[excon]

so driven by a cause

Hello again, tom:

There are individuals, and there are professions. I don't doubt the fallibility of the individual, but I DO doubt the fallibility of the profession.

I suppose what you are saying is that scientists become scientists so they can shape global politics. I, on the other hand, believe that they become scientists to promote science...

I do not, and never will believe that science has an agenda. Because you DO believe that, indicates to me that you have no understanding of science. Therefore, you have no credibility in that arena with me.

excon

PS> ID has been mentioned, and is STILL being supported by you climate change deniers... I say again, if you give ID ANY credence whatsoever, it's an indication that you have NO understanding of science... You're not even in the same ballpark.

[speechlesstx]

The same has been said about corporations with vested interests pursuing their own political agendas, speechless. Most scientists that I'm aware of want to have their findings published in a reputable journal where politics has no place.

And that takes us right back to these 'reputable' scientists manipulating the peer review process, threatening journal editors and otherwise suppressing dissent. The politics is there, it's obvious, and it's unfathomable how you guys can't see it now.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Righty's:

Ok, let's take this from a different angle... I'm into conspiracy theories. I love 'em.... So, these leftist scientists created this global warming hoax so they could do what? Destroy the world??? Is that what you think they're doing?

What part of suppressing dissenting research, manipulating and destroying data, threatening to "redefine" the peer review process and obstructing legal FOI requests do you not get?

[speechlesstx]

PS> ID has been mentioned, and is STILL being supported by you climate change deniers.... I say again, if you give ID ANY credence whatsoever, it's an indication that you have NO understanding of science... You're not even in the same ballpark.

You've just lost all credibility with me, ex. That's a shame.

[excon]

The politics is there, it's obvious, and it's unfathomable how you guys can't see it now.

Hello again, Steve:

It's getting monotonous, but I'll try again.

I don't deny that you found cheaters. I don't deny that these individuals have politics on their mind...

What I DENY is that these small pipsqueak scientists were able to alter the overwhelming totality of evidence.

Are we clear?

excon

PS> This is post #125 - a nice round number. The next time you suggest that I don't think there was cheating going on, I'll just post; "#125". You'll know what I mean.

[excon]

You've just lost all credibility with me, ex. That's a shame.

Hello again, Steve:

Because I said what I did about ID, I should have NO credibility with you on religious matters. I wouldn't have it any other way.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Because I said what I did about ID, I should have NO credibility with you on religious matters. I wouldn't have it any other way.

This goes beyond having credibility in one particular area, ex. You continue to misrepresent us with the same claptrap about ID, throwing trash into the air and us being anti-science. You know better and yet you persist. In so doing you refuse to have an honest discussion, and that is all I've ever asked for on environmental issues. If you can't face us honestly you have no credibility.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

It goes both ways. Do you think the country will be destroyed if we embrace global warming? Would you NOT like to see our money going to Arab fundamentalists? Do you NOT think we have the best entrepreneurs in the world?

excon

[TUT317]

And that takes us right back to these 'reputable' scientists manipulating the peer review process, threatening journal editors and otherwise suppressing dissent. The politics is there, it's obvious, and it's unfathomable how you guys can't see it now.

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"- Thomas Jefferson

Hello Speech,

Yes, why does it seem that reputable scientists have a political agenda?

I know you like irony so you might like this. I think the answer is right under our noses in the form of Thomas Jefferson's Quote. However, I need to change it somewhat (apologies to Jefferson).

"Whenever the General Government and Private Enterprise assumes undelegated powers it acts in an authoritative manner by way of coercion "

I don't think that political agenda can explain away the actions of so many scientists, in fact I am sure it cannot. I think that 'The Boiling Frog Principle' which I will now put forward (at its very least) is as good as any 'political agenda' theory.

The boiling frog idea suggests that if you put a frog in boiling water it will immediately jump out of the pot. However, if you start with cold water and slowly turn up the heat the frog will happily boil to death.How does this relate to climate change scientists?

It seems to me that over the years highly qualified government and private enterprise job advertisements have evolved into something I call 'Orwellian jobspeak'. It is easy for me to say this because when I went for my job all I had to do is present my qualifications and not much else. That was in the past, but times have changed. Anyway, more to the point. What is jobspeak?

Highly qualified jobs require certain essentials, including qualifications.
I have summarized non-qualification type essentials into a type of average without naming any government departments in particular.

(a) Being a team player.
(b) Knowledge of activities which constitute best practice.
(c) Develop plans within the objectives of the organization.
(d) Promote a positive public image of the organization in line with its objectives.
(e) Being familiar with research concepts and have a commitment to this research.

What would happen if a climate scientist went for a job in a university or government research organization? Would they ask him about his current research into climate change? No. In typical jobspeak they would ask him a loaded question such as, "What is your current research into Global Warming?"

Scientists may start with the best of intentions in relation to researching climate change, but the scientific waters have started to heat very quickly. No doubt some wished they had jumped earlier.

What these organizations are actually looking for is someone suitably qualified while being a mouthpiece at the same time.

Of course this is only my theory. However, as stated earlier, at the very least it is as good as any conspiracy theory.

[TUT317]

AS regards to my post above I would like to add some additional thoughts. (nothing beats making it up as you go along)

Having forced 'political agenda' out the front door I will try and sneak it in through the back door.

I think we are attacking the wrong people when we are attacking the climate scientists. The political agenda belongs to the organizations which have a stake in global warming.

[tomder55]

I DO doubt the fallibility of the profession.

Well there you have it. Enough said... Science is infallible . With all the incorrect conclusions science has proposed over the years I find that an incredible statement .
Flat Earth ;Geocentric universe ;the theory that all substances were made from earth air fire and water;ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves... there are so many superseded scientific theories they would be impossible to list here.

However ,I shall not try to convince you to change your devotion.

[frangipanis]

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"- Thomas Jefferson

Hello Speech,

Yes, why does it seem that reputable scientists have a political agenda?

I know you like irony so you might like this. I think the answer is right under our noses in the form of Thomas Jefferson's Quote. However, I need to change it somewhat (apologies to Jefferson).

"Whenever the General Government and Private Enterprise assumes undelegated powers it acts in an authoritative manner by way of coercion "

I don't think that political agenda can explain away the actions of so many scientists, in fact I am sure it cannot. I think that 'The Boiling Frog Principle' which I will now put forward (at its very least) is as good as any 'political agenda' theory.

The boiling frog idea suggests that if you put a frog in boiling water it will immediately jump out of the pot. However, if you start with cold water and slowly turn up the heat the frog will happily boil to death.How does this relate to climate change scientists?

It seems to me that over the years highly qualified government and private enterprise job advertisements have evolved into something I call 'Orwellian jobspeak'. It is easy for me to say this because when I went for my job all I had to do is present my qualifications and not much else. That was in the past, but times have changed. Anyway, more to the point. What is jobspeak?

Highly qualified jobs require certain essentials, including qualifications.
I have summarized non-qualification type essentials into a type of average without naming any government departments in particular.

(a) Being a team player.
(b) Knowledge of activities which constitute best practice.
(c) Develop plans within the objectives of the organization.
(d) Promote a positive public image of the organization in line with its objectives.
(e) Being familiar with research concepts and have a commitment to this research.

What would happen if a climate scientist went for a job in a university or government research organization? Would they ask him about his current research into climate change? No. In typical jobspeak they would ask him a loaded question such as, "What is your current research into Global Warming?"

Scientists may start out with the best of intentions in relation to researching climate change, but the scientific waters have started to heat very quickly. No doubt some wished they had jumped earlier.

What these organizations are actually looking for is someone suitably qualified while being a mouthpiece at the same time.

Of course this is only my theory. However, as stated earlier, at the very least it is as good as any conspiracy theory.

Hmmm...
Carbon News and Info > Jobs in climate change > Latest climate job vacancies > Job Vacancy: Climate Change Scientist

[TUT317]

Hello fransipanis,

Clearly you have found a counter example and therefore my premises are incorrect or inadequate. Well done!

This being the case (incorrect premises) this does not rule out the possibility my conclusion is correct. Therefore, I think we can still get a lot of mileage out of the claim that it is the organizations involved in global warming which drive the political agenda not the scientists.

[tomder55]

What these organizations are actually looking for is someone suitably qualified while being a mouthpiece at the same time.

, I think we can still get a lot of mileage out of the claim that it is the organizations involved in global warming which drive the political agenda not the scientists.

Now when I make such claims . I am accused of being anti-science. I have been in the health care related industries my whole adult life and I can attest to the pressure researchers are under to "produce" .

I'll accept the premise that it is the organizations ;be they government ,private business ,education institutions looking to protect grant money who are responsible for the clearly massaged results.
The scientists have to protect their income and source of funding also ;and are willing or reluctant participants.The net result is the same ;a corrupted process.

[speechlesstx]

It goes both ways. Do you think the country will be destroyed if we embrace global warming? Would you NOT like to see our money going to Arab fundamentalists? Do you NOT think we have the best entrepreneurs in the world?

Irrelevant to the point. I'm not misrepresenting your position.

[excon]

Irrelevant to the point. I'm not misrepresenting your position.

Hello again, Steve:

And, IF I understood YOUR position, we could talk... But, I don't...

You don't think throwing your trash into the air is good, but I don't know what you propose to DO about it... All I know is what you DON'T want to do about it. You should excuse me if, in the absence of a right wing proposal, I question whether you really DO think throwing trash into the air is bad..

I bring up the questions I do, because even IF global warming is a hoax, the fix for it ISN'T. It WILL help our economy. It WILL prevent funding for our enemy's. It WILL make it easier to breathe. In fact, those things are CRUCIAL to the future of our great country...

For those reasons, and those reasons alone, we ALL should embrace the fix... But, all I hear from you, is NO, NO, and then again NO!

excon

[speechlesstx]

And, IF I understood YOUR position, we could talk... But, I don't...

Still irrelevant to the point.

You don't think throwing your trash into the air is good, but I don't know what you propose to DO about it... All I know is what you DON'T want to do about it. You should excuse me if, in the absence of a right wing proposal, I question whether you really DO think throwing trash into the air is bad..

You know ex, if I could afford solar panels for my home I'd get them, Have you priced them? If I could afford a nice new hybrid I'd buy one. If I could afford to replace my windows with new energy efficient windows I would. There ain't enough government money to go around for us all to go green, and the only 'solutions' to that so far are going to benefit the same evil corporations, the same evil rich people and green gurus like Al Gore. So what do YOU propose, the average citizen to surrender all their income to the feds so we can all live happily in our grass huts foraging for insects to get a little protein?

I bring up the questions I do, because even IF global warming is a hoax, the fix for it ISN'T. It WILL help our economy. It WILL prevent funding for our enemy's. It WILL make it easier to breathe. In fact, those things are CRUCIAL to the future of our great country...

The practical fix may be good, the political fix is not. And don't tell me there's no agenda in this.

For those reasons, and those reasons alone, we ALL should embrace the fix... But, all I hear from you, is NO, NO, and then again NO!

I've been a free man all my life, I'm not willing to surrender that to a "global regime" so the left can make assuage their consciences.

[excon]

The practical fix may be good, the political fix is not. And don't tell me there's no agenda in this.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't carry water for anyone. Maybe that's the difference... I'm NOT a Democrat. I don't like 'em much. I like the Republicans even less.

My acknowledgement of a problem should not be confused with support for any particular political fix.. Political fixes, as you say, are rife with agenda.

Because I believe global warming is man made does NOT mean I support cap and trade or what's going on overseas. Because I believe our health care system is in crisis, does NOT mean I support this bill. Because I support our war against Jihad, does NOT mean I support our war in Afghanistan... I could go on.

I'm ALL about practical.

excon

[inthebox]

Hello again, Steve:


You don't think throwing your trash into the air is good, but I don't know what you propose to DO about it... All I know is what you DON'T want to do about it. You should excuse me if, in the absence of a right wing proposal, I question whether you really DO think throwing trash into the air is bad..


excon

By "trash" are you referring to CO2? If so, do you know the biological fact is that we exhale this and that plants use this in photosynthesis?

Are you wanting to reduce the gas, co2, that plant life depends on?

It isn't just "right wingers" that debate AGW:

Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review - Taking Liberties - CBS News


BTW

Does the fact that the EPA now can control more of our lives not alarm your libertarian sensibilities?

Historic EPA Finding: Greenhouse Gases Harm Humans - CBS News



G&P

[excon]

By "trash" are you referring to CO2? If so, do you know the biological fact is that we exhale this and that plants use this in photosynthesis?

Hello again, in:

Are you saying that because we exhale CO2, burning stuff that causes MORE CO2 to be released must be OK?? I think that IS what you're saying. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

excon