Yada Yada Yada Blah Blah Blah

I am sure if you are anti AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or man made global warming you subscribe to the theory that the reason why so many scientists agree that global warming is man made is because that’s where the money is.

Research done suggests that 97% of scientists support man made global warming.

Ok lets take a look at this logic.

If proponents of this theory are to be believed it means that a significant proportion of that 97% are more interested in money than in scientific truth.

The theory goes like this. To get grant money a scientist must apply. An applicant that supports AGW is more likely to get grant money therefore most climate scientists submit papers supporting AGW.

In short a very large percentage of climate scientists are dishonest. Isn’t that what  Global Warming Deniers believe?

So if we assume that a very large percentage of climate scientists are dishonest and they are in fact only following grant money (I used to believe this until common sense got in the way). Then we must believe they are intrinsically dishonest.

BUT if they are intrinsically dishonest why do 97% support AGW surely they would go wherever the money leads. Governments aren’t the only source of grant money. Large corporations provide grant money, universities provide grant money interested groups provide grant money. There are dozens of different sources of grant money for a scientist whether they are climate scientists or not.

Many of those organisations on the surface don’t believe in AGW. They have vested interests in AGW being wrong. Oil Companies. Insurance Companies. Political Parties etc etc.

Lets assume that say 60% of climate scientists are dishonest and only follow the money. So for every 100 climate scientists who agree with AGW 60 are dishonest and only do it for the money (the other 40% are just easily led).

This means that of the 3% who are against AGW 1 is easily led the other 2 out of the 100 are dishonest.

But if 60 out of 100 are just plain dishonest, Why do most of them side with AGW when there is plenty of money available to anyone with a science degree who is willing to denounce AGW.

Why? because the very clear majority of climate scientists are in fact honest and therefore believe that AGW is real.

I used 60%. You can use whatever percentage you think makes sense. The answer will always come out the same.

The claim makes no logical sense whatsoever.

http://aaronmurakami.com/blog/2011/02/12/magnetic-fuel-saver-debunking-mainstream-pseudoscience/#comment-207

To the author of the above rubbish…

Your an idiot and the only possible purpose of this article is to sucker people into buying junk.

Normal ceramic magnets do not contain anywhere near sufficient energy to be able to pull hydrocarbons apart. to do so even a little bit requires a lot of energy. which is where the energy comes from to propel the car. also pulling the molecules apart even a little bit or a lot means nothing. Its a chemical reaction increasing the surface area of individual molecules will do little if anything.

Ok you want proof. Don’t be a moron do some empirical testing. Get some fuel the best quality you can, place it into a test tube (please observer safety precautions) support it in a stable manner. Very Very carefully mark the level of the fuel. Now place the strongest magnets you can in whatever configuration you think works. Now measure the level of the fuel again. Provided the temperature hasn’t changed (fuel readily expands with temperature) or none has evaporated off. you will notice no difference. Nada, Zilch. yet if the molecules were pulling apart then you must see an increase in the level of fuel because it would take more volume wouldn’t it?

Yes it’s true every material has magnetic properties.. plastic does, cows hide does even little green frogs do. Now if the hydrocarbons had any magnetic properties above that which all non ferrous materials have your should also see the fuel react to the presence of the magnetic field, perhaps creep up the side of the test tube. don’t you think?