On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:43:59 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robert McKay wrote:
I dont doubt that.. the climatologists themselves arent going to
benefit much either way (although Im sure many of them make a modest
livings out of it - and thats not nothing these days). Theyre merely
needed to produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep
churning out talking points to keep the issue alive.
Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does
not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in
love with the subject. You dont do that just to get some meaningless,
dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a
week.
I'm not saying they don't believe in what they're doing.. there must be
lots of legitimate data showing climate change.. the climate does change
after all. The point I was making that is that the climate science is
simply irrelevant to understanding global warming / "the climate change
issue" which is better understood as a political and financial
phenomenon.
I'm already regreting entering the discussion.. so I'll drop it, it
doesn't seem like we'll be reaching any kind of concensus. :)
Rob
