> The only scientists who argue with global warming are hacks
One side calls the other hacks, the other calls the one wackos.
I think they are all in it for the money.
These 'scientists' who do venture to the icecaps, glaciers,
whatever, to 'study' them, from where do they get the
money? Think about it, funding an expedition would be
quite expensive. You have to buy the boats, equipment,
staff, food, fuel, media coverage (accomodations at least),
and so on? The best way to gather hordes of money from
a people is to create two sides, the 'good' ones, and the
'bad' ones. Seperate them by geography, political leaning,
skin color, whatever. Just make sure both sides have
plenty of money, and a stake in what you are saying. This
means you should threaten the regular opperation of
their buisinesses, theaten to besmirch people's images,
you know, the regular tactics used by mobster all over the
world for generations. Now, tell both sides that we are all
on the brink of disaster because of the other side. Tada!
Now you are funded.
You think these people go pan-handling to people on the
street, saying "We think we might have a problem. Would
you like to share your paycheck with us?" They wouldn't
raise a nickel. I wonder how many expeditions are lead
by the best scientist, and how many are lead by the best
fundraiser? Politicians get to say "I'm the one who REALLY
cares about the Earth!" and so they don't mind spending a
hunk of (your) money to buy that image for themselves.
For private funders, they may use their own money to buy
their image, but I'm sure there are tax incentives to make
it well worth their while, which comes back to tax payers
footing the bill once more.
If you have money, and an agenda, there will be plenty of
'scientists' lining up to say whatever you wish. 'Scientists'
are like anyone else, they'll go where the money is. You
wanna a 'scientist' to say that tobaco isn't addictive, just
fund him. You will be pleasantly surprised at his 'findings',
I'm sure. You wanna a 'scientist' to say that asbestos is a
fun diet suppliment, just fund him. I'm sure his research
will delight you as well. I won't believe a word any of
these money grubbers say unless I know who's funding
Calling scientists "hacks" based on the fact that they're holding a minority opinion might be stepping over the line a little bit.
Calling all scientists "money grubbers" based on the fact that they're unable to create science from thin air and actually expect money not just for equipment but also in order to buy food and shelter for themselves and their families might be stepping over the line a little bit also.
My point is, what's the point of stepping over the line just a little bit?
Science is SATANISTIC DEVILRY! All environmental scientists routinely use the tears of dead children and the blood of puppies, kittens and clowns to fuel their evil machinations. All the climate rubbish is just a diversion for their real, sinister, selfish goals. I mean, really? What have scientists ever done for us?
One problem is that some lands will drown or need bigger dikes, like the Netherlands where I live - though a bigger problem will be India. We should be prepared, also for other effects, if there is a definite global warming. At the moment I don't think there is, just periodically, but if there is then preparations are good.
Originally Posted by Dudley
Another problem is that some species do get extinct from global warming, and as of yet there didn't come any new species. Like the polar bear, for which I do care: it does adapt, but still their numbers decrease. That is what pro-nature persons should care about, rather than stopping global warming: what species can we save, counting all practical problems and if we want to? Of course it would be better if we could fix global warming, were it our doing. But I won't believe that before they simulate the effect of carbondioxide in 'world temperature' with supercomputers following the physical rules, when it does have a significant effect.
> Calling all scientists "money grubbers" based on the fact that
> they're unable to create science from thin air
Nah, I call them money grubbers for the same reason I do politicians.
If you fund them, and they don't support whatever you want, then
they are legitimate scientists/politicians. If you fund them so their
findings/laws WILL support whatever you want, then they are money
grubbers. Or maybe you think tobacco isn't addictive?
> actually expect money not just for equipment but also in order to
> buy food and shelter
The money they so graciously give to one, must ultimately come
from another. Tell the coal miner that it's OK for a portion of his
paycheck to be stolen from him, in order to fund...yet another
Happy Hogmany btw guys, heres hoping this develops into a proper flame war about economics and science in the new year.
For any newbies out there, treasure hunter sucks by the way, its a wasted talent, take the PV line instead.
In regards to polar bears:
Ok lets be honest with ourselves, if you ever met a polar bear in the wild it would rip your face off as soon as it could get its paws on you. Besides, ever heard of a little something called natural selection? Polar bears can't adapt to find food therefore they die, survival of the fittest people. We have no moral obligations to help them.. and yet we spend crap loads of money to try to save them when we should be spending it to save starving HUMAN BEINGS. So i say boohoo so sad to the polar bears and can't wait for them to be extinct.
Basically polar bears are Nazis (minus the whole hate for the Jewish thing)
> if you ever met a polar bear in the wild it would rip your face off
> when we should be spending it to save starving HUMAN BEINGS
It was once theorized that undernourished parents should
eat their children, thus simultaneously improving one's
diet and reducing the population.
Polar bears have provided me with entertainment, and so I say
they should stay. If we could breed bipolar bears, I would be
the happiest man on Earth.
Just saying another thing, to support Albahan :
have we got the right to step in natural selection just like that?
And nazism - the jewish hating = best gove ever. at least, it works best than any that ever has been shown to mankind.