Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
The only thing constant is that career scientists get to make a name for themselves, agenda-pushers have something to base their claims on, and newspaper companies get to sell more newspapers.
We don't have the technology to accurately predict the future. Heck, the past has already happened and won't change, but the way we interpret new discoveries changes it changes all the time. If we keep discovering new things about the past, how is it possible that we've already discovered everything about the future?
Yea, there's so much money in climate science, as opposed to say, energy extraction.
Interestingly enough, nuclear power is much more efficient, cheaper, and safer than fossil fuel based power, yet the United States has not built any new nuclear power plants in about 40 years because of environmental regulations. If we built newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants, we would be able to retire the older, not-as-safe, less-efficient nuclear power plants - and the price of electricity would go down making it more affordable to use electric cars all while using less fossil fuels!
(Long-term storage of spent nuclear material is also incredibly safe. There are a bunch of lies floating around that it's not because they suit the other side's story. Also, economics will will encourage the development of technology to find usage for the material rather than keeping it in storage for the next X number of years.)
I'm all for having a cleaner, safer environment. But until people get over their "not in my backyard" emotions, and get rid of harmful environmental regulations, then we are forced to use the technology that those people dislike.
Why am I familiar with all of this? I'm a merchant mariner. A lot of us work in the energy sector. I'd rather lose those jobs (higher competition for my job and less money) due to self-dependance on nuclear energy while having a cleaner, safer environment.
Have you seen the YouTube videos of tests where they crash jets into walls used in nuclear facilities or trains into nuclear containers? The United States is pretty large, we can build those nuclear power plants in places were they will be safe from the environment (unlike Japan which doesn't have much space to choose from).
I don't know if climate change is true or not, but if these leaked emails show anything there is a political agenda behind it and data was concealed and cherry picked to support climate change. Apparently they did not even follow the scientific method? If these emails are true and not fake of course.
But why would they fake data? To manipulate the price of fossil fuels and sell carbon credits? How come more money is spent on climate change studying instead of finding alternatives to fossil fuels? Nobody knows.
The news media is manipulated one way or another, to get ratings and page hits to sell more advertising. I fear that science has become this way as well. People will believe any report as long as it is stamped with 'peer reviewed' on it.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/abstrac...
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26628/...
Oh dear, quite a bit of bias there. Ah well find some peers who will review your papers and confirm them so you can continue to get grants and funding. If anyone asks about bias, keep your mouth shut, it was a double blind study done by a neutral third party even if it was biased in some way. Any peer reviews that find problems or find your paper is wrong, conceal such information and claim it does not exist.
After all what is the worst that can happen?
They really, really don't. You never see more than a sentence or two out of context in what you would call "the news media", because as you say it is manipulated to provide the impression of a scandal, which sells much better than "climate scientists proven honest".
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." That there's barely anything even out of context that's quot-ably dishonest in 5000 emails is if anything a testament to their integrity, given that the whole premise is that they thought they were "talking freely".