Quote:
Originally Posted by MSS1LE
Actually scientists apply to the government for grants. If the government likes what the scientist is doing they approve the grant and fund the research. If the government doesn't like what the scientist is doing they don't fund the grant. Guess which grants don't get funded? I'll give you a hint...those that conclude there is no such thing as human caused global warming/climate change aren't really popular right now.
BTW, if CO2 is a pollutant which causes global warming, why did the term get changed to climate change? Another hint, if it's global warming, then prolonged cooling periods make the theory look bad. If it's called climate change, well heck, the weather is always changing. Unseasonably hot, climate change. Unseasonably cold, climate change. The only result that doesn't support climate change is if the weather is always the same, which is never going to happen.
So climate change is really just heads I win tails you lose repackaged.
|
Not really, but only if you insist on spinning it that way to create a biased narrative. All kinds of research gets funded from both private and public sources. One of the bigger sources of private research around "climate change" has been oil companies. Guess what kind of data and studies they're more likely to fund? But that's still ignorant of what most studies find regarding climate change, and that's the idea that humans can help influence climate. It would be a waste of money to try to keep proving something that isn't true.
Climate change is a term that has superseded "global warming" because Bob in Minnesota insists it's been a heckuva cold winter in Mahtomedi and therefore "Global Warming" ain't real. "Climate change" better reflects the intensifying of both heat and cold climates where they were less likely to exist before.
But again, speed governance as proposed legislation....to climate change. You'd think if folks wanted to talk politics they might head to a place like reddit instead.