• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

There's very little climatology either....
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
That happens, soon they don't have a product, the green grab is not immune to that either, see Solyndra.
I would like to think that I act ethically from a professional perspective, there is no cheating physics in high reliability electronics.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't "green" versus "fossil" favoring research, my point was corporate funded vs. academically funded.

Green leaning research funded by corporations or thinktanks or what have you are just as illegitimate as the opposing research.
 
Visage said:
There's very little climatology either....
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued, what is this climatology you write about?

Define it, and explain why it might ignore mathematics, physics and statistical uncertainty guaranteed by a complex chaotic non-linear system. I spend a good deal of my time on thermal and environmental consideration of design, those decisions are not driven by political nonsense but product effectiveness and efficiency.
 
Your argument that the climate is too complex to understand would be more persuasive if you werent so eager to ignore it when linking to studies that backup your denialism.
 
Alan USA said:
My point wasn't "green" versus "fossil" favoring research, my point was corporate funded vs. academically funded.

Green leaning research funded by corporations or thinktanks or what have you are just as illegitimate as the opposing research.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your considered response. I think the real issue is governmemt funding focus which includes NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF etc. Funding of sceptical organisations by comparison is not governmemtal and tiny by comparison.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Thank you for your considered response. I think the real issue is governmemt funding focus which includes NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF etc. Funding of sceptical organisations by comparison is not governmemtal and tiny by comparison.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. The balance of money in our world is overwhelmingly in the court of "big energy", oil in particular. We have gone so far down the capitalistic rabbit hole that no government in the world can match the monetary power of corporate entities such as the Koch brothers.

Our Republican candidates for POTUS in 2016 are practically falling over themselves trying to get some of the Koch's money for campaign financing. They can just as easily use that money to "sway" scientific findings.
 
Visage said:
Your argument that the climate is too complex to understand would be more persuasive if you werent so eager to ignore it when linking to studies that backup your denialism.
Click to expand...

So you can state witbout backup that your understanding is 97% correct? How do you go about fixing problems in your work, ignore them if you have predetermined that they don't exist?
 
Alan USA said:
That's simply not true. The balance of money in our world is overwhelmingly in the court of "big energy", oil in particular. We have gone so far down the capitalistic rabbit hole that no government in the world can match the monetary power of corporate entities such as the Koch brothers.

Our Republican candidates for POTUS in 2016 are practically falling over themselves trying to get some of the Koch's money for campaign financing. They can just as easily use that money to "sway" scientific findings.
Click to expand...

Care to name anyone in the sceptical community that is being paid by 'Big Oil'?
 
Visage said:
WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Take those fingers out of your ears. You know perfectly well.
I simply assert that there is no certainty that political modulation of carbon dioxide (if indeed that is possible), will have any determinable effect, actions may be deleterious.
 
No, I really don't. You seem to be doing your usual trick of going off at a tangent when caught in a hole.
 
098dce4a1b158aa181cabd6dd2e7f071243b11c0ce6da8cd33b5995bcfebeab6.jpg
 
Visage said:
No, I really don't. You seem to be doing your usual trick of going off at a tangent when caught in a hole.
Click to expand...

No hole here. You are the one consistent with making assumptions about others. You consistently avoid backing up your assertions when questioned.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Care to name anyone in the sceptical community that is being paid by 'Big Oil'?
Click to expand...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...tion/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VRHqlhomlqI

Funded by the Koch Brothers alone:
  • American Council on Science and Health
  • Americans for Prosperity
  • Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Environmental Literacy Council
  • Institute for Energy Research
  • Property and Environment Research Center
  • And countless others to the tune of more than $65million from 1997 to 2011
 
Alan USA said:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...tion/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VRHqlhomlqI

Funded by the Koch Brothers alone:
  • American Council on Science and Health
  • Americans for Prosperity
  • Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Environmental Literacy Council
  • Institute for Energy Research
  • Property and Environment Research Center
  • And countless others to the tune of more than $65million from 1997 to 2011
Click to expand...

$65million over that period is the square root of cock all in comparison to government funding. In general sceptical comment has no funding whatsoever.
 
Show me your numbers, then. And keep in mind the Koch brothers are only one example. Used for their notoreity.
 
Also, "no funding whatsoever"? You're just taking the piss now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top