Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Top Tier Scientists Needed

In the field of climatology, that is. Seems that the rigid orthodoxy of the Church Of Global Warming discourages bright young scientists from pursuing that field:

Web Link

If you are a talented graduate, bursting with intellectual potential, would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?

I think Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., already answered that question: Web Link


Regardless of what opinions and beliefs we have on this issue or any issue, witch hunts and demonization are wrong and anti-productive. They hinder rather than promote. Regression, not progress is their fruit.

Such behavior should be exposed for what it is and not tolerated.


From the Leftist, Marxist, Kenyan Propoganda machine aka NASA:

Pollution changes clouds, climate downstream

The residents of Beijing and Delhi are not the only ones feeling the effects of Asian air pollution — an unwanted byproduct of coal-fired economic development. The continent's tainted air is known to cross the Pacific Ocean, adding to homegrown air-quality problems on the U.S. West Coast.

But unfortunately, pollution doesn't just pollute. Researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, both in Pasadena, California, are looking at how Asian pollution is changing weather and climate around the globe.

Web Link

So, coasters, I take it that tou believe that demonization and witch hunts if Directed at those that you disagree with.


I don't think "Coasters" knows are cares about how climate science has been thoroughly corrupted by government-backed alarmists. That makes "Coasters" part of the problem.

Assume all you want, boys.

I just wanted to punctuate this little stompy-foot post of FD's with a reality check.

What I always find puzzling about the claim that climate research in the US is somehow part of a left-wing conspiracy is that during the past 20 or so years the funding source for it - the US congress - has been mostly in the control of the Republicans. In addition, during the main resident in the White House has also been a Republican for 20 of the last 35 years.

Of course, Reagan made it quite popular to blame the government for everything and I suppose in his day it was true that the Democrats were more in control than now. But it seems to me that horse has ridden into the sunset many years ago... maybe time to start accepting what the science is telling us?

Coastie, there's a whole industry paying people to lie for them about climate change.

FD does it here for free.

Gotta hand out to you Coasters. You're the most tactically advanced person here. Just after you were caught lying on another thread you come over to this one and falsely accuse someone else of doing it. A good offense = a good defense kind of thing.

There are campaigns that will pay you good money for your skills.

Web Link

Climate science is in its current poor state because of people like "Coasters" with a nefarious political agenda to pursue.

It is becoming increasingly clear that anthropogenic CO2 releases do not cause climate change, yet the climate alarmists still want to scare folks into believing that climate change can be stopped if big government politicians are allowed to regulate CO2.

According to the folks at Gallup Polls, one group and only one political group in the world...........

Web Link

Happy Earth Day! It's not as bad as the climate catastrophe alarmists need you to believe: Web Link

What's the point of that poll, "Boney Bills?" That Democrats are more easily duped by government scientists?

My guess is that you posted a link to that drivel because you wanted a response... I'll go first:

1) The air IS cleaner. Aggressive government policies to restrict rampant air pollution apparently work! And guess what, during the past 40 years or so plenty of people still became rich making this happen!

2) This article is big on thanking the EPA for taking action, isn't it? But why don't they give credit where credit is due? Do you really think these things simply happened? Additionally, do you think 1993 levels were acceptable?

3) It is only in this country that "green energy has no future". The rest of the world has jumped on renewable energy. For a great example of a heavily industrialized country going "green" take a look at Germany. In the end we'll be the losers because we'll be buying the technology from foreign governments.

4) As has been pointed out before, this is a crock - a combination of cherry picking the data and ignoring all the other things going on around us, from shrinking ice caps to rising sea levels.

5) In my mind, the real question is not as much the reversal of climate change as the significant reduction in the human source of change and, importantly, the understanding and preparation for how our climate will change. For example, will California see a significant reduction in annual precipitation as a result of climate change? If so, what should we be doing now to prepare for that?

>>3) It is only in this country that "green energy has no future". The rest of the world has jumped on renewable energy. For a great example of a heavily industrialized country going "green" take a look at Germany.<<


That is pretty broad and ambiguous.

Are atomic power plants green?

Is hydroelectric power green? Some of our "greenies" don't think so?

And so on.

Web Link

The point is: "green energy" is not dead.

"Coastie" makes the mistake of attributing any climate change to anthropogenic CO2 while arguing that global temperatures continue to rise.

In the last 20 or 30 years humans have added 25% of all the CO2 they've ever added to the atmosphere, yet global temperatures have remained relatively flat for 20 years. Catastrophic climate change alarmists continue to be confounded by that observation as it is vastly different from what they've predicted.

And we still aren't seeing the warming they predicted, even when they herald 2014 as "the hottest year ever recorded." For one, they're using the land-based temperature data sets instead of the more accurate satellite data set. For another, they don't correct that data for the "urban island" effect. And for yet another, they're claiming the Earth is 0.04 degrees C warmer than the previous record year, which is ludicrous. That so-called "warming" is a tiny fraction of the margin of error of the Earth's "temperature."

As for green energy, they clearly mean wind and solar energy industries that can't survive without government subsidies and at best will meet only a very small fraction of our energy needs.

Web Link

To clarify, I'm with "Coastie" when it comes to understanding climate change. Governments must know what will happen to their coastal areas, water supplies and arable lands.

Where I draw the line is the government wasting trillions to stop something that is unstoppable, particularly when that involves declaring a gas essential to life a "pollutant" as a means to justify regulating that "pollution" in a manner that enriches a few at the expense of the many.

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium