milehigh_7
Mister 500,000
LOL! Well now it is clear that you are unable to correct me, is it possible you were speaking out of your backside? So I checked out your sources as I said I would do and it did not take long to see how you either A) misunderstood what I said or B) don't understand the concepts involved.
I will start out by saying that it is clear and obvious that humanity has a negative impact on nature everywhere we have touched it. It is also obvious that there are times when this damage is permanent. Also, everyone knows about greenhouse gasses and their impact on planetary atmospheres. None of these things are debatable and none of these things were ever my point. I think it's adorable that you assume to know my educational experience and "world view." Perhaps Dion Warwick can offer you a job at her psychic network.
First to the sources, typically in graduate work, sources over 10 years old are not allowed. However, I suppose as Dr. Yung calls himself a pioneer in his bio we can accept 41-year-old work. Secondly, your 97% all scientists claim, you will need to try to follow this carefully as you and I said different things and you again made an assumption that you were correct. I said:
"First, it is physically impossible for you to make a claim about what 97% of scientists believe ... How would you verify this claim? Has there been some poll of every living scientist in every field? What exactly qualifies someone as a "scientist" by your definition anyhow?"
You replied with a source that seems to back you up at first glance but what that source quantifies is the percentage of "peer reviewed" publications by scientists in that field. I would completely believe this number even without reading a study that says so. I will get to my reasons for that in a second.
Back to your initial claim, "...97% of the world's scientists..." It was this number I was refuting and it was not addressed by your source. So the evidence you offer is a 41-year-old document that merely states that greenhouse gasses have an impact on planetary atmospheric temperature which is really invalid as it is a given. Next, you offer a study that does indeed say 97% however it was not the population I asked about and not the one you claimed to speak for. Oh and some magazines were thrown in for good measure. I can't say that I am impressed by one who would suppose to pontificate about how educated they are and how ignorant I am.
Now to why I would believe the "97%" number that you threw out there as your trump card, invalid though your point may be. When someone would like to publish a study the very first thing they need is to be sponsored. If the paper's topic is not approved, the study does not go forward, let alone get published. (I'm sure you know all this but I'll say it anyhow...) In spite of Gustavo's claims to the contrary (and maybe Universities work differently in Europe who knows...) universities require funding to operate. They will do studies for things that produce funding sources and definitely not for things that anger funding sources. Currently, there are few businesses that are more lucrative than "green energy" (maybe security but that's another topic). Companies stand to make hundreds of billions selling the need for this using the fake crisis that if we don't all "go green" we will die.
Therefore the grants are written, fellowships are created, research facilities are built and all we need to do is have papers that say what we need to say.
A quick anecdote from my first degree. I wanted to publish a study regarding the potential effects of a particular drug that was being prescribed for epilepsy on the part of the brain that controls mood disorders. This drug was fairly new at the time and I really thought this particular study had merit. I went to the department chair because as I stated, a sponsor is required, he told me it was stupid and would not allow me to continue. That drug has been used for years as a mood stabilizer. That was my first experience with the truth of, you only get to publish what the Sr. people want you to publish.
I did finish my double BS in Psychology/Biology then a BS in Computer Science I used that to work for Visa on the database that authorizes 25% of the credit card transactions in the world. Then I moved on to become a software engineer writing game code and creating math algorithms and such for slot machines no big deal there. During that time I got my first Masters in Theology from Fuller which is considered by all to be one of the top academic universities in the world in any field. (I will get my second graduate degree this fall in Special Education, as Gustavo so delicately put it I write like I'm teaching children) While doing this my wife and I started an international non-profit to aid in researching sarcoma which is a particularly nasty type of cancer.
One thing I discovered was that sarcoma, unlike other types of cancer receives no funding for research. Literally, less than 1/10 of 1% of cancer funding goes to this killer. Mind you, 30% of children's cancer deaths are from Sarcoma. So we actually funded our own study into the genetics of Sarcoma through the Keck research hospital at USC Children's. Do you know why sarcoma does not get funded and the others do? It's because nobody lives. There is a less than 20% survival rate with sarcoma. Guess what the pharmaceutical companies need to make the most money off a cancer patient? They need to at least string your death out for awhile while they sell you millions of dollars worth of drugs.
Sarcoma patients don't last that long normally and nothing helps. So, no cash for the studies. See how this works??? I'm not as stupid as you think. I have seen the dirt of research from the inside. You keep thinking it's some moral high ground if you wish. The truth is the lefties are puppets for people like George Soros that are getting filthy rich off of your fear.
!
