Here is an email I received in response to one of my essays.
So I’m learning Java and C++ with the goal of becoming a programmer. I’m taking my courses at a college in Lawrenceville, Ga. I often search online for information that will help me learn more about classes, pointers, etc. The guy who does the New ThinkTank videos used a ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) chart from your site. I wanted to use that as reference, so I check out your site. I love your site design and layout, but dude, you are the anti me!
For instance, you stated something about only conspiracy theorist don’t believe in global warming and that they only use information provided them by big oil. I say, the planet is probably warming, and it is man’s concern, but it is not man’s fault.
But you just pulled this conclusion out of your ass, based on what you wish would be true. Surely you don’t believe you are more competent to judge this than PhDs with 40 years climate change experience.
I believe that the information for people who do prescribe to this science that is not conclusive, comes from university faculty, and former university staff (hot beds of liberal thought) who receive grants and funding when the science works for whatever agenda is chosen.
But 95% of scientists say that is not true. You have nothing to base that on other that your general distrust of academics. You are telling me your guts are more reliable than trained scientists. Arranging a conspiracy of scientists would be like herding cats. It would be all but impossible. Scientists have monumental egos. It would require massive co-ordination. There is not a scrap of evidence for it. A conspiracy would generate thousands of whistleblowers with documentation and all kinds of climate scientist corpses. Consider even the US government can’t keep a secret, much less a loose association of scientists.
Climate scientists don't just say over and over man caused global warming is real. They work on some tiny piece of the problem and come up with data and math which fits in with everything else that has been discovered. A conspiracy would have to invent all this gigabytes of data and interlocking math that seems plausible, that is consistence, but is the exact opposite of the truth. All the while they have to pretend to be doing research. You might note that the global warming denier fudsters don’t bother with data or math.
They would be idiots to say, There’s no global warming because their funding would dry up. Big oil’s incentive is to make sure people keep using their horrible product by refusing any science (or making up their own), and the scientists incentive is to keep the funding coming where their data is conclusive or not (or, by making up their own). And because of this dynamic, the global warming community has become its own religion. People have faith in something (not a warming planet, but that man is warming the planet) so blindly, that they won't even argue with people who deny that funding-induced science. I get ignored by them when I mention Al Gore's predictions in Inconvenient Truth.
In other words you are accusing all academics of conspiring to hide the truth. In my book that is a conspiracy theory. It is one thing to show a group have motive to conspire and quite another that they did. There is no evidence of such a conspiracy.
When a scientist is caught lying, his career is over. People talk about what he hid for centuries thereafter. You seem to think scientists have the morals of stock brokers. That is simply not so. They are motivated by fame and discovery, not money. Lying is just so completely unscientific. It is the very opposite of science.
The motives of Exxon-Mobil are no longer in doubt. Whistleblowers at Exxon-Mobil spilled the beans. They did their own research back in the 1980s. They determined that on the positive side drilling would be easier. On the negative side they determined sea levels would rise. They decided to put out FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) so that they could continue business as usual. They did not want concerns about CO₂ emissions cutting into sales.
Tell Christians to prove that there is a God. We can’t prove it; some of us walk away from the discussion. This sounds a lot like Global warming-ology. I think that solar cycles play a much larger role in warming and cooling the Earth than mankind has, and than science will admit. But I am not a meteorologist.
We can measure the rising CO₂levels in the air and the oceans. We can measure the rising average air and water temperatures. We can monitor ice melting. We have the receipts for fossil fuels burned, so we can calculate CO₂ emitted by humans. We can measure the precise composition of the atmosphere to track the other greenhouse gases such as methane. God is much much woolier.
Anyway, I love the site, I even love reading your thought out views. But I love Sean Hannity too, and I am no republican. Anyone who displays a passion for their beliefs (except when their passion is to kill people in the name of a religion, or for any other reason), I appreciate greatly. It means that they are alive and will not settle for simply existing.
I watched Hannity arguing for the existence of god because he claimed man did not understand what made the tides ebb and flow. There was a guy who deliberately kept himself ignorant to the level of a second grader, but pretended to be the planet’s greatest pundit. He is so clueless and so full of himself. I suppose though not every kid gets to use a tide table.
This page is posted
Optional Replicator mirror
Your face IP:[188.8.131.52]
You are visitor number|