All you need to know about global warming and rising sea levels...
Obama just purchased a $16 million beach house.
There’s no grant money to be had if you admit Global Warming is a hoax.
When sea levels rise, they rise everywhere. The beaches I want to as a kid are the same now as they were then.
Paid off by special interests!
Dishonest. Afraid.
For sale.
I'm sure there lots of honest "climate scientists" and unbiased MSM "reporters" < /sarcasm>
I can name lots of honest climate people, there’s ..., wait, and there is .... hmmmm. Give me a minute, I am sure I can come up with a name, just need more time to think about it.
True. Only 97% of them are
Scientists should be objective. They should search for the truth without bias. Science is not a matter for belief.
But it isn’t! Huge numbers of “scientists” are liberals who got into science to change the world. The Scientific American, a magazine that was once a respected, real science magazine, has become a liberal rag.
Now, ‘getting your name out there’, going to or organizing big conferences at which the scientific ‘stars’ are wined and dined, and becoming somewhat of a celebrity in your field is the draw. So, the science is less trustworthy now than it has been maybe ever.
This is also promoted by universities. The ‘leadership’ at these places are often political hacks with little understanding of what constitutes good science, and their criteria for whether someone is successful or not is the amount of grant money they bring in and how well known they are.
People like Mann are emblematic of the ‘connected’ and known science mafia who control way too much and who suppress competitors and those whose data conflict with their own.
So, yes, there are plenty of scientists who are dishonest and who will fudge or overstate data to further their careers, and there are scientists who are afraid of these people - because they can suppress or ruin your career.
I once saw a government RFP that stated something to the effect that proposals that didn’t include a discussion of climate change wouldn’t automatically be rejected.
Heller does a great job. He is a software engineer as well as a geologist and nature enthusiast. He is funded by donations by fans of his you tube channel and the like when he is not working as,an engineer.
There are numerous historical examples of scientists kow towing to the prevailing religious, political and cultural winds. In Germany over one hundred of the most prominent German physicists signed a letter denouncing Einstein and his theory of relativity not on a scientific basis but because he was Jewish. In Russia, all biologists and geneticists had to praise and accept the bizarre theories of Lysenko who was Stalin’s favorite. In the United States medical scientists who challenge the prevailing nonsensical new orthodoxy regarding homosexuality and gender are harassed and punished.
Power and gold make the rules but cannot alter or establish truth.
They obviously do not. The conclusions are reached, couched in the popular terms du-jour, and in accordance with the proclivities of the funding source. Then the data and methodology are manipulated to support that conclusion. They have abandoned the scientific method. They misuse and abuse computer modelling to the point that in "climate research" computer modeling is analogous to CGI support in making a movie - the script is written and the B-roll shot, just fill in the blanks...
This makes so-called "climate scientists" generally, in fact almost completely dishonest as a group. The few with any integrity left have apparently been summarily run out of the field. Thus the fear factor. Those who might actually want to do the right thing, explore real science in the field are afraid of being knocked out of the field if they do.
Chances are, if someone is an active "climate scientist" or "climate researcher" today, they are almost certainly both dishonest and afraid.
I was reading about how ancient peoples would offer sacrifices in the winter to ensure the onset of spring. These sacrifices were often costly and, if spring didn’t arrive, would put their survival in jeopardy.
If spring always arrived, wouldn’t the sacrifice be unnecessary?
The point being, spring didn’t always arrive. There have been times in the past where it stayed cold, whether due to volcanic eruptions putting ash in the air and causing the earth to cool, or possibly asteroid strikes doing something similar.
The “climate” of the earth has always been in flux. Using only the past couple of hundred of years as a baseline, as some measure of perfection that needs to be maintained, is folly.
We would be much better served using our technology to prepare for and deal with inevitable swings in our temperature, instead of trying to prevent them.
Follow the money.
In almost every case in today's world, follow the money.
But that's the way to bet.