pretty sure he has 2 degrees in chemistry which makes him a more reliable source than nu or fab...that and he has a direct line to the big guy...he just asked...
According to Snopes.com, he graduated as a chemical technician from a tech school and it is unclear if he has any higher education in chemistry. So a more reliable source is a bit of a stretch.
My biggest gripe with "global warming" is that people like you tend to assume that it is 100% man made, which is a laughable theory. The Earth's climate is cyclical, or at least always changing up and down significantly. This has been proven time and again through periods of ice age and time where the Earth was actually hotter than it is now. 20 years of global warming specific data vs eons of geological data and you can see that the sample size is quite small.
so when a massive meteorite smacks into the planet, putting up debris that blocks the sun and essentially put the planet into a nuclear winter, is that a part of the planet's natural cycle? all of the 5 major ice ages happened millions of years ago and were most likely caused by extinction level events blocking the sun (meteorites, super volcanoes, and large changes in orbit)...
Not to debate any other part of this, but scientists who work off grant money absolutely do behave like MBAs. Especially if they want to continue receiving that grant money.
Most scientists I know have lost their funding because their results aren't novel or interesting enough to garner new grant money. They do good work but so do 50 other people, and there's only enough money for 5 of them. We don't want to go down with the ship, but we often do.
But he's not a scientist, he's a chemistry technician and the Pope. So what are you talking about?
Yeaaaaaah no. Scientists go where the money is and for the last 20 years that money has been in climate change. "This study brought to you by Ford" or "This study brought to you by SolarCity" It's all horseshit. Statistics is horseshit. You can prove any point you want with statistics.
Wasn't debating that but, beginning in the 60s and 70s, there was a scientific consensus that diet was the most significant cause of cholesterol in the bloodstream and that dietary fat was the cause of cardiovascular disease. We created a whole low fat industry, ingrained that dietary fat and cholesterol were bad into the public psyche, and to this day have governmental policy in place to support it. We now know that the science there was flawed and, worse, our attempts to fix the problem have been worse than had we done nothing at all. So, yeah, community-wide consensus can be wrong and instituting policy around it can be harmful.
First, way to miss the point.
I do love it when people make fun of business schools, I would love to see you pass the CPA Exam.
Wow, the climate of the planet reduced to one gas that, while we understand gets hot when stimulated, we don't know how much of an effect our production of it has on temperature. I guess it is easy to understand when you break it down to one simple variable. Genius!
