Posted on 11/07/2010 2:13:13 PM PST by SmartInsight
What's the opposite of "denialist"? Dogmatist!
(h/t: Kate McMillan, for her crack about the opposite of "diversity" being university.)
Junior College Scientist? I am impressed...
It does speak the truth!
Science “R” Us
Hey man, don't mock them!
They are dragging out their "Big Guns"!
/sarc
The AGU (American Geophysical Union) is another government union like the SEIU that should be dissolved. Everyone of these guys has their hands in our pockets.
I can’t do this because of a multitude of projects I’m working on. But I suggest as a single or continuing reporting project some FR, or even a group of Free Republicans, go through their (AGU) membership list and post their picture citing with what type of grant ammount they received, for what type of project, through what institution. As well as what conclusion of that project was arrived at (if published),and how it was reached . And post it here in Free Republic. Billions have been wasted on this pesudo scientific premise.
700 pinheads who are afraid that their 2 years of “global warming” studies at a junior college will be wasted if they aren’t able to create government jobs for themselves.
Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to see the percentage of these 700 “scientists” who are getting full funding from the govt and who would have no jobs if they come up with research showing that the vast majority of their stats cannot be supported.
Whether your selling cars, shoes, or ideas, you can't convince someone to buy your product by using something AGAINST them.
Sorry to be so cyncial, but why should they worry? They're not trying to sell; they're trying to lobby. There's a big difference between the two. In order to make a sale, you have to convince someone to part with money - typically, their own or funds over which they're responsible - for whatever it is you're selling. Lobbyists don't have to do that. They have to convince politicians, and/or bureaucrats, to do something for (or to) someone else.
As long as politics is adversarial, which it is, that bad sales strategy will not be bad for lobbying. As you know, a sale isn't made by saying "buy this and you'll really get back at those so-and-sos that have been cutting into you." On the other hand, laws and/or regulations are often passed using that technique. Once it gets to the politicians and/or bureaucrats, it morphs into "You will save those poor people from the depradations of those so-and-so's. You can smite the wicked!"
From this angle, selling is actually cleaner.
One more point: the AGW lobbyists-with-degrees don't even need to hustle the politicians and/or bureaucrats. They just need to hustle the public-school teachers. That's what "the long march through the institutions" is all about. All ya need is a plausible-sounding high ground, and it's a'rollin'. The absurdities of yesterday become the "impractical idealism" of today and the base for coercive measures tomorrow.
After all, who would sit down with his kid and say something that has a real chance of inducing the kid to blow off his studies? What youngster would be reckless enough to have an "F in indoctrination" dogging his transcript? [Feel free to substitute "her" is appropriate.]
Get real jobs you bums!!!
Wow, they went straight to the apex of the heavyweights of academia! Suffolk CCC!
The “Scientists” have no current Science capable of predicting the future Climate even as far as the sign of the change.
If it was really wrong, it would only take one.
...700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue.
Times are tough for the global warmers, Gore had 2500 "scientists" now they are down to 700.
If it were out in the open it would be a good opportunity to refute carbon dioxide lie once and for all, including attempts by EPA regulation. However, there will be no public debate instead: “Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”
I don’t know how that could be challenged except by parents.
To them,,, their arguments are hugh and series,, and our arguments are mute and irrevalunt!
>> “to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
Get a real job Mandia, you petulant hack.
When you see the word "consensus" and "science" in the same sentence you can be sure real science is AWOL. Facts don't require consensus. Facts are what they are. The speed of light is not determined by consensus. It is what it is. Real science deals with facts.
well lets draw sabors then!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.