How Sure Are Scientists About Global Warming? – Henry Pollack
Complete video at: fora.tv Dr. Henry N. Pollack, author of A World Without Ice, addresses accusations of climate change as an uncertain theory. “Uncertainty should not lead to policy paralysis,” he says. “Uncertainty is part of the world.” —– It has taken just three centuries for human growth and rising industrial economies to bring the delicate relationship between ice and humans to a dangerous precipice. Ice carved Earth’s landscape to its present state – the sharp Alpine peaks of …
- Posted in: Global Warming Videos
- Subscribe to RSS
Do you understand how money is created in the first place? It’s not surprising if you don’t, its not taught in school. Check out how our govt. colludes with international banks to create money and you will soon understand both politics and the economy in a way you never may have thought before. The best starting point I’ve found is a Canadian educational film entitled “money as debt”.
You will see how this relates to environmental science, as well as the credibility of “govt. experts”.
How money gets created is a red herring.
Not all of the experts are government experts. However, most of the data gathering takes government level expenditure. Are you saying that we should just throw out all the data? Are all the climate scientists in cahoots? We can’t trust anything they say?
If the govt. can find and fund like minded scientists, then it is relevant that govt.s can “find scientists”. They can even give them phony awards in the same way obama was awarded the piece prize for accelerating bush’s BS wars.
One could trust scientific climate change results more if the funding for its research came solely from private donations.
I’ll assume that means you don’t know how money is created and don’t care.
Q; whats ignorant mean?
A; I don’t know and I don’t care.
I though you guys thought that only big business makes policies based on money. Big business and govt. are one in the same.
I didn’t say that all scientist are in cahoots, I said the ones the govt. want to hear from and make policies around are selected. Isn’t it interesting that there are no public debates being conducted when this issue affects us all?
No, it wouldn’t matter. One could always make the accusation of “bias”. What if the funding came from Exxon? Or Greenpeace? Or a company that has close ties to Exxon or Greenpeace? The fact is that there isn’t really any evidence of systematic bias, and the best anyone can do is to construct a hypothetical motive for why governments would want to support global warming theory. When you run out of facts and evidence, a blanket accusation of bias is all you’ve got left.
I didn’t say that I don’t know and I don’t care. Nor could that be reasonably inferred from what I did say. I said “how money gets created” is a red herring.
Science isn’t settled by debate. As for policy issues, they are “debated” every day in the popular press.
If you know how money is created than you are aware that our govt. is engaged in fraud, unconstitutional, yet made legal. You really trust anything either party says when they actively, and intentionally deceive the public?
Would you take a Doctor’s advice if the Doctor is a known con-artist?
Once again, how money gets created is a red herring. Do you also reject everything published by the CDC?
This is not about “parties.” It’s about the science. Not all of the science is done by government scientists. Can you point to any specific government scientists who are involved in manufacturing the data? Is it all of NOAA or just the top administrators, e.g.?
Well, I don’t know how you can accept fraud when it comes to the govt. and money but reject the notion of fraud when it comes to govt. and science.
I certainly do question what comes out of the CDC, but that doesn’t mean I reject every thing they say, after all, the best misinformation is 90% true.
It isn’t relevant what the government could theoretically do. The point is that you have shown no evidence to show that science is biased in favor of global warming because of government funding.
I don’t reject the notion of fraud when it comes to govt and science. What I reject is the idea that we have to assume it’s all fraud without any evidence at all to support it.
The Bush administration regularly interfered with govt science – and there’s abundant evidence of that interference.
What we don’t have is any evidence that the government is involved in a conspiracy to promote the appearance of GW by manufactured facts.
The oil reserves are worth more when more $s per gallon can be charged, and with govt. help they can bypass the free-market and get govt. to raise the cost of oil. Why would the petroleum companies complain? Furthermore, the CO2 taxes will affect coal prices much more, creating new markets for petroleum, where coal was cheaper. Plus our coal miners will still be producing just as much coal, but it will be shipped to china, India where it will be burnt with impunity, and a competitive advantage
So you understand that the govt. does engage in fraud and will interfere with govt. science when bush is in charge, but not when a dem is in charge? george bush believes in global warming too, haven’t you heard? I wonder what changed that oil-tycoon’s mind? I can promise it has nothing to do with the environment.
The price of oil is a matter of supply and demand. When demand falls, the price falls. So if we really do take action to reduce CO2 emissions, we will be using less oil and the price will fall. No one will be paying more to the oil-producing states if demand falls. People may be paying more because of carbon taxes, but that doesn’t benefit the producers. So it definitely isn’t in their best interest to support it if global warming is a hoax.
As for coal, those are policy questions. But you can’t have good policy if you ignore good science. The bottomline is that China, India, and the United States all have to be part of the solution. We all have something to lose if we just ignore the issue.
The question has never been “Does government engage in fraud?” It has always been “Should we always assume fraud even when there has been no evidence presented for it?”
That’s not what I said. What I said is that in the one case there was actual evidence of manipulation. The actual scientists in that case said one thing, the political appointees manipulated the science. We have the physical evidence. There’s no evidence that the government is manufacturing data to promote GW.
Attention, fallible friend, rational rat.
Lets explore govt. science and govt. fraud.
We supposedly already know that the govt. is actively engaged in fraud when it comes to the economy but you still trust them.
If you believe that 19 men armed with $10 worth of box-cutters can overwhelm and successfully thwart a multi trillion dollar defence system, 4 times in the same day, then by all means believe your govt. …….
………..
If you believe that two jet-liners can burn to the ground THREE steel structures with a kerosene fire, than by all means trust your govt.
If you believe a 757 can fit through a 16′ hole in the pentagon, wings, engines, tail and all with no pictures available to prove it on the most secured building in the world, then believe our govt.
If you believe that a plane will will vaporize when it hits ……….
…… the ground yet leave a miles long debris trail, like flight 93, then by all means, believe your gov. scientists.
If you believe that the govt. knows that a pandemic will start, knows it will mutate,and will already happen to have a vaccine ready to treat it, than by all means, believe your govt. scientists.
If you believe we went to war with Iraq to locate WMDs, then by all means trust your gov.
Not me, I won’t trust a govt. when time and time again it is actively engaging in fraud….
…. Have you noticed that all these crisis of recent times are “global” issues?
Global warming, global pandemics, global war on terror, gee, you think someone might be trying to set up a justifacation for a global govt.? Well, if we pay taxes to a global entity, it will be a unelected global govt.
You liberals are a good natured lot, maybe too good natured for your own good. Y’All don’t seem to recognize evil if you yourself wouldn’t engage in it.
What kind of stupid question is that “Is climent chaniging ” ?
ofcourse climent change and will chaange for ever as ever did.
Do we can adapt to this change ?
yes I (èyé¬)do.
More human means less other species .
Could we find ” balance beam ” ?
Yes if we accept the universal” Book ” as universal message of balance !
hehe
Oxygen by bankers and Protein by stock brockers.