Erica | March 24, 2012 at 5:51 am |
Let’s try this back to front:
The ‘actual question’ you asked?
“how exactly does this vaccuous claim of yours affect the direction government-funded climate science takes ?”
That’s an actual question?
Sounds like a speech to me.
For context, let’s look at where you first asked me it. How strange. I can’t find the word “direction” anywhere in the thread other than used by you claiming to have asked it (but not actually having asked it previously), other than by me in another contect unrelated to you.
Maybe you used a different word when you ‘actually’ asked the question. So let’s look for ‘government’. 46 matches on the page — it seems everyone talks about government, and no one does anything about it — and not one of them in the form of a question (other than begging the question) by you.
Did you not just six times lie about asking a question that simply never happened, Erica? Because Des said it did? Is this an argument from Des’ authority, or demanding impossible perfection of telepathically guessing what question you thought you meant? How am I obligated to answer a nonsuch?
Even so, let’s continue backwards through your screed.
When I said judges, I meant actual, sitting judges. Many of them. In several countries. The issue has been litigated, and at high levels, both in administrative and civil complaint, as well as in criminal investigation. They’ve absolutely supported Mann some eight times. They’ve largely supported Gore at least twice. They’ve ruled in favor of the EPA repeatedly.
Have courts and inquiries not at the same time found the fossil industry to have had shoddy, corrupt and false practices? Do you forget the Gulf of Mexico? Do you really deny that biofuels are a scam?
The finding of facts of a court, any court, mean nothing to a scientist of course, other than how many days he’ll spend in the vatican dungeon for practicing science.. but it does mean you haven’t a leg to stand on when you say “Whatever subsidies there are for petroleum etc have nothing to do with climate science, or science fraud.”
But you said you asked, “how exactly does this vaccuous claim of yours affect the direction government-funded climate science takes ?”
How big a pot of money are you calling climate science? Every penny that goes to every university that has an Earth Sciences department? Every cent spent on weather research or forecasting? As some in the military call climate questions defense issues, all military spending? I need a more explicit and precise definition of what in the past has always turned out to be a wildly bloated kitchen-sink paranoid conspiracy category of unrelated dollars, and so such claims never get taken seriously. Outside the nut house, I mean. Come back when you have a way to determine what is and isn’t in the category. Either category, really – spending or nut house.
You want to know what percentage of R&D tagged as ‘climate science’ goes to the fossil industry? Good luck with that. I suggest Google “Lamar Alexander subsidy” as a starting point, as he’s one of the people who assumed the government spent a whole lot on climate science and wanted to know where the money went. The reports he commissioned are eye-openers.
Your actual words were “Whatever subsidies there are for petroleum etc have nothing to do with climate science, or science fraud.” and not, “how exactly does this affect the direction government-funded climate science takes ?”
You’re the one making the absurd claims. Have I asked you to support them with fact? Of course not. I know there are no facts that support you. Your claims are patently false. QED.
