MennoNet.com

Robert wrote:Well, we saw 8 years of an administration that was pushing this in one direction. We will see at least 4 years of an administration that will push in an opposite direction.

I'm sure that's true. After all, guess who is the head of the EPA?

ExxonMobil, which spent $29 million lobbying and produces an estimated 306 Million tons of GHG emissions.

Yep, Tillerson, who was the CEO of one of the biggest polluters and biggest lobbyists on this issue, is now head of the EPA. We will certainly see things change.

MaxPC wrote:I think it's interesting that it was the Obama administration that ordered the cooking of the NOAA books for the political conference.

Just think of all those BTUs from the cooking process contributing to global warming. If the administration was serious about preventing climate change, they would have used sous-vide.

Bootstrap wrote:I think it's fascinating that you take the word of a blogger who quotes the Daily Mail, without examining his claims to see if they are true or not. The Daily Mail? Seriously? A gossipy tabloid?

For those not familiar with the British press, this quote may be useful in classifying the various publications:

Jim Hacker wrote:The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

ohio jones wrote: If the administration was serious about preventing climate change, they would have used sous-vide.

Some people have already accused them of committing sous-vide, and even worse.

Bootstrap wrote: Yep, Tillerson, who was the CEO of one of the biggest polluters and biggest lobbyists on this issue, is now head of the EPA. We will certainly see things change.

I'm not sure if you are implying something here but Tillerson is the new Secretary of State, not EPA.

GaryK wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:Yep, Tillerson, who was the CEO of one of the biggest polluters and biggest lobbyists on this issue, is now head of the EPA. We will certainly see things change.

I'm not sure if you are implying something here but Tillerson is the new Secretary of State, not EPA.

Ouch! My synapses were flapping in the breeze when I posted that. Oops!

Thanks for the correction!

ohio jones wrote:

MaxPC wrote:I think it's interesting that it was the Obama administration that ordered the cooking of the NOAA books for the political conference.

Just think of all those BTUs from the cooking process contributing to global warming. If the administration was serious about preventing climate change, they would have used sous-vide.

For those not familiar with the British press, this quote may be useful in classifying the various publications:

Jim Hacker wrote:The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Yep.
The whisleblower's story has made headlines in quite a few sources. It emphasizes the fact that when governments get involved in the sciences, politics will always interfere with authentic science results. Inconvenient data is submerged and paid spokespersons create spin to keep it hidden. I've watched it for 60 years in the sciences.

All administrations of all governments have done it. The Obama administration is the most recent perpetrator of these tactics. Those who voted for him won't like hearing that but it's a continuation of a political agenda of his party. I have personally found that patience and time reveals the truth as the ruling government fades into history.

What can we do as Christians? Keep our faith and trust in God who knows what's going on and has the power to perfect all creation.

MaxPC wrote:The whisleblower's story has made headlines in quite a few sources.

Like The Daily Mail and a whole lot of political publications. Also in some scientific journals, which seem to side with the scientists who produced that paper. I pointed to some of that earlier.

Did you notice that the "whistleblower" directly contradicts what you claim he said about tampering? And there are other things he did say that other scientists are saying are not true.

MaxPC wrote:It emphasizes the fact that when governments get involved in the sciences, politics will always interfere with authentic science results. Inconvenient data is submerged and paid spokespersons create spin to keep it hidden. I've watched it for 60 years in the sciences.

If government didn't fund science - using procedures that both political parties can accept to protect from political bias - then global warming research would be funded primarily by the same industries and lobbyists who are producing all the propaganda we see. There's probably no perfect way to fund science, and no perfect objectivity, but I doubt that eliminating government funding would help make research more objective.

Who do you think should provide the funding? Do you not believe that peer review and the scientific process followed in scientific communities eventually brings out the truth?

Bootstrap wrote:Do you not believe that peer review and the scientific process followed in scientific communities eventually brings out the truth?

I think it's about as good as we are likely to get overall. However, I happen to believe that the peer review and scientific process has done a woefully poor job of bringing out the truth about the origin and ancient history of the earth. I don't think the scientific method is especially well suited to discovering ancient history.

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but it can also have the effect of being peer pressure which can suppress science that challenges the dominant scientific view. I do think that the scientific community is better suited to the task of analyzing climate change than are most news reporters.

ken_sylvania wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:Do you not believe that peer review and the scientific process followed in scientific communities eventually brings out the truth?

I think it's about as good as we are likely to get overall. However, I happen to believe that the peer review and scientific process has done a woefully poor job of bringing out the truth about the origin and ancient history of the earth. I don't think the scientific method is especially well suited to discovering ancient history.

Partly because it's hard to do experiments in which we create the earth, then create life on it.