Part of the issue is that the major grant money and accolades really only are being offered to those who support the man driven global warming concept. The only ones even trying to offer opposing research are typically funded by interest groups that are biased enough that the general populous simply dismisses the research as fraudulent, while accepting research that is absolutely wrong and intentionally biased to meet a predetermined result.
Let me be honest, this global warming agenda keeps me in a job, but if they regulate CO2 they will basically destroy our industrial infrastructure possibly beyond repair, and if they try large capacity CO2 capture, which doesn't work to begin with, are going to risk causing a disaster of epic proportions in terms of human life loss if the CO2 were to resurface on a massive scale in a localized area.
Look, the acid rain program and smog programs were wonderful. they cleaned up localized pollution and really fixed a real problem... now they are regulating things in concentrations so minute that they cant even be measured correctly at times. They use scare tactics talking about Mercury and Arsenic, but fail to mention equipment with the latest and greatest pollution controls the emissions of most pollutants are virtually non existent. I laugh as I see commercials with scrubbed stacks spewing white smoke that is really just all moisture and talking about how bad these stacks are. They even put cooling towers in one of them... all that is coming out of those, save for one stack in Germany and another in West Virginia, are basically clouds...
Also, if I were to use some of the bias correction methods that are done in most of these temperature and pollutant studies that the current global warming models are built on , Id be in jail for falsifying data. You can't apply correction factors subjectively, you cant cherry pick data for inclusion and you certainly cannot discard test data unreported simply because it doesn't fit your expected results. Some of the primary studies that are still used as the foundation for many subsequent studies and findings have been admittedly falsified. That is dangerous territory...
Let me be honest, this global warming agenda keeps me in a job, but if they regulate CO2 they will basically destroy our industrial infrastructure possibly beyond repair, and if they try large capacity CO2 capture, which doesn't work to begin with, are going to risk causing a disaster of epic proportions in terms of human life loss if the CO2 were to resurface on a massive scale in a localized area.
Look, the acid rain program and smog programs were wonderful. they cleaned up localized pollution and really fixed a real problem... now they are regulating things in concentrations so minute that they cant even be measured correctly at times. They use scare tactics talking about Mercury and Arsenic, but fail to mention equipment with the latest and greatest pollution controls the emissions of most pollutants are virtually non existent. I laugh as I see commercials with scrubbed stacks spewing white smoke that is really just all moisture and talking about how bad these stacks are. They even put cooling towers in one of them... all that is coming out of those, save for one stack in Germany and another in West Virginia, are basically clouds...
Also, if I were to use some of the bias correction methods that are done in most of these temperature and pollutant studies that the current global warming models are built on , Id be in jail for falsifying data. You can't apply correction factors subjectively, you cant cherry pick data for inclusion and you certainly cannot discard test data unreported simply because it doesn't fit your expected results. Some of the primary studies that are still used as the foundation for many subsequent studies and findings have been admittedly falsified. That is dangerous territory...
