2 ms·

The government has a much larger budget and a vested interest in convincing everyone that things are not fine. Both the UN, which is seeking the ability to imp

by MCRed 11y ago

The government has a much larger budget and a vested interest in convincing everyone that things are not fine. Both the UN, which is seeking the ability to impose a global carbon tax-- the first step to being a world government-- and local governments such as the US Federal government which seeks the ability to have further control over the economy. Al Gore invested a great deal of money in a carbon trading exchange that would have made him billions if the US Government had passed the legislation he was trying to get passed during the height of the "Inconvenient Truth" era. The idea that only those with results that disagree with AGW have large budgets and vested interests is manifestly false. And silly. Edit: You can't have a discussion on hacker news of an intellectual nature because people use the down vote button to bury and silence those who disagree with their political dogma. As a result, Hacker News, day by day, becomes more of an echo chamber, and as a result will likely end up like slashdot. IS that what you want? Are you really so insecure that you cannot tolerate well made arguments that you disagree with?

ocschwar 11y ago
"The government" ? There are over 40 developed countries whose governments fund scientific research. Several of them have heads of state who would love to find evidence against AGW: Canada and Australia come to mind. Angela Merkel would love to find evidence that the coal mining way of life in East Germany isn't a problem. (But she knows not to fight against scientific evidence.) Our own government had a republican president not so long ago. Again, if there was any avenue of scientific research that could find evidence against AGW, there would be money to fund it, be it from governments or corporations. Deniers have spent over 100M on propaganda in recent years. That's a lot of money that could have gone towards research if there was any to be done. There was exactly one attempt to do that, with the grant given to Richard Muller at Berkeley. That blew up in the denier's faces, and they're never doing that again. [update] "When you resort to calling people who disagree with your hypothesis "deniers" then..." I am calling them deniers because they have ample funds with which to find evidence for their case, and they are refraining from doing so. [update] "Thanks for conceding that there are 40 governments putting money" I did not say "40 governments putting money into the other side." I said "40 governments funding science." And as I pointed out, the governments of Australia and Canada would love to find evidence against AGW. And yet government funded scientists in both countries continue to find evidence for it. Our own government under George W. Bush would have loved to find evidence against AGW. And yet our scientists in NASA, NOAA, and academia, were finding evidence for it the entire time.
- MCRed 11y ago
  When you resort to calling people who disagree with your hypothesis "deniers" then you've given up any pretense of believing in science, and as far as I'm concerned, you have admitted your movement is purely political. ( Which is good because the science doesn't support you.) Thanks for conceding that there are 40 governments putting money into the other side-- which dismisses your absurd claims that industry as more money.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    No dude, you're a denier. Please, stop insisting that your position has any validity, scientifically or politically. It has no scientific credibility whatsoever. And the economic motivation is obvious in plain sight.

by MCRed 11y ago

ocschwar 11y ago

"The government" ? There are over 40 developed countries whose governments fund scientific research. Several of them have heads of state who would love to find evidence against AGW: Canada and Australia come to mind. Angela Merkel would love to find evidence that the coal mining way of life in East Germany isn't a problem. (But she knows not to fight against scientific evidence.) Our own government had a republican president not so long ago. Again, if there was any avenue of scientific research that could find evidence against AGW, there would be money to fund it, be it from governments or corporations. Deniers have spent over 100M on propaganda in recent years. That's a lot of money that could have gone towards research if there was any to be done. There was exactly one attempt to do that, with the grant given to Richard Muller at Berkeley. That blew up in the denier's faces, and they're never doing that again. [update] "When you resort to calling people who disagree with your hypothesis "deniers" then..." I am calling them deniers because they have ample funds with which to find evidence for their case, and they are refraining from doing so. [update] "Thanks for conceding that there are 40 governments putting money" I did not say "40 governments putting money into the other side." I said "40 governments funding science." And as I pointed out, the governments of Australia and Canada would love to find evidence against AGW. And yet government funded scientists in both countries continue to find evidence for it. Our own government under George W. Bush would have loved to find evidence against AGW. And yet our scientists in NASA, NOAA, and academia, were finding evidence for it the entire time.

MCRed 11y ago
When you resort to calling people who disagree with your hypothesis "deniers" then you've given up any pretense of believing in science, and as far as I'm concerned, you have admitted your movement is purely political. ( Which is good because the science doesn't support you.) Thanks for conceding that there are 40 governments putting money into the other side-- which dismisses your absurd claims that industry as more money.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  No dude, you're a denier. Please, stop insisting that your position has any validity, scientifically or politically. It has no scientific credibility whatsoever. And the economic motivation is obvious in plain sight.