.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:454432"]Man_of_the_Century said:[QUOTE]ShadowSD said:[QUOTE]I'm just saying that those motivations will never reach the threshold of greed's influence, because history has taught us again and again that this is the nature of the human condition. [/QUOTE] I think this is where we differ, I see those motivations go hand and hand with greed. Whether you are greedy for more money or more fame, its still greed.[/QUOTE] I agree, but a scientist is more likely to become famous [b]arguing[/b] global warming and it's man-made causes because that is the controversial viewpoint. Scientists who take the anti-industry view are a dime a dozen. Man_of_the_Century said:[QUOTE]Remember, no scientist (except for a few idiots) says there is no global warming. The cause is the thing in question. I will not doubt that there are scientists that work for an oil company that says global warming is not caused by humans, and thier opinion is swayed by thier employers. But that still works for the other side. There are scientists that work for enviormental groups that can have thier opinion swayed as well.[/QUOTE] But the environmental groups are a bunch of paupers compared to the energy industry, yet the way you're presenting this is as an even match. It's not - in terms of money, industry has a huge edge. If the facts were on their side, they would have won easily long ago, yet they have many more detractors in the scientific community than supporters in the global warming debate. No reasonably believable degree of scientific corruption can explain it, the money gap here is just too big. It would require a ridiculously large Lex Luther type conspiracy. So to recap, money is on industry's side, because they have exponentially more than environmental groups. Fame is on their side, too, because the cable news media is more interesting in bringing on the controversial scientist; meanwhile, so many scientists believe in the man-made causes of global warming that sticking to that viewpoint will gain them no fame at all. So the industry side is full of alterior motives, and there is not one credible alterior motive for the other side. It just doesn't seem to be the evenly matched debate that you suggest. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][