Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Boilerman has gone from misrepresenting an NOAA scientist to now just inventing an alternate universe. The NOAA has been around since Richard Nixon....long before any consensus or real study of Global warming. They are part of the deptarment of Commerce and have served under president's from both parties - including ones that are not favorable to their conclusions.
They get paid regardless. But Boilerman is trying to say their funding depends on their findings? That's pure, fabricated bullshit. And it also presumes the scientists from the rest of the world community are part of the same conspiracy.
It's true there a lot of people who make shit up. You'll find a higher ratio of those types on this site than in the NOAA. Have a great day
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: IndyBoilerman
Krajewski misses the point. The entire discussion centers around who are the reliable, unbiased sources. PJ argues that NOAA, for example, is a reliable and definitive source. On the other hand, I argue that NOAA, and most of these organizations that you mention, have great monetary motivations to lie about their results. No warming equals no funding equals no job. In addition, what about the concept of losing face after making shit up for years?
Either way, Ski, you fully missed the point of the discussion.Quote
Originally posted by: krajewski.sa
Just curious why you girls are arguing about this. Why not just go to:
https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/
The National Academy of Science is pretty respected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences
These are the smartest men and women on the planet. You can get your science at church or on fox news if you prefer, but I wouldn't advise it. Everything else is non-sense, politics and noise making. Why waste your lives sniping at each other when you could get smarter by simply reading an authoritative source?
Boilerman has gone from misrepresenting an NOAA scientist to now just inventing an alternate universe. The NOAA has been around since Richard Nixon....long before any consensus or real study of Global warming. They are part of the deptarment of Commerce and have served under president's from both parties - including ones that are not favorable to their conclusions.
They get paid regardless. But Boilerman is trying to say their funding depends on their findings? That's pure, fabricated bullshit. And it also presumes the scientists from the rest of the world community are part of the same conspiracy.
It's true there a lot of people who make shit up. You'll find a higher ratio of those types on this site than in the NOAA. Have a great day
Has ANY government agency misstated climate data? Last I understood there have been at least 2 separate instances where the climate data was changed to support global warming.
