A voice of reason in a sea of insanity!
Jan 6, 2017 10:02:58 #
Jan 6, 2017 10:07:21 #
"Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect g****l w*****g to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."
Jan 6, 2017 10:28:33 #
green wrote:
"Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect g****l w*****g to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-c*****e-c****e
Jan 6, 2017 10:29:19 #
green wrote:
"Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect g****l w*****g to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."
That's part of it.
Jan 6, 2017 10:30:47 #
green wrote:
"Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect g****l w*****g to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."
So here go you and I politicizing it! But the who said we are reasonable?
Jan 6, 2017 12:04:31 #
idaholover wrote:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-c*****e-c****e
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-c*****e-c****e
Excellent read
I'm surprised anyone would come forward.
There's not a lot of funding these days for climatologist who say we can do very little if anything.
It's also kind of hard to get elected in many states if you're on the side of undoing.
If your a politician you get elected by what you are going to do.
Maybe it's time for some undoers.
You really can't say what you really believe until you retire. You aren't dependent on the funding anymore.
"Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding"
Now why would anyone do that?
Jan 6, 2017 12:16:41 #
PalePictures wrote:
you are incorrect...There's not a lot of funding these days for climatologist who say we can do very little if anything...
https://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-c*****e-c****e-denial-effort/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/c*****e-c****e-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
if you are a climate scientist that is willing to deny that man has any effect, there is lots of money out there. However, if you are a climate scientist that goes along with the consensus... your me-too v**e won't bring in much cash.
Jan 6, 2017 12:19:56 #
PalePictures wrote:
Excellent read br I'm surprised anyone would come ... (show quote)
Because that's how they do it? Just speculation on my part.
Jan 6, 2017 12:25:39 #
idaholover wrote:
Because that's how they do it? Just speculation on my part.
Well lets just look at the statistics and see what they say...(LOL)
Don't use that little mass between your head...Let's take a v**e and see what's right.
Even better. Let's take a v**e to see who's right.
"In announcing her retirement, Curry wrote about what she called her "growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists." She said a deciding factor for leaving the ivory tower was that "I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," adding that research and funding for it are highly politicized."
Tell me it ain't so......
Oops. It's just no Government funding for the "Skeptics"
GO figure... Capitalism comes through for the people again...
Jan 6, 2017 12:26:13 #
idaholover wrote:
think of it this way... suppose you had a tiny infection that wouldn't go away and was slowly getting worse, but at an almost negligible rate... would this be an acceptably "healthy" condition, or would you try to remove or at least stop the infection from spreading?That's part of it.
Jan 6, 2017 12:33:06 #
idaholover wrote:
That's part of it.
Think of it this way. You want 5 patients to donate their organs and die tomorrow to save one patient and extend his life by 5 days but he may die on the operating table.
Jan 6, 2017 12:34:44 #
green wrote:
think of it this way... suppose you had a tiny infection that wouldn't go away and was slowly getting worse, but at an almost negligible rate... would this be an acceptably "healthy" condition, or would you try to remove or at least stop the infection from spreading?
One thing I wouldn't do, would be to overdose myself with antibiotic and make myself less immune the next time something serious came along.
Jan 6, 2017 12:39:11 #
idaholover wrote:
One thing I wouldn't do, would be to overdose myself with antibiotic and make myself less immune the next time something serious came along.
Baaahaaaaaa
That too!
I haven't taken an antibiotic in 20 years....When I really need it..I should be ok.
What's really bad is those people who take antibiotics every day and don't complete the course.
That's what created MRSA.
I've seen a lot of people that take in too much antibiotics.
I would speculate a lot of them here....Of course that is just speculation. You just never know.
Jan 6, 2017 12:49:38 #
PalePictures wrote:
Excellent read br I'm surprised anyone would come ... (show quote)
Exactly!
Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding.
This is what democrats and the g****l w*****g goof balls do when an opinion doesn't coincide with their ideology.
Jan 7, 2017 16:17:26 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
green wrote:
think of it this way... suppose you had a tiny infection that wouldn't go away and was slowly getting worse, but at an almost negligible rate... would this be an acceptably "healthy" condition, or would you try to remove or at least stop the infection from spreading?
Well, it really looks like YOU have some sort of "infection" in what little of your brain matter there is. Suggestion to get rid of it: cut off your head, !D!OT.....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.