SOT: If bulbs are banned, does that mean tubes are next?

[rsm]

I'm a bit jaded FWIW. Which do you think would receive more funding today:

research performed by scientists who think global warming is a fact

or

research performed by scientists who think global warming is a hoax, think global cooling is a fact, or that global warming (and man's contribution to it) is at least not a proven fact?


one could also add funding for researchers who think global warming is due to man's activities vs. those who don't or are not convinced

research funding is big business for universities, government agencies, etc. if your job, income, lifestyle (fame and fortune) depended on obtaining and sustaining funding, there may be many scientists who would be willing to "sell" their objectivity for the right price, perhaps?

there is data - and "enriched" data on both sides of the arguement. No one has shown the "smoking gun" proof one way or the other, AFAIK both global warming and global cooling are theories, no?


show me the money / follow the money. where's it going, who is it coming from; what are the funding sources benefits in providing such funding, i.e., what do they get from it?

 

[Jimmie]

I'm a bit jaded FWIW. Which do you think would receive more funding today:

research performed by scientists who think global warming is a fact

or

research performed by scientists who think global warming is a hoax, think global cooling is a fact, or that global warming (and man's contribution to it) is at least not a proven fact?


one could also add funding for researchers who think global warming is due to man's activities vs. those who don't or are not convinced

research funding is big business for universities, government agencies, etc. if your job, income, lifestyle (fame and fortune) depended on obtaining and sustaining funding, there may be many scientists who would be willing to "sell" their objectivity for the right price, perhaps?

there is data - and "enriched" data on both sides of the arguement. No one has shown the "smoking gun" proof one way or the other, AFAIK both global warming and global cooling are theories, no?


show me the money / follow the money. where's it going, who is it coming from; what are the funding sources benefits in providing such funding, i.e., what do they get from it?

I write environmental grant applications based on the actual effects of global warming, not to disprove it. I know it exists when my river hits 77 degrees F when histicorally it never did before, you see I get a river of belly-up fish from stratification so its kinda hard to miss. I monitor air quality and emissions, I study water column and turbidity, our environment is changing right before our eyes, I don't need to cut and paste it, I have data we collected to prove the effects. I wish I could paint a more rosy picture...

 

[duesentrieb]

No one has shown the "smoking gun" proof one way or the other, AFAIK both global warming and global cooling are theories, no?

Lets assume we were the prime minister of the Netherlands, a country where 25% of its territory is below sea level and protected by levees. And then you see this:

I guess we all would invest loads of money into increasing and improving the levees. I don't think the PM would need any more "smoking guns".

 

[ke2]

The soot also appears to be of some trouble.
I`ve heard Norwegians who`ve visited the ice explain that the ice is a lot darker than it was 15-20 years ago, and also that it has receded. I believe people who visited the ice 20 years ago and last year when they tell that it`s withdrawn a lot in those years. Can we tell if it means anything in the long run? Not isolated.

What I think is this:

If Olaf and Zach could meet each other in 1000 years, I`m sure Olaf would love to tell Zach: "You were right"
I`m equally sure that Zach wouldn`t, if the scenarios were reversed. That`s why there`s nothing wrong in showing a little sobriety in spending of resources etc... Nobody can tell anything for sure, and there seems to be the same amount of "scientist" that do believe, and that doesn`t. Take into consideration that there might be some kind of group pressure when signing the article, that some of them might have ulterior motives etc...

I`d rather spend a little less of the world`s resources, and feel that I make a small difference