On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 23:59:39 -0400 (EDT), wrote:


>
>A scientist can also damage his career by insisting the world is flat.
>

There was once a time when insisting that the world was *round* could
damage one's career or worse. One man had it right; the 'consensus'
was flat (pun intended) wrong.


>There is a huge scientific body of evidence for global warming.  It is 
>studied by a vast array of people from all sorts of fields, all kinds of 
>colleges in all kinds of countries and it is generally agreed upon (except 
>for a small minority and you ALWAYS have them) to be real and something 
>that needs to be stopped or figure out how to deal with thr results.
>

Concensus is a political concept, not a scientific one. A single
scientist with the right idea outweighs any number who have things
wrong. (See above.)


>I can not belive that there is some huge, global conspiracy secretely 
>funding all these people.. and that the only ones who are speaking the 
>truth are think tanks and a few people who are funded by... ahem.. big 
>energy corporations.  Lets see, why might they want to spend millions 
>trying to confuse the subject?  Who made tens of billions in profit this 
>year that would be threatened if we started to conserve or find alternate 
>energy sources?
>

The amount of money spent by governments in promoting AGW alarmism
dwarfs the amount spent by the think tanks.


>Cherry-picking your data isn't a good method for getting to the truth.  
>There is a huge, HUGE amount of work that confirms what is going on.
>I can say, "But my room is COOL when I run my air conditioner so global 
>warming is a myth.
>

You mean like Mann's hockey stick that was totally fabricated and
later debunked by a 'denier'.


>I can point to the oil indurstry as being behind the majority of 
>publications saying global warming is not happening.  A small amount of 
>digging will show you where the money comes from.  Can you do the same?  
>Who is funding these thousands of scientists you say are part of this 
>conspiracy?  What companies are behind it and why?
>

The IPCC is a political body. A small amount of digging will show that
governments are pouring far larger amounts into promoting alarmism
than any oil industry funding of the other side.


>(And I changed my part of this thread to OT because it really has nothing 
>to do with electrical engineering.  Bladder surgery is a technical subject 
>too but that doesn't belong in EE either. :-) )
>

Thank you for that.



Regards, Bob

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist