That petition was based on a research paper, which was debunked and completely destroyed.
Here's just one natural scientist that completely shredded the entire paper piece-by-piece:
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The US Owes The World $4 Trillion For Trashing The Climate
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
That petition was based on a research paper, which was debunked and completely destroyed.
Here's just one natural scientist that completely shredded the entire paper piece-by-piece:
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
The first question every should ask is this: how many scientists' paychecks depend on continuing the man-made global warming narrative? Either because they are directly invested in that narrative, or because they would be ostracized if they don't support it. When questioning the narrative is equated with Holocaust denial, then of course the scientific community as a whole are terrified of running afoul of it.
Seems like both sides have been debunked.
We do know the Earth goes through cycles. It has been frozen, thawed, over heated and flooded.
There have been droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods since time began.
Long before everyone had cars were weather related disasters.
I say follow the money. Seems like those who yell global warming the loudest, are the same ones who have, and will stand to make millions and millions of dollars with carbon tax credits, investing in companies that make scrubbers, battery driven cars and all those kind of things that are green..
Yet those same people fly on private jets, have multiple houses that are five times bigger than my house.They use ten times the electric in each of their 50,000sq ft house than I do. They ride in huge bullet proof cars that get 5mpg and fly their privet jets all over the world, they spew more carbon in a week that I ever will produce in my life.
And they tell us to drive a Pirus.
I am all for clean air and water, recycle all than can be recycled. But lets use some common sense and not regulate our selves out of jobs and make electric so expensive that we can't keep the lights on.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,107
We do not owe the rest of the world a damn thing except that the back of our hand. Uncle Sam still has a pretty strong pimp hand.
It's too bad the 30 trillion dollar oil industry can't provide funding to their own scientists to let truth be known.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,107
Not saying they are right or wrong, but their predictions and models do keep failing. Despite that, anyone that does not tow the, "mankind is responsible", line, rapidly finds themselves ostracized, and their careers ruined. Anyone that takes oil company money to fund their research, regardless of the validity of that research, faces the same. As a result, I take their research, papers, methodology, and their honesty with a heavy dose of skepticism because from the outside, it looks like it is little more than a circle jerk.
So many papers, and all these papers reference other people papers and research. To question the research, questions all of the work based on it, and the climate science community takes a strong dislike of anyone that so much as raises an eyebrow at their work. By strong dislike, I mean they go out of their way to ruin you if at all possible.
Looking through this thread, there is clear major ignorance on the issue. Too many guys spouting nonsense about how global warming (or climate change) is propaganda or that rising temps is good for life on Earth or quick pass the blame to somebody else while overlooking your issues. On first page alone, I counted 6 such specimen (I won't call them idiots, just ill-informed).
If you read the article, you will see that energy waste depends on how much energy is used on average. For example.. The average energy used annually by the average US household is 11,698 kWh/year. No electricity transfers with 100% efficiency so there's a lot of waste on its way to your house & you would lose lots of energy as it gets to your house.
The average energy used annually by the average Indian household is 900 kWh/year and China is 1,349 kWh/year. They need less energy because the average household is not as high-tech on average & cannot afford more high-tech things. Less energy used = less energy infrastructure necessary = less waste (that also means the power grid in those nations is unreliable). That is just ONE example. Think of other examples including materialistic things that USA uses more and wastes more.. Way more cars on the road -- each car is much more efficient than those in China/India but there are way more cars per average household in USA. Deforestation is another major issue that allows more carbon to enter the air rather than being sucked in by trees.
Remember, almost 40% of world's electricity comes from coal, which is very dirty. Now the USA uses lots of clean energy sources like solar, wind, and nuclear, which are clean. BUT there is much more electricity used that at some point, it's not even about carbon efficiency but the sheer volume being emitted and used by a wealthy developed nation.
-For those saying they just pulled a random number out of the hat.. Remember, they are using USA's cost of carbon per ton, which is $40 per ton. The total global carbon emitted since 1990 is estimated at 250 billion tons. That amounts to $10 trillion of carbon debt total damage for planet Earth. They are simply saying the $4 trillion is a price tag of how much damage has been done to the environment by USA based on estimate that 40% of it was by USA.
-Read the article rather than going direct to attacking science as many seem to do on Hardforum - boy, this forum has gone of its rails. I noticed whenever anything science-based is post, people go direct to attack-science mode -- it's comical for all the wrong reasons.
-It's good to be skeptic, but don't get cynical in the process thinking that all scientists are out to get you. I have more thoughts, but I wasted too much time looking through this thread.
If you read the article, you will see that energy waste depends on how much energy is used on average. For example.. The average energy used annually by the average US household is 11,698 kWh/year. No electricity transfers with 100% efficiency so there's a lot of waste on its way to your house & you would lose lots of energy as it gets to your house.
The average energy used annually by the average Indian household is 900 kWh/year and China is 1,349 kWh/year. They need less energy because the average household is not as high-tech on average & cannot afford more high-tech things. Less energy used = less energy infrastructure necessary = less waste (that also means the power grid in those nations is unreliable). That is just ONE example. Think of other examples including materialistic things that USA uses more and wastes more.. Way more cars on the road -- each car is much more efficient than those in China/India but there are way more cars per average household in USA. Deforestation is another major issue that allows more carbon to enter the air rather than being sucked in by trees.
Remember, almost 40% of world's electricity comes from coal, which is very dirty. Now the USA uses lots of clean energy sources like solar, wind, and nuclear, which are clean. BUT there is much more electricity used that at some point, it's not even about carbon efficiency but the sheer volume being emitted and used by a wealthy developed nation.
-For those saying they just pulled a random number out of the hat.. Remember, they are using USA's cost of carbon per ton, which is $40 per ton. The total global carbon emitted since 1990 is estimated at 250 billion tons. That amounts to $10 trillion of carbon debt total damage for planet Earth. They are simply saying the $4 trillion is a price tag of how much damage has been done to the environment by USA based on estimate that 40% of it was by USA.
-Read the article rather than going direct to attacking science as many seem to do on Hardforum - boy, this forum has gone of its rails. I noticed whenever anything science-based is post, people go direct to attack-science mode -- it's comical for all the wrong reasons.
-It's good to be skeptic, but don't get cynical in the process thinking that all scientists are out to get you. I have more thoughts, but I wasted too much time looking through this thread.
sliverjazz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 747
The new currency is called the TRN. Treasure Reserve Note. It is replacing the currency that is in circulation now. It will be both paper and coin and will be gradually introduce into the system. You will be able to trade your dollars for TRN's.
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
Ever hear of a thing called .... the planet Venus?
Laugh it up shitheads, you're all on a fast track to be paying it a visit, and you won't even need a space ship.
Little experiment for the redneck pinheads out there. Park your car out in the open on a hot sunny summer day. Make sure the windows are nice and shut, close the vents, go shopping.
When you get back, and you open the door .... is the inside of the car HOT, really hot, or is it the same temperature you parked it at? You have to be pretty fucking dense not to grasp the concept.
Now, increase the CO2 % inside to 600ppm (our likely world CO2 point IF we act to stop it asap) and go shopping again. When you come back, either the plastic inside will have melted or the car will have burst into flames.
But yeah, it's all a lie fabricated by "libruls" to steal your lunch money.
On the renewables subject.
Starting 10 years ago from the same % the US is now, Denmark and Germany decided to take the issue seriously. Denmark is now at 90+% of electric production from Wind/Solar, and Germany ... the Nation ... is at 70+% electric production from Wind/Solar.
But of course, as you pinheads know the United States of America could never accomplish anything ... Zee Germans ... could do.
Laugh it up shitheads, you're all on a fast track to be paying it a visit, and you won't even need a space ship.
Little experiment for the redneck pinheads out there. Park your car out in the open on a hot sunny summer day. Make sure the windows are nice and shut, close the vents, go shopping.
When you get back, and you open the door .... is the inside of the car HOT, really hot, or is it the same temperature you parked it at? You have to be pretty fucking dense not to grasp the concept.
Now, increase the CO2 % inside to 600ppm (our likely world CO2 point IF we act to stop it asap) and go shopping again. When you come back, either the plastic inside will have melted or the car will have burst into flames.
But yeah, it's all a lie fabricated by "libruls" to steal your lunch money.
On the renewables subject.
Starting 10 years ago from the same % the US is now, Denmark and Germany decided to take the issue seriously. Denmark is now at 90+% of electric production from Wind/Solar, and Germany ... the Nation ... is at 70+% electric production from Wind/Solar.
But of course, as you pinheads know the United States of America could never accomplish anything ... Zee Germans ... could do.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
But nukular (because most of these dopes couldn't pronounce "nuclear" if their life depended on it), is EVIL man!
Instead of generating nasty, choking, radioactive waste and spewing it into the atmosphere, nuclear power generates CONCENTRATED radioactive waste that goes nowhere!
Bad man! BAAAAAAD!
'47 Knucklehead
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 31
I think we should pay the $4 trillion.
I also think we should give every single American $10,000,000 in cash.
That way all Americans can pay off their long term contracted debt (houses, cards, credit cards, etc) ... then go bankrupt and the US will start a new currency and laugh at the morons of the world who think the US owes the world $4 trillion to "go pound sand".
I also think we should give every single American $10,000,000 in cash.
That way all Americans can pay off their long term contracted debt (houses, cards, credit cards, etc) ... then go bankrupt and the US will start a new currency and laugh at the morons of the world who think the US owes the world $4 trillion to "go pound sand".
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Yeah, it's better to just blow radioactive byproducts up a smokestack the way coal does!
Also, so you know, most of the byproducts you're talking about? While they're radioactive, they're not the "kill you dead from single exposure" radioactive. They're actually less radioactive than some NATURAL places in the world. Usually, stuff that's highly, dangerously, radioactive is VERY short-lived.
And there ARE reactor technologies available that produce much shorter-lived byproducts.
Most of which decays out well within a human lifespan, with other byproducts that eventually decay out after a few hundred years.
The problem is, the current political and social climate has people SO misinformed (and thus, terrified) of nuclear, that getting ANYTHING approved in terms of nuclear power is damn near impossible.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Where in "the scientific method" does "by consensus" come in?
For 2000 years, common scientific consensus was that Earth was the center of the universe.
Cue Copernicus.
Common medical consensus was that ulcers were caused by stress.
Cue Barry Marshall drinking a beaker of H. pylori.
Prior to the middle of the 20th Century, scientific consensus was that the crust of the Earth was immobile.
Cue Alfred Wegener and the rise of plate tectonics...
How about the Satic Universe theory?
Edwin Hubble anyone?
Young Earth theory? (That the Earth was between 20 and 40 million years old.)
Geologist Charles Lyell (and later good old Chuck Darwin himself) helped to disprove that. And we have a good idea (not "know") that the Earth is now closer to 4.5 BILLION years old.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Uhm. There's been no spill at Yucca Mountain. Because Yucca Mountain was never an active fuel repository site. And basically because of popular NIMBY and BANANA backlash, the Federal Government has wasted billions in taxpayer money trying to shut it down over the last 6-8 years.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Maybe they don't kill you. But if you're working in the natural sciences field and say something that endangers a climatologist's grant money, you get shouted down and your livelihood is threatened while people come out of the woodwork and line up like the beatdown line in Airplane! to try their best to discredit you (or make it appear that they've discredited you.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Considering that there's over 720 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, 37,400 gigatons in the oceans and 2-3000 gigatons on land (as biomass), all moving continuously through the carbon cycle, the 6-ish gigatons humanity produces a year from industrialization is a drop in the bucket.
Granted, there's the notion that our environment is more fragile, and that the concentrated amounts we're producing are pushing us over a tipping point.
Honestly, I give two shits about the whole global whateveryoucallitotday.
The big problem is, nobody knows or really wants to do anything about it.
The only "solution" is an idiotic carbon trading scam or some jackass exhorting people to use less power. Never mind that power use is directly tied to standard of living and none of the eviro-warriors are stepping up and volunteering to go back and shiver in caves themselves. Oh, and the carbon trading scam? Nobody would EVER game something as important as THAT! Would they?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34042115
How should we ACTIVELY sequester carbon?
This is where all the knives come out...
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Actually, the number of PROVABLE radiation deaths from Chernobyl are: 49. Several of which are from non-radiation causes.
The problem with trying to attribute cancer death is, in many cases, certain types of cancer are actually ABSENT from the populace that used to live around Chernobyl. And thyroid cancer in said populace is only 3% higher than average.
That "hundreds of thousands" number is only achieved by basically laying every cancer death in the area at Chernobyl's door. Which is both unlikely and unprovable.,
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
You'll also see that the research in the field is incestuous to an unreal degree.
You get a reference piece of work. You have everybody and their brother include it in their attributions. And then cross-attribute each other. And the next succession of papers does the same. But, the paper gets debunked. Yet it's still out there as a reference work for dozens of papers, wrong or not.
Honestly, I'm all for the whole Boy Scout thing. Leave it cleaner than you found it.
The big problem is deciding what to do to sequester more carbon.
Carbon trading scams DO NOT WORK. As long as there's a buck to be made, someone is going to try gaming them.
Exhorting people to "USE LESS!" DOES NOT WORK. Energy usage is integrally tied to our standard of living. Any meaningful reduction would be rather catastrophic and economizing only gets us so far.
So. What's the "right" answer?
This is where a lot of the truly violent disagreement (and precious little "consensus") lies.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Ah. The good old VENUS comparison.
Sure, we could go that way...in a few million YEARS at the rate we're going at..
Well I'm in agreement that the carbon trading thing is retarded. As for the solution, there's no one solution, it would take a multitude of factors. It's all interconnected. Some of the worst pollution we have is coming from China. The reason so much is coming from there is because we've essentially outsourced our manufacturing base that used to exist in the US, and China gives even less of a fuck about the environment than we do. So one partial solution would be to stop insane trade agreements that incentivize corporations from moving to areas like China or have embargos on products coming from areas that treat the environment like a shithole.Chas said:
As for our standard of living, it's unsustainable in its current form, the end. Not that people will want to back down from anything, but unless that's actually accepted, we're just operating in fantasy scenarios, thus you end up with non-solutions like carbon credits. Figure out ways to get more cars off the road. Higher gasoline tax, massive invest in railways, create less incentives to drive, that sort of thing. Stop subsidizing oil companies with billions of taxpayer dollars every year.
The bottom line is anything resembling a solution is far too radical to ever be implemented in our current political system, which only works for big money interests, so it basically won't happen.
Obfuscation man to the rescue huh? So only 49 proven deaths under a Soviet regime, since they were so well known for publicly reporting anything negative happening. As for the cancer claim, it's super easy to get an approximate number. Just look at the average cancer rate in the years prior to Chernobyl, then afterwards and tally the difference. Plus I'm assuming we're not counting every stillbirth or child born with horrible mutations after the fact (afterall, a lot of them lived, even if they don't have all their appendages). Trying to downplay Chernobyl is just pure ignorance.
that was a UN WHO study not a Soviet one
and regardless we dont build reactors like the old Soviet ones even the old PWRs in use in the US cant have that happen
and new Gen IV and IV+ designs like the AP1000 and MSR have passive safety in the case of an MSR its build in by the physics of the fuel salt
and new Gen IV and IV+ designs like the AP1000 and MSR have passive safety in the case of an MSR its build in by the physics of the fuel salt
There is also ITER nuclear reactor, which uses nuclear fusion, is expected to be finished in 2020 (they began building it in France in 2013 with 9 nations paying for it).
By 2027, the facility will be fully setup & begin producing 500 megawatts of power, which can power about ~250,000 homes in developed nations. If it works as expected, THAT will be the future because it is very safe and very effective/efficient.
Once that is setup, ITER plans on building a super facility called DEMO that will provide 2 gigawatts of electricity (will power about 1.4 million houses). We will know by 2020 how well ITER works, and then they will decide whether to build DEMO or not.
No waste that you would get with a current fission reactor. Gen IV is pretty clean too but couple years away. I personally hope ITER is a success -- nuclear fusion is just much better, cleaner & safer.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Again, austerity methods (just use LESS) are not an answer and are unenforceable.
We need ways to sequester carbon.
As for "obfuscation". I'm only interested in what can be *proven*. I'm not going to engage in a fantasy about how "A massive reactor became a bomb and killed zillions!"
Again, the measured cancer rates for everything OTHER than thyroid cancer in the population of and around Chernobyl is actually LOWER than average. And thyroid cancer has seen a 3% bump.
Again, with stillbirths, it's difficult to assign a blame. As for "horrible mutations", the problem is that you have to be able to definitively link it. Correlation == Causation. Again, I'm utterly disinterested in "what everybody knows".
And I'm not trying to downplay Chernobyl.
Chernobyl was a fuckup of TITANIC proportions. It was an ancient reactor (both in terms of service life AND design). Take into account all the corner-cutting the Soviets always engaged in. Then add a bunch of jackasses PLAYING AROUND with the reactor.
Fukushima's circumstances were similar. Corner-cutting lead directly to the failure of the reactor.
But painting the entire nuclear industry with these localized victims of greed, laziness and stupidity is nearly as irresponsible as the people who contributed to the disasters..
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
That's a research reactor. Thus far, nobody's been able to maintain a fusion reaction for any sort of meaningful length of time. Additionally, a fission reactor will have radioactive byproduct (the reactor chamber will be highly radioactive at the end of the vessel's service lifetime).
And yes. If we can achieve fusion in a stable manner, energy-positive manner, it is the future. But right now, fusion is in the "perpetually 10-20 years away" category. We need clean methods of power generation NOW. And for that, we have fission.
The biggest problem right now is that, because of regulatory flaming hoops (and reactor vendor lock-in), it's illegal to reprocess spent fuel. Which would GREATLY stretch current fuel supplies.
So, instead, we have dry casks of vitrefied nuclear waste sitting OUT IN OPEN AIR IN PARKING LOTS.
Luckily, as I said, the waste, while radioactive, it's that "hot". Of course, this is why it'll take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to cook off.
There's a lot of hole here and I'll just throw some facts here. I've written a few technical papers here and these are some samples on a rough draft I had. Did you now in the 50's-60's the scientific community believed the world was cooling and considered dumping dark carbon material so the poles would absorb more heat.
The US Nation Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees also and shows that the ice is well within the average range for the years of 1961-2010. In fact in during October 2013, sea ice levels grew the fastest pace since records began in 1979. By late July 2014, Arctic sea ice was almost at its highest level in decades.
In Al Gores movie The Inconvenient Truth, he clearly illustrated that if global warming didnt stop the polar bears would disappear. "The Inconvenient Truth About Polar Bears, a story about environmental activist Zac Unger who moved to Manitoba to study the dwindling polar bear population. To Ungers surprise, he learn that there are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago." This statement followed Dr. Crockfords on July 1st, 2013 that the polar bear population is booming and has increased from 2,165-5,700 since 2001.
The fact remains that there has been no increase in global surface temperature over the past 17-18 year according to the global temperature data. The Hadley Centre/Climatic Research unit records shows no warming for the past 19-20 years and the Remote Sensing System Satellite data set shows no warming for 24 years
free image uploading
picture host
People see this chart and they freak out and it only goes back to 400,000 years, ask your self what was the carbon dioxide emission before this and did life thrive. You betcha it did and the fossil record backs this up. Humans actually do better in warmer environments that cooler environments because of the increased growing season. More lives world wide are saved because of warmer temps.....FACT..
Compare the bottom chart to the chart above it and you'll see how carbon dioxide levels are in fact quite low compared to the 4.6 billion years the chart shows based on ice core CO2 samples taken.
imageupload
imagen
even IF that works out itll be another 10-20 for mass production so thats great for 2050...
we could have Thorium MSRs NOW with mass production by 2020
Its embarrassing that people still fall for the climate crap. So MANY preictions have crashed and burned. So much "science" turns out to be corrupt. Amateurs have to correct NASA. Researchers admit cooking data. Solar activity gets ignored. Communists, anarchist lead protests - and still retards fall for this because they want it to be true so they can keep their little egos going and retain the chips on their shoulders. We don't really live in an age of science - just scientism and weirdos. Even the concussion stuff is garbage
There's a lot of hole here and I'll just throw some facts here. I've written a few technical papers here and these are some samples on a rough draft I had. Did you now in the 50's-60's the scientific community believed the world was cooling and considered dumping dark carbon material so the poles would absorb more heat.
The US Nation Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees also and shows that the ice is well within the average range for the years of 1961-2010. In fact in during October 2013, sea ice levels grew the fastest pace since records began in 1979. By late July 2014, Arctic sea ice was almost at its highest level in decades.
In Al Gores movie The Inconvenient Truth, he clearly illustrated that if global warming didnt stop the polar bears would disappear. "The Inconvenient Truth About Polar Bears, a story about environmental activist Zac Unger who moved to Manitoba to study the dwindling polar bear population. To Ungers surprise, he learn that there are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago." This statement followed Dr. Crockfords on July 1st, 2013 that the polar bear population is booming and has increased from 2,165-5,700 since 2001.
The fact remains that there has been no increase in global surface temperature over the past 17-18 year according to the global temperature data. The Hadley Centre/Climatic Research unit records shows no warming for the past 19-20 years and the Remote Sensing System Satellite data set shows no warming for 24 years
free image uploading
picture host
People see this chart and they freak out and it only goes back to 400,000 years, ask your self what was the carbon dioxide emission before this and did life thrive. You betcha it did and the fossil record backs this up. Humans actually do better in warmer environments that cooler environments because of the increased growing season. More lives world wide are saved because of warmer temps.....FACT..
Compare the bottom chart to the chart above it and you'll see how carbon dioxide levels are in fact quite low compared to the 4.6 billion years the chart shows based on ice core CO2 samples taken.
imageupload
imagen
You haven't written jack shit. Come back after your "technical papers" (not even the correct terminology) have been peer edited by experts in the field who have studied these various forces for longer than you have been alive.
After that, then your argument holds some weight. Before that? You're pissing upwind.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Yep. Because shouting down people makes the problems go away...
Typical left wing nut that tries to insult someone without actually commenting on figures. I'm curious as to what your major is and where are your PHD credentials? My major is Biochem and my PHD is still a few more years out. Still waiting for an intelligent response regarding the figures and your credentials.
By the way, current research I'm working on is particulate matter and concentrations at varying altitudes.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Wouldn't it be awful if we wrong about global warming and became energy independent, Saudi Arabia didn't get hundreds of billions in revenue per year to spread their extremist Wahabist agenda?
Man, that would be so terrible. Just think of the cleaner air we'd leave our children and grandchildren, they'd definitely be pissed about that. Hopefully we spend another few trillion bombing mud huts and then paying Haliburton to rebuild them....'murica!
Also, to address only one of many points, polar bear population:
http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
Man, that would be so terrible. Just think of the cleaner air we'd leave our children and grandchildren, they'd definitely be pissed about that. Hopefully we spend another few trillion bombing mud huts and then paying Haliburton to rebuild them....'murica!
Also, to address only one of many points, polar bear population:
http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
Zarathustra[H];1041850263 said:So, just because a scientific expert isn't 100% in the field he should be disregarded, and instead we should listen to people on forums, and political think tanks backed by big oil?
Based off your logic anyone who hires a lawyer to defend themselves is court is operating purely out of self-interest and we shouldn't listen to anything they say.
Let's dispense with the courts and save some money.
'Science' prizes never ending scrutiny and questioning.
'Anti-Science' balks at criticism and scrutiny and forces people to use FOI requests to show their data.
Anti-Science imprisoned Galileo.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Science does prize never ending scrutiny, within the scientific method. Simply throwing out FUD and painfully mis-interpreting data being called out as such isn't balking at criticism.
Ruoh
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,857
We are still just generating steam from nuclear power sources, right?