Get used to it.

The government funds a substantial portion of scientific research.

You do not have to be interested in politics, but politics pays for many a scientist's paycheck, so a scientist should at least keep an eye on it.

 

A scientist who trims his research for politics is unworthy of respect.

 

Whatever.

Now pester someone else.

 

That wasn't being suggested, stated, nor implied.

The point was, respect where you paycheck comes from ( for those whose paycheck is via government grants ), ie., don't be blind to it.

 

Being blind to it is essential.

 

One would think so but.........

Exxon and Friends Still Funding Climate Denial and Obstruction Through IPAA, FTI, Energy in Depth
https://climateinvestigations.org/e...obstruction-through-ipaa-fti-energy-in-depth/

 

Indeed. The alarmists seek to stifle debate and dissent. From your link:
“Our definition of denial is anyone who is obstructing, delaying or trying to derail policy steps that are in line with the scientific consensus that says we need to take rapid steps to decarbonize the economy.”

 

Putting aside your lack of evidence for that assertion, there is no lack of money available from legacy energy to pay for those willing to prostitute themselves in the service of the Koch's of the world.

Internal documents and conversations from the fracking lobby, revealed this week in HuffPost, shine new light on a ten year old public relations campaign front group called Energy In Depth. Documents show this front group is designed explicitly to exist without the fingerprints of its fossil fuel funders, giving the oil industry the “ability to say, do and write things that individual company employees cannot and should not.”

This reporting reveals how climate denial remains a key oil industry strategy in spite of their efforts to clean up their image. These shrouded attacks on climate science and solutions, attacks on lawmakers, scientists, lawyers and advocates stand in stark contrast to the seemingly desperate efforts of Exxon and their brethren to retain ‘social license’, gain credibility on climate change and distance themselves from their legacy of climate science denial.

 

Not just stifle, but it seems they want to criminally prosecute.

 

Well, they are knowingly putting lives at risk for the sake of profit so...........................

 

..... knowingly by the clouds.....

 

Sorry, but that is hysteria worthy of the Salem witch trials. Unfortunately for you, neither you nor HuffPost have any actual evidence of any skullduggery.
And for the record, the two scientists who pose the greatest threat to AGW orthodoxy, Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, have no commercial ties at all.

 

As if getting paid for studying and espousing your beliefs, like all the warmist scientists do, is some kind of immorality.

 

And again, nothing has increased except the hype.
Science Demonstrates Claims of Increasing Hurricane Activity Due to ‘Climate Change’ Are Simply False
HURRICANES JULY 29, 2021

". . . The Phys.org release about the study, titled “Old-school data suggests hurricanes in the Atlantic are not more frequent than in the past,” explains that an international team of researchers based at a number of different universities and research institutes in the United States compared historical data from as far back as 1851 to recent satellite data. The satellite data indicate the number of hurricanes has been increasing in the Atlantic Ocean in recent years. The Nature Communication study shows the reported hurricane increase is not related to global warming but is due instead to historical undercounting of hurricanes and natural weather patterns. . . . "

 

As a chemist - I understand what CO2 does = lowers the PH .. which dissolves calcium carbonate. While an issue - this is not one of the bigger threats w/r to Ocean Pollution - being part of a bigger feedback loop that you are referring to.

The claim that it aids the coral is unsupported - and from what I have read - not true.

 

Thanks for the clarification, and for agreeing with my point that the greenhouse gas CO2 has very little to do with oceanic pollution.

 

You are welcome - however you claimed CO2 was not a pollutant -- which is not true .. just not one of biggest ones.

What you missed was that CO2 is related to Ocean Pollution in that the root cause CO2 increase is industrialization of non industrialized populations which is the root cause of Ocean Pollution.

 

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's what we exhale and plants breathe.

 

Just because we breath out CO2 - does not mean it is not a pollutant. "Full Stop" Anaerobic Bacteria breath out H2S - the earths atmosphere was "H2S" roughly 700 million years ago.. Should we not do anything to stop the transition back to this equilibrium - rather than the one where O2 dominates .. because "its not a pollutant" ?

 

Indeed .. hand in hand with the Biden Administration and the Blue Environmental Bandwagon.

 

Sure it means that CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's what we exhaled long before SUV's came on the scene. Take your fallacies elsewhere, lol.

 

Go learn what a fallacy is - and stop pretending you know what a pollutant is.

 

Nations have delayed curbing their fossil-fuel emissions for so long that they can no longer stop global warming from intensifying over the next 30 years, though there is still a short window to prevent the most harrowing future, a major new United Nations scientific report has concluded.

Humans have already heated the planet by roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century, largely by burning coal, oil and gas for energy. And the consequences can be felt across the globe: This summer alone, blistering heat waves have killed hundreds of people in the United States and Canada, floods have devastated Germany and China, and wildfires have raged out of control in Siberia, Turkey and Greece.

But that’s only the beginning, according to the report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations. Even if nations started sharply cutting emissions today, total global warming is likely to rise around 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next two decades, a hotter future that is now essentially locked in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/...5763&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

 

"Climate change" is best understood as an accountability avoidance strategy for incompetent governments.
Europe’s ‘Unprecedented Manmade Floods’
Charles Rotter

"Deadly floods in Germany and Belgium have put climate change back in the news in time for the COP-26 climate gabfest in Glasgow. Not surprisingly, government officials again blamed fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and manmade climate change for the calamities, to deflect attention from their official incompetence – as they did with SuperStorm Sandy and recurrent wildfires.

They’re blaming the very fossil fuels that power Europe’s economy; build, heat and electrify homes; and power the boats, ambulances and other equipment that were used to rescue people, recover bodies, and nurse survivors back to health. . . . "

 

Burn unicorn farts for energy instead. I hear they burn completely clean and can even warm leftists hearts when they're cold.