- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 65,754
- Reaction score
- 21,868
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No a researcher likes the extra cash flow.Do you actually think that a researcher is trying to prove something in particular rather than letting the chips fall where they may?
Not by the researcher. The pundits lie regularly. Most papers are pretty good, but they often use creative language to portray the viewpoint intended for the money granted. the truth is still there usually, though relevant facts are often completely ignored.When measurements are made the result is intentionally misreported as a common practice?
How about the clear distiction that doesn't exist of how much is natural and how much is not, and of that which is not natural, the causes. there are man made causes other than AGW like the way we construct things. Inadequate storm sewers for near record precipitation events is just one example.Just because the research may tangentially impact on AGW? When scientists estimate that the current extinction rate is ~100 times the natural background rate, they are fudging their thinking to satisfy all those who may be funding the many, many research papers coving all aspects of the issue? That AGW is a significant contributor to that issue you find fraudulent? Or that AGW is involved in the depletion of fresh water supplies along with other factors. Or that high tide flooding is a growing issue in places like south Florida.
Considering how many solar studies I have seen, and how well I understand the sciences, yes.If I tell you that research tells us that solar variation is so insignificant that CO2 warming can overcome a deep solar minimum in less than a decade, you think the research covering that statement is flawed?
there you go with you confirmation bias and logical fallacies.I could bring up 100s of examples, and they are all flawed because AGW is a conspiracy or hoax, or that all researchers are money grubbing whores?.....BS.