Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspinmo
It was 60,000 year or so we had ice age due to the earth oblong cycle around the sun. We have no control over that. Ice age in getting near. The best thing the grantee done was change the name from global warning to climate change. Why The climate always changing like it been doing for billon years. So you can't disagree. It going to change tomorrow, next year, or 100,000 years.
It's all about money and who controls and distribution of it. The fed gov. Gives way tax money to foreign countries like candy while starving or bleeding it's citizens. We are propping the world economy up at the expense of our economy.
When the yen takes over as the gold standard the dollar will be worth about as much as peso. That's the change we should be worrying about!
If I got enough money I can get somebody with doctoral degree to do study with the results I want to fit my agenda. Why? once you get doctoral nobody can say your wrong without the piece of paper. Only other doctoral in remotely similar area of study can refute findings. One thing about study it's someone opinion. Get enough to agree with you now it's the truth.
|
You don't seem to understand how science works. Global climate change data are available with the best data of course being the most recent as it has been collected with the most precision. The data is the "truth" if well collected. Scientists then analyze that data attempting to develop a theory of what factor or factors best explain the data which is observed. No scientist would use the word truth to describe an interpretation of observed data. Perhaps you used the word too loosely or don't have the background to understand the scientific method. A theory then should be able to predict future events or with modification explain future deviations from what had been predicted. Scientists then publish their results in journals. The better journals are peer reviewed prior to publication to try to not publish poorly written or inaccurate research. Once published it is open season as others are free to attack the assumptions, the methodology, the analysis of the data and the conclusions. Papers of exceptional difference from the standard theories receive special scrutiny but are especially welcome.
While no scientist wants to see his work criticized or invalidated almost all would accept such as an advancement of science. Ultimately with each tweak a fuller picture of the field emerges. You can go ahead and try and buy a scientist (good luck with that as publication of wrong data and bad conclusions will ruin your career) but such will not be successful in altering the science nor changing the long term outcome. I am only aware of one situation where individuals with lots of money have been attempting to use their money to influence the study of climate change.
Academic Freedom Under Assault |
But sometimes even trying to buy a scientist backfires
Bombshell: Funded Study Finds 'Global Warming Is ...