' (not from you, but from others) is a strawman too. It doesn't take a conspiracy for people to act the same way to benefit themselves. How many people take out a mortgage because of the tax advantages? Is that a conspiracy?


 

And make no mistake, scientists are humans too. What happens to you if you have a degree in Climate Science (and you should be suspicious of any field that's name ends in 'science', e.g. Creation Science) if the funding dries up? Who pays your mortgage or pays for your kids braces? "Would you like fries with your burger" is not what you want as a job when you paid $50k or more for your degree.


 

The 'oil money' claim is also nonsense. Oil companies couldn't care less whether or not governments impose regulations on carbon emissions, they'd just raise their prices to compensate. Shell and BP are big funders of CRU. The climate research group at Stanford lists Exxon as a funder. A lot more oil money is going to the Warmists than to the skeptics. There is no viable alternative to petroleum in vehicles. Gas/diesel has a very high energy density yet is reasonably safe. 'Big Oil' isn't going away, no matter what.


 

The rich leftist elitists don't care either, because they don't feel the need to obey the laws they impose on others (e.g. Sharpton and the other MSNBC tax cheats, Hillary, Geithner). Imposing carbon regulations will hurt the working poor the worst by far. The elites will just get someone else to pay for their fuel.

 

I have stated earlier in this thread that I think there is plenty of room for reasonable conversation on the issues and how we can do our part to reverse what we have done (if we have done anything) or what we can do to help the problem (if we have not). This ought not be a partisan issue but both sides have drawn a line in the sand and I believe the extreme reaction from the left has come about due to earlier flat out denials of any change at all from the right. They have since softened to yeah something is happening but no way we could have done it and so nothing should be done and we should maintain the status quo. Both sides are at fault in the matter but the bottom line is reasonable discussion ought be happening and it's not.

 

I am not a scientist, I am in structural engineering. One of the first things we learn is to not pretend to know other disciplines better than the experts in those fields. Their is nothing wrong with questioning but I take offense when and the majority of an entire community of scientists both in that discipline and out of it are ridiculed and vilified for political gains when a very clear bias is present. I take issue with people that have attempted to educate themselves with clearly politically biased information as their source to claim to know the truth over the experts in the field. 

 

In addition comparing scientists beliefs in science or theories is not even remotely in the same realm as beliefs in religion. Not even close. 

---