lukin Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 They better say what they are told. http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 They better say what they are told. http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money. They're not saying what they are told. They are saying what they are discovering. You, however, are saying what you're told. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
lukin Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Posted January 9, 2011 They're not saying what they are told. They are saying what they are discovering. You, however, are saying what you're told. I guess you don't understand. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 I guess you don't understand. And I guess that when posters act like trolls and speak in code, they can't expect everyone to understand the conversation they're having with no one else. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
lukin Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Posted January 9, 2011 And I guess that when posters act like trolls and speak in code, they can't expect everyone to understand the conversation they're having with no one else. Your disciples are riddled with metaphor. My links are extremely informative if you bother to read, and are capable of understanding. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 I'm actually pleasantly surprised that whoever did the original post actually linked to real US federal govt. figures. The source writes: Until a few days ago I knew that the US government spent an excessive amount of taxpayer money on climate change research. Overall, the 2.6 billion makes up less than .1 % of the overall budget. If they are concerned about govt. expenses, they might want to prioritize their search a little better. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
dre Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 I'm actually pleasantly surprised that whoever did the original post actually linked to real US federal govt. figures. The source writes: Until a few days ago I knew that the US government spent an excessive amount of taxpayer money on climate change research. Overall, the 2.6 billion makes up less than .1 % of the overall budget. If they are concerned about govt. expenses, they might want to prioritize their search a little better. By some accounts the war in Iraq will cost 3 trillion by the time its all said and done, and the indirect costs are factored in. Funny how cost concerns go out the window if the money is being used to explode random shit. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Keepitsimple Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) I think the point being made was that the money poured into science that supports the AGW theory far, far outweighs the trivial amount that some posters claim comes from the Oil & Gas denier camp. As I pointed out some time ago, Oil & Gas people are not in the Oil & Gas business - they are in the Energy business - and they will go where the money is - where the markets are. That's why Energy companies invest more in "green" technology than they "invest" in fighting the AGW theory. That's whats so hilarious about the save-the-planet types who think they are winning some sort of war against the evil fossil-fuel companies. In reality, they are just giving another energy option to make tons of money - much of it from government grants. So forget about the Fossil Fuel "shills" and conspiracy theories.....these guys don't care - they'll always make money. Edited January 11, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 I think the point being made was that the money poured into science that supports the AGW theory far, far outweighs the trivial amount that some posters claim comes from the Oil & Gas denier camp. oh my! Certainly no preconceived Simple notions there - hey? Perhaps you could extend upon your vaunted penetrating analysis to specifically highlight a targeted support for science supporting the AGW theory... does science research/investigation/development/analysis into climate automatically presume upon a "support position". Perhaps you could step it up a notch and categorically state that all the referenced budget (request) spending is intended to 'keep the denier man down' the lukinWay™ linked article's reference to the AAAS Reports Ch. 15 would be a good start for you to address and point out the AGW theory support you speak to... have at er, hey Simple... where's the targeted AGW theory support in the following high-level descriptions. Certainly, the chapter details highlight specific agency breakouts on funding requests - don't hesitate to pick at those, as well... again, to the following... where's your described money, "poured into science that supports the AGW theory"? HIGHLIGHTS– Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),which coordinates and integrates research over 13 executive branch departments and agencies, would increase 21 percent to $2.6 billion. – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests $2.2 billion, an increase of 58 percent, for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). This would restore climate sensors, advance sea height monitoring, and fund NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (formerly NPOESS). – NASA requests a 27 percent increase for Earth Science. NASA would accelerate four Decadal Survey missions, initiate one new climate related mission, and re-launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which would monitor carbon sources and sinks throughout the world. – The Department of Energy (DOE) request would increase funding for renewable energy (up 37 percent) and energy efficiency (up 12 percent), and eliminate $2.7 billion in subsidies to high emitting industries. Robust funding would continue for Energy Innovation Hubs, Energy Frontier Research Centers, and the Advance Research Projects Agency-Energy. – The Department of the Interior (DOI) request would substantially increase funding for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative (up 26 percent) and renewable energy programs (up 24 percent). – The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests $955 million Geosciences Directorate (a 7.4 percent increase) with $480 million requested for Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. but don't stop there, Simple. Ratchet it up several notches by categorically stating any scientific research that might bring forward results challenging the AGW theory will be buried/hidden... you know, aimed to 'keep the denier man, down'! Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Perhaps you could extend upon your vaunted penetrating analysis to specifically highlight a targeted support for science supporting the AGW theory... does science research/investigation/development/analysis into climate automatically presume upon a "support position". The corollary of your point being: are "energy" companies then assumed to be funding research that is meant to show AGW false ? If so, how can that be deemed research when the conclusion is baked in ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.