Setanta
Gold Member
   
Offline

\/ Peace man!
Posts: 17606
Northern NSW
Gender:
|
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 22 nd, 2014 at 8:46am: Setanta wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 9:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 9:05pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 6:04pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 11:51am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 11:27am: Rider wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 11:06am: lee wrote on Jan 21 st, 2014 at 10:31am: In terms of doctor's - who would you go to for cancer -GP, Psychiatrist, Proctologist or Oncologist? Or maybe an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist.....none other than our very own dud Professor Timbo Flim-Flam-Flannery Note no 'climate' or medical qualifications, but that won't matter as long as you are on the gravy train Have you compared the so called "gravy train" in climate science that you refer to with the global Fossil fuel industry ?
Gee I wonder which one of these two has most to lose?
Incidentally the fossil fuel corporations have already accepted the Climate science, by making a joint public statement over a decade ago. In fact during that press release, they strongly recommended URGENT action on a global scale in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.
You are very very very alone Rider
Hilarious watching you squirm and cringe with your persistent lies and amateur spin doctoring extracted from B-rated crack pot web sites that are designed to net paranoid freak maggot fascists. I'd say climate scientists have the most to lose. The fossil fuel industry is based on a physical product, where as climate science is based on a concept. Are you sure you wish to associate yourself with that statement astonishing! Yes, i do. And it's still true. And you're so right to do so! There is no data, no physics or chemistry and that kind of baloney, concepts, that's all they have! Well in the context of who has the most to lose, yes. Research scientists are paid in grants to think about and investigate ideas. If the subject becomes unpopular, or is considered finalised, the grants stop. A company selling a product, on the other hand keeps selling the product, or if it runs out or becomes unpopular, they just start selling something else. The scientists that work for Govt don't rely on grants, you think they're going to get rid of the BOM? If you think govt scientists give answers that the govt wants I suggest you read what BOM says and it's doesn't agree with what our govt would like to hear. edit: And if you think scientists that work at UNIs and get grants to do studies have more to lose than all the carbon industries, csg, coal miners, oil companies, well...
|