If you think the government likes providing you with facts...
...think again. They only want to promote their own agenda:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked
I haven't looked into his reports or anything, but from the sound of it he was trying to provide tested evidence that included how LSD and Ecstasy are safer than alcohol. If I had to guess, it's when they are used in controlled fashions (however psychologically, many people end up needing stronger and stronger fixes. Same can be said for alcohol I suppose).
Anyways, my point is, this sort of backs up my evidence about the government wanting to have scientists manipulate results to suit what is on their agenda. This is distorting factual evidence, plain and simple. This is why I don't think it's too infeasible for climatologists that are working directly under government agencies to create models that fit current data that also benefit the government by creating another "problem." I'm not saying the problem *does not exist,* moreso that it seems there isn't enough evidence (or they leave out studies that have counter evidence; this includes both sides of the antropological global warming debate) yet they all create models that get the end result the government wants and claim it is evidence.
Bonus: May have been worth firing a guy named David Nutt just for the "Nutt sacked" title.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked
I haven't looked into his reports or anything, but from the sound of it he was trying to provide tested evidence that included how LSD and Ecstasy are safer than alcohol. If I had to guess, it's when they are used in controlled fashions (however psychologically, many people end up needing stronger and stronger fixes. Same can be said for alcohol I suppose).
Anyways, my point is, this sort of backs up my evidence about the government wanting to have scientists manipulate results to suit what is on their agenda. This is distorting factual evidence, plain and simple. This is why I don't think it's too infeasible for climatologists that are working directly under government agencies to create models that fit current data that also benefit the government by creating another "problem." I'm not saying the problem *does not exist,* moreso that it seems there isn't enough evidence (or they leave out studies that have counter evidence; this includes both sides of the antropological global warming debate) yet they all create models that get the end result the government wants and claim it is evidence.
Bonus: May have been worth firing a guy named David Nutt just for the "Nutt sacked" title.