|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 2, 2009 11:25:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 3, 2009 14:49:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 12, 2009 11:40:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 12, 2009 13:18:19 GMT
Funny how these people all in favor of 'redistribution of wealth' have no problem riding around in limousines and government executive jets. It looks like hypocrisy is living high on the hog in the current administration. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 12, 2009 17:14:10 GMT
Funny how these people all in favor of 'redistribution of wealth' have no problem riding around in limousines and government executive jets. It looks like hypocrisy is living high on the hog in the current administration. BLIMEY! This redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought! |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 13, 2009 14:47:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 25, 2009 11:22:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Sept 25, 2009 11:45:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 25, 2009 12:41:55 GMT
That is not surprising, but is annoying and disturbing. AGW is a social movement that has as much to do with Climate Science as eugenics had to do with Evolutionary Science. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 25, 2009 14:59:47 GMT
The Obama administration is fighting to control and suppress all information that counters AGW. If they succeed in putting controls on CO2 they will succeed in putting controls on all of our lives. This is the same as the desires of Lysenko and Stalin. Lisa Jackson acting on the finding of CO2 as a pollutant. Sotomeyer saying she is right, not a very pretty picture. Our scientific community afraid to speak. It all started with Al and Jim.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 25, 2009 16:24:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 26, 2009 10:15:36 GMT
Anti-Science and Who Does ItAnti-science (or agnotology), seeks to cover-up or obscure science considered inconvenient, or at least create doubt in the minds of public and decision-makers. It seeks to replace knowledge with ignorance, and has no resemblance to normal arguments within science, by scientists. Modern anti-science is most skilfully executed by a relatively small subset of lobbyists and PR agencies. Some of the most effective are actually "think tanks". They have public identities distinct from their (often-unidentified) funders, and can often be labeled "non-profit", thus avoiding the expense of taxes. They often seek funding in the same way as lobbyist/PR agencies, as is well-documented in the Tobacco Archives. Such entities have played successful roles in activities like fending off tobacco regulation, fighting CFC regulation ("ozone hole"), fighting mercury regulation, etc. For some, their top priority has changed to obfuscating climate science. Anyone who can help keep children getting addicted to tobacco should find it easy to create confusion about climate. So, if you wonder how and why so many people, especially in North America, are confused about the current state of climate science, this is an excellent introduction to the key players and tactics. scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate.php
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 26, 2009 10:41:57 GMT
It's surprising that you don't seem to have even an ounce of skepticism towards this pdf document published by a think-tank. A little known fact in this world is that think-tanks sometimes publish allegations that are not true. I know, I know, it's hard to believe that a think-tank, the kind of organization people associate with honesty and truth, would resort to spin and propaganda, but sometimes they do. Sometimes (shock horror) they even lie. Did they in this case? Well here's an alternate view on the matter that shows this isn't a clear cut case: "Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed the to the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement. Dr. Taylor years ago was involved in drafting the rules that govern our Group - we are restricted to 20 members of which 15 are appointed by the 5 nations with polar bears in their range and 5 members are appointed by the Chair. I appointed 5 people that are active in polar bear issues on an ongoing basis. It was an unfortunate article and it was grossly misleading. For example, I never was a student of Dr. Taylor's and for him to suggest so is more than a little surprising to me. I have know Dr. Taylor for over 25 years but I can assure you that at no point did he ever supervise me in any capacity. I am unsure what the intent of Dr. Taylor's comments were but I can assure you that the PBSG has broad representation. Given the 20 members and my appointing of only 5, it is largely up to the 5 nations to construct the Group that I Chair. The Chair position rotates by nation - my term is up and it will be up to the next Chair to appoint 5 members because my term will end and my membership in the PBSG will end. I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field. I hope this clarifies the situation some. This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor's views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting." scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 26, 2009 10:42:36 GMT
Always beware academics defending research funding |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2009 14:14:07 GMT
Anti-Science and Who Does ItAnti-science (or agnotology), seeks to cover-up or obscure science considered inconvenient, or at least create doubt in the minds of public and decision-makers. It seeks to replace knowledge with ignorance, and has no resemblance to normal arguments within science, by scientists. Modern anti-science is most skilfully executed by a relatively small subset of lobbyists and PR agencies. Some of the most effective are actually "think tanks". They have public identities distinct from their (often-unidentified) funders, and can often be labeled "non-profit", thus avoiding the expense of taxes. They often seek funding in the same way as lobbyist/PR agencies, as is well-documented in the Tobacco Archives. Such entities have played successful roles in activities like fending off tobacco regulation, fighting CFC regulation ("ozone hole"), fighting mercury regulation, etc. For some, their top priority has changed to obfuscating climate science. Anyone who can help keep children getting addicted to tobacco should find it easy to create confusion about climate. So, if you wonder how and why so many people, especially in North America, are confused about the current state of climate science, this is an excellent introduction to the key players and tactics. scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate.php The only reason you are confused Socold is you haven't stuck your head out the window and taken a look at the climate. Anybody that needs a scientist to tell them what the weather is like is living in a cacoon. I would think the definition of anti-science is a scientist telling you the weather is different than how you perceive it or that climate is different from the weather. Keep in mind. . . .forecasting is not science. |
|
