Richard Lindzen gets paid directly and indirectly by the fossil fuel industries. This is similar to 30 years ago, when doctors paid by the tobacco companies downplayed the research connecting tobacco and cancer.
Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Richard Lindzen gets paid directly and indirectly by the fossil fuel industries. This is similar to 30 years ago, when doctors paid by the tobacco companies downplayed the research connecting tobacco and cancer.
Heathme
Guest
Right on cue...
You don't think it's a conflict of interest?
Miggs
Well-Known Member
This has all been through eating a bit better and simply eating less. I actually really want to be good about this and start working out (haven’t at all) as well as lifting and hopefully lose some more fat and weight while adding muscle back.
And yes, I know muscle weighs more than fat.
And yes, I know muscle weighs more than fat.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Some people have a six pack, I have a keg
Heathme
Guest
It could be. Do you think scientists receiving grant money for only publishing pro-climate change papers is a conflict of interest? If any scientist publishes anything out of the climate change world, they immediately lose their funding and are run out their scientific circles.
I really do not care too much about your opinion on this. I believe there is a conflict of interest on the "97% scientist" side and this drives the narrative along with the media and environmental activists.
I believe in the true science of being skeptical until something is 100% confirmed. I believe climate science will never be 100% confirmed either way and I will continue to fight government intervention into this issue.
It would be, if there were such a phenomenon.
1) Grant money is distributed based on the proposed experiment before it occurs, not on publishing a paper afterwards.
2) Scientists don't actually keep any of their grant money. It has to be spent on things like equipment, assistants, students, etc.
Only someone who doesn't understand scientific papers or how science works would believe that. Papers get published based on various results, and those results get inforporated with all the other results into a theory. Publishing a paper that a given experiment failed does nothing to harm the reputation of a scientist, and can aid it. No single paper is the foundation of the theory of climate change, and no single experiment will be its foundering, regardless of result.
Now, it is certainly in a scientist's interest to get papers published. That work regardless of what the result of the experiment does to the climate change models.
I could tell you did not care when you did not respond.
Of course, you can believe in this conflict of interest on the part of scientists who don't see an extra dime in their pay, except from getting published at all.
It's not often you meet people who refuse to believe that gravity exists.
Nothing in science is ever 100% confirmed. It's not that sort of discipline.
Of that I have no doubt. Let's just not pretend your opposition is based on any sort of rational analysis.
Getting Traded
Banned
Heathme, you think all the crazy weather is fake news?
You think the melting of the Arctic and the Greenland glaciers is fake news?
You think the melting of ancient Antarctic icebergs (not that accumulated, thin ice sheet that was reported in Forbes and debunked showing it was due to global warming moisture) is fake news?
You think the highest levels of CO2, and rising, in 3 million years is fake news?
You think the highest ocean temperatures in millions of years is fake news?
Stop your denial because it doesn't correspond to your political views. Look at how dishonest some conservative politicians are, namely the one in the Oval Office who lies several times a day, even more. More than likely, it is even more serious than even those who believe in Global Warming want to believe.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
So what you are saying is that when you are 97% sure that something is correct you instead go against that and choose to believe the 3% and much less likely thing.
That's not smart.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
So. since some glaciers are growing, this somehow voids that facts that overall glaciers are shrinking? How desperate (or paid off) do you have to be to believe this?
Jazzta
Guest
Monsanto being one of these industries...
Red
Well-Known Member
I believe the conclusion Heathme thinks we should draw regarding the stalling of Greenland's Jakobshavn glacier is likely flawed.
The stalling of the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland may actually be bad news, not good:
https://mashable.com/article/greenland-jakobshavn-glacier-ocean-climate.amp
And then there is the perhaps overlooked impact of melting mountain glaciers, not just on sea level rise, but on future fresh water resources:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mountain-glaciers-are-major-contributors-to-rising-seas/
"Not only will the glaciers continue to contribute to global sea-level rise—as long as they last—but local water supplies are likely to dwindle as they disappear. Summer melt from mountain glaciers is often an important source of fresh water for nearby communities.
“These mountain glaciers feed large populations,” said Alex Gardner, a glacier expert at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Right now, they’re probably seeing an increase in discharge during the warm, dry months when these glaciers are contributing a significant fraction of the stream flow. But as we get out 50 or 100 years, that contribution is going to start to slow down.
“I think we’ll have a much more consequential impact in terms of water resources as that water reservoir is no longer available,” he added."
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Hey it snowed in my backyard the other day so obviously an ice age is coming
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Heathme
Guest
Hey, it's sunny today so obviously it's global warming
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Heathme
Guest
It just shows that the earth goes through cycles and always has. Some parts are warmer at certain times and some parts are colder. The earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past then it has now. Cycles happen. The earth will not be destroyed or on its way to destruction in 12 years like the IPCC believes. Yes, we should take care of the planet and keep it as clean as possible. No, climate change will not destroy the planet in 12 years. This whole debate just seems silly. Spending 93 trillion to "combat" climate change is ridiculous. All it does is give the government more power. A completely inefficient system given more money will not fix anything.
Heathme
Guest
Yep. That is why I do not believe the changes in weather have anything to do with climate change. I think we're on the same page on this one.
No, it shows there is a difference between an average change over multiple locations and an individual change in a specific location.
The earth has never added so much CO2 so quickly, and temperatures have never risen so quickly. It's not just a normal cycle, and we don't know where it will top out.
I agree the planet is not going anywhere. What's going to change is our ability to maintain and improve upon our civilization with an increase in population and a decrease in arable land.
Mind you, I'm in the Midwest. We'll keep getting plenty of rain, lots of warmth, and no sea level rise will affect us. Climate change is not a threat to me. Those of you that depend on mountain run-off need to think about it more carefully.