Richard Lindzen gets paid directly and indirectly by the fossil fuel industries. This is similar to 30 years ago, when doctors paid by the tobacco companies downplayed the research connecting tobacco and cancer.
Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Richard Lindzen gets paid directly and indirectly by the fossil fuel industries. This is similar to 30 years ago, when doctors paid by the tobacco companies downplayed the research connecting tobacco and cancer.
Heathme
Guest
Right on cue...
You don't think it's a conflict of interest?
Miggs
Well-Known Member
This has all been through eating a bit better and simply eating less. I actually really want to be good about this and start working out (haven’t at all) as well as lifting and hopefully lose some more fat and weight while adding muscle back.
And yes, I know muscle weighs more than fat.
And yes, I know muscle weighs more than fat.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Some people have a six pack, I have a keg
Heathme
Guest
It could be. Do you think scientists receiving grant money for only publishing pro-climate change papers is a conflict of interest? If any scientist publishes anything out of the climate change world, they immediately lose their funding and are run out their scientific circles.
I really do not care too much about your opinion on this. I believe there is a conflict of interest on the "97% scientist" side and this drives the narrative along with the media and environmental activists.
I believe in the true science of being skeptical until something is 100% confirmed. I believe climate science will never be 100% confirmed either way and I will continue to fight government intervention into this issue.
It would be, if there were such a phenomenon.
1) Grant money is distributed based on the proposed experiment before it occurs, not on publishing a paper afterwards.
2) Scientists don't actually keep any of their grant money. It has to be spent on things like equipment, assistants, students, etc.
Only someone who doesn't understand scientific papers or how science works would believe that. Papers get published based on various results, and those results get inforporated with all the other results into a theory. Publishing a paper that a given experiment failed does nothing to harm the reputation of a scientist, and can aid it. No single paper is the foundation of the theory of climate change, and no single experiment will be its foundering, regardless of result.
Now, it is certainly in a scientist's interest to get papers published. That work regardless of what the result of the experiment does to the climate change models.
I could tell you did not care when you did not respond.
Of course, you can believe in this conflict of interest on the part of scientists who don't see an extra dime in their pay, except from getting published at all.
It's not often you meet people who refuse to believe that gravity exists.
Nothing in science is ever 100% confirmed. It's not that sort of discipline.
Of that I have no doubt. Let's just not pretend your opposition is based on any sort of rational analysis.
Getting Traded
Banned
Heathme, you think all the crazy weather is fake news?
You think the melting of the Arctic and the Greenland glaciers is fake news?
You think the melting of ancient Antarctic icebergs (not that accumulated, thin ice sheet that was reported in Forbes and debunked showing it was due to global warming moisture) is fake news?
You think the highest levels of CO2, and rising, in 3 million years is fake news?
You think the highest ocean temperatures in millions of years is fake news?
Stop your denial because it doesn't correspond to your political views. Look at how dishonest some conservative politicians are, namely the one in the Oval Office who lies several times a day, even more. More than likely, it is even more serious than even those who believe in Global Warming want to believe.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
So what you are saying is that when you are 97% sure that something is correct you instead go against that and choose to believe the 3% and much less likely thing.
That's not smart.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
So. since some glaciers are growing, this somehow voids that facts that overall glaciers are shrinking? How desperate (or paid off) do you have to be to believe this?