# What passes for Republican Science



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week

 In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers. 

1. Harassment is routine
Climate-change deniers often threaten scientists in attempts to distract them from their research &#8212; and the harassment goes beyond nasty emails. One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

2. Political associations don't matter
For Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist, political conservative, and evangelical Christian, her work can be as thankless as it is taxing &#8212; even from her own party. In 2007, Rush Limbaugh discovered her contributions to a book co-authored by Newt Gingrich and ridiculed her as a "climate babe." Following the backlash, Gingrich dropped her chapter on global warming entirely.

3. Research is often stifled by legal action 
"Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks," says Clynes. Climate change skeptics regularly file lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests to disrupt ongoing research. "In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding,

4. Efforts to ruffle scientists are increasingly sophisticated
It's not "a bunch of crazy people" fighting against us, says Mann. "These efforts to discredit science are well-organized." "There's really only about 25 of us doing this," says Steve Milloy, a Fox News commentator and self-described "denier." He calls the core group of skeptics "a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army." The deniers often target scientists who speak up publicly, offering bounties to anyone willing to make their lives difficult. In one instance, Milloy offered $500 for anyone 

5. Anti-climate change advocacy is well-funded
Following the Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute put together a $5.9 million task force (which included Milloy) charged with discrediting climate change science to "quash growing public support of curbing emissions."


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

This sort of shit - your shit and the piece's - is exactly what soils science.

Fucking morons ruining it...incessantly.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> This sort of shit - your shit and the piece's - is exactly what soils science.
> 
> Fucking morons ruining it...incessantly.



It is what passes for science within the Grand Old Party

Republicans can't counter with data of their own and with 92% of scientists agreeing with global warming they have to do something. So they fall back on their usual tactic of harrassment, threats and intimidation to get their way


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger, what isnt climate change? We all know it commies that want to guilt us into accepting our place as plebes for the "elite".

If this stuff WAS true, dont you think the climate change people would alter their lifestyle, IF they believed this crap?


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Republicans can't counter with data of their own and with 92% of scientists agreeing with global warming they have to do something. So they fall back on their usual tactic of harrassment, threats and intimidation to get their way



And lies...don't forget the lies.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

There&#8217;s no police tape across Michael Mann&#8217;s office doorway this morning. &#8220;Always a good start,&#8221; he says, juggling a cup of coffee as he slides his key into the lock.

Mann, a paleoclimatologist, wears a sport coat over a turtleneck. As he takes a seat at his desk, a narrow sunbeam angles through the window, spotlighting a jumble of books, journals and correspondence. Behind him, a framed picture of his six-year-old daughter rests near a certificate for the Nobel Peace Prize he shared in 2007. Propped into a corner is a hockey stick, a post-lecture gift from Middlebury College, which Mann jokingly says he keeps &#8220;for self-defense.&#8221;

Mann directs Penn State University&#8217;s Earth System Science Center. Several months ago, he arrived at his office with an armload of mail. Sitting at his desk, he tore open a hand-addressed envelope and began to pull out a letter. He watched as a small mass of white powder cascaded out of the folds and onto his fingers. Mann jerked backward, letting the letter drop and holding his breath as a tiny plume of particles wafted up, sparkling in the sunlight. He rose quickly and left the office, pulling the door shut behind him. &#8220;I went down to the restroom and washed my hands,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Then I called the police.&#8221;


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

*So real scientists doing research soil science, but the people that harrass them are your heros?*

The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

Mann directs Penn State University&#8217;s Earth System Science Center. Several months ago, he arrived at his office with an armload of mail. Sitting at his desk, he tore open a hand-addressed envelope and began to pull out a letter. He watched as a small mass of white powder cascaded out of the folds and onto his fingers. Mann jerked backward, letting the letter drop and holding his breath as a tiny plume of particles wafted up, sparkling in the sunlight. He rose quickly and left the office, pulling the door shut behind him. &#8220;I went down to the restroom and washed my hands,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Then I called the police.&#8221;

For someone describing an anthrax scare, Mann is surprisingly nonchalant. &#8220;I guess,&#8221; he says, &#8220;it&#8217;s so much a part of my life that I don&#8217;t even realize how weird it is.&#8221;

&#8220;Weird&#8221; is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists&#8217; children. 
Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks. Organizations routinely file nuisance lawsuits and onerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to disrupt the work of climate scientists. In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding&#8212;essentially demanding that they reproduce and defend their entire life&#8217;s work. In a move that hearkened back to darker times, Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate&#8217;s Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report in 2010 that named 17 prominent climate scientists, including Mann, who, he argued, may have engaged in &#8220;potentially criminal behavior.&#8221; Inhofe outlined three laws and four regulations that he said the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act&#8212;which, the report noted, could be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> rightwinger, what isnt climate change? We all know it commies that want to guilt us into accepting our place as plebes for the "elite".
> 
> If this stuff WAS true, dont you think the climate change people would alter their lifestyle, IF they believed this crap?



What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

The GOP has made it their goal to disrupt real science. To deny what is actually happening in the world as we post.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This sort of shit - your shit and the piece's - is exactly what soils science.
> ...


Science is not done by consensus.

Shitbags like you soil it.  Let science do what it does best - science.

Hacks like you getting involve simply ruin it.  YOU and your likes are enemies of science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Federation of American Scientists :: Five Minutes to End the War on Science

Let's see more non-hacks sign this.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...




And, in a related story.....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5IT_ou1naw]This Little Earth Is All I've Got - Environmental Song (With Lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]




C'mon.....sing along!

"...yeah, yeah, yeah......"


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



A source for science done by real scientists;

AGW Observer

Global warming trend has been particularly enhanced in semi-arid regions during cold season

Enhanced cold-season warming in semi-arid regions  Huang et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: This study examined surface air temperature trends over global land from 19012009. It is found that the warming trend was particularly enhanced, in the boreal cold season (November to March) over semi-arid regions (with precipitation of 200600 mm yr&#8722;1) showing a temperature increase of 1.53 °C as compared to the global annual mean temperature increase of 1.13 °C over land. In mid-latitude semi-arid areas of Europe, Asia, and North America, temperatures in the cold season increased by 1.41, 2.42, and 1.5 °C, respectively. The semi-arid regions contribute 44.46% to global annual-mean land-surface temperature trend. The mid-latitude semi-arid regions in the Northern Hemisphere contribute by 27.0% of the total, with the mid-latitude semi-arid areas in Europe, Asia, and North America accounting for 6.29%, 13.81%, and 6.85%, respectively. Such enhanced semi-arid warming (ESAW) imply drier and warmer trend of these regions.

Citation: Huang, J., Guan, X., and Ji, F.: Enhanced cold-season warming in semi-arid regions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 5391-5398, doi:10.5194/acp-12-5391-2012, 2012.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I agree

The potential threat of climate change is too important to be soiled by politics. Let the scientists hash it out without the harassment and intimidation by Republican thugs


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Are people that are sending anthrax scares to scientists letting "science do what it does best"?


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Sign the petition, of you dare.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And, what evidence do you have of any political affiliation?  Moron.

Firing academics?

This shit?

Hacks are completely responsible for it.  Completely.

Congrats for your contribution.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Lets cut to the chase here

Why are climate scientists being harassed?

Is it because some people disagree that man is influencing the environment or because there is an immense amount of money being made off of fossil fuels and they don't want to lose the golden goose?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Federation of American Scientists :: Five Minutes to End the War on Science
> 
> Let's see more non-hacks sign this.



Education Petition: Five Minutes to End the War on Science | Change.org

The time period for signing this petition has ended. 

*Might help to be a bit more current in your posting sites. And I definately would have signed that petition.*


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Lets cut to the chase here
> 
> Why are climate scientists being harassed?
> 
> Is it because some people disagree that man is influencing the environment or because there is an immense amount of money being made off of fossil fuels and they don't want to lose the golden goose?


It is because hacks like you an too many others politicize science.

Congrats for your contribution, too.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/230675-attention-lovers-of-science.html


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Federation of American Scientists :: Five Minutes to End the War on Science
> ...


I posted that same petition a few years ago, and you politicized the fact that I posted the petition.  

Bullshit.


----------



## konradv (Jun 25, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> rightwinger, what isnt climate change? We all know it commies that want to guilt us into accepting our place as plebes for the "elite".
> 
> If this stuff WAS true, dont you think the climate change people would alter their lifestyle, IF they believed this crap?



What evidence do you have that they haven't?  A change doesn't mean elimination, just an awareness of what we're doing and attempting to minmize it.  Just because someone flies or drives somewhere, doesn't prove anything.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

The hack OP even puts this in politics.

Damn, stay the fuck out of science.

ALL hacks.  I don't give a shit what YOUR political views are...stay the fuck out of it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules




Logic fails with our friends like Dr Gazpacho and the Big Ragu.....


....so immersed in Leftist theory that they won't see it as but one more pseudopod of the one-world amoeba.


Arguing with them is like playing tennis against the drapes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lets cut to the chase here
> ...



So recognition that people like Inhofe are harrassing scientists at the bidding of the large energy corperations is not politisizing science? Seems your partisan veiwpoint is showing big time. 

It is not 'Liberals' harrassing the scientists, it is the wingnut faction encouraged by the GOP's lies concerning the science and scientists involved in the study of the affects of AGW.

The real partisan hack here is Si Modo.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger, what isnt climate change? We all know it commies that want to guilt us into accepting our place as plebes for the "elite".
> ...


 
Look man we have to change our entire lifestyle due to climate change, accroding to these nuts. According to these folks, cars cause climeate change, cattle causes it, well just about everything causes it. 


They want us on "public" transportation (FUCK THAT) and since that hasnt worked they want to choose what color and type of car to buy (get that Volt! and not in black).

They want to set your thermostat.

They basically want to control your life over the Earth warming...oh wait but if it snows it's climate change and if it rains more than normal, climate change, yada yada yada.

Look I've heard it all, and I think it's crap. The Earth changes temperature on it's own. hence ice ages and warming periods.


----------



## konradv (Jun 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules



What's stupid is your aggressive ignorance.  Regardless of how many times you're told it's more than a "wisp", you keep repeating the same lies.  A 30-40% increase isn't a wisp.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOL. So pointing out that you posted something a year out of date is politisizing it? Come on now, Sis, you are getting a bit weird.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.


And politicians have nothing to do with it at all?

It's ALL big bad oil's fault?

And hacks have nothing to do with it, either?

Damn, are you blind.

But, I am sure scientists such as this thank you, and thank you from their hearts.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


No, it is not.  Read what I said, not what your bias tells you I said.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

How the hell do you expect to get taken seriously when you claim you have an "Average" temperature for planet Earth to a tenth of a degree and that any variation is the sole responsibility of a rounding errors worth of CO2?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.





Open your eyes, sandwich....it's not Oil and Gas that runs the show....it's Big Green: the Sierra Club and the other Leftisties.


Two words: "Keystone Pipeline."


Does your care actually have a bumper-sticker "Oblivious to the Obvious"?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



Given your demonstrated lack of ability to think, who the hell cares what you 'think'?

All you do is post flap yap, talking points, never a single scientific article to back your viewpoint. This is a subject involving science, therefore, one should post the research or evidence that supports their viewpoint. You have yet to do such.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.
> ...



Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

When liberals start behaving they way that they want us to, maybe i'll take a second look, but Al Gore doesnt do any of the things he says will "help" the planet. 

And he said in his movie, we have 10 years to fix it, what do you bet he's gonna change that deadline, kinda like the cultists that say the world is gonna end, once it doesnt, we'll have a new deadline....how convienent.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.
> ...



Dang. Sis, you are so weird. I do not pretend to be a scientist, so I post articles from real scientists. But you state doing that is soiling science. 

In fact, that seems to be your whole schtick, if you post something from the scientists that are actively studying the subject, you are soiliing science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

Big Climate is behind the AGW scam


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.
> ...



My care? What's a care? 

So you think that the "Big Green" spends more on lobbying than the oil and gas lobby? Seriously? 

Which industry gets more subsidies?


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Jun 25, 2012)

> 3. Research is often stifled by legal action
> "Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks," says Clynes. Climate change skeptics regularly file lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests to disrupt ongoing research. "In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding.



Really???  Seriously???  And go to the Sierra Clubs website and look at the legal action that they take when local governments even try to remove the brush from rural areas so that there will be less fires.  The Sierra Club files lawsuit after lawsuit because they think that these ares should be "pristine" and any intervention should be restricted.  Never matter that when the brush piles up and a fire starts it makes it ten times worse than when the brush is cleared.

You know, left-wing environmentalists have been filing lawsuits and doing enviro-terrorism for years.  And now it's really bad because those who disagree with the "approved policy" has adopted the same tactics.

You can't whine and complain when someone takes YOUR play book and turns it on you...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> When liberals start behaving they way that they want us to, maybe i'll take a second look, but Al Gore doesnt do any of the things he says will "help" the planet.
> 
> And he said in his movie, we have 10 years to fix it, what do you bet he's gonna change that deadline, kinda like the cultists that say the world is gonna end, once it doesnt, we'll have a new deadline....how convienent.



No, we do not have ten years to fix it. We are already seeing the consequences, and will see even more in the next decades. There is about a 30 to 50 year lag in the consequences of the GHGs in the atmosphere. So the time for prevention is long past. What we have to do now is prepare for the consequences, and attempt to prevent the problem from being even worse in the future by reducing, globally, our emissions of GHGs. 

Of course, I fully realize that is not going to happen, thanks to people like you and Sis. So we will see some very interesting times before the end of this century. 

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Liar.

I state YOUR politicization of it soils it.  Very clearly I state that, but somehow you cannot comprehend that.

And, curiously, my gender seems quite significant to you, still.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...





"Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors" 
James Delingpole 

"British author James Delingpole tells the shocking story of how an unholy mix of junk science, green hype, corporate greed and* political opportunism* led to the biggest - and most expensive - outbreak of mass hysteria in history.

In Watermelons, Delingpole explains the *Climategate scandal*, the cast of characters involved, their motives and methods. He delves into the background of the organizations and individuals who have sought to *push global warming to the top of the political agenda,* showing that *beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red.*

Watermelons shows how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism. Delingpole mocks the green movement's pathetic record of apocalyptic predictions, from the "population bomb" to global cooling, which failed to materialize. He reveals the fundamental misanthropy of green ideology, "rooted in hatred of the human species, hell bent on destroying almost everything man has achieved".

Delingpole gives a refreshing voice to widespread public skepticism over global warming, emphasising that the "crisis" has been engineered by people seeking to control our lives by imposing new taxes and regulations. "Your taxes will be raised, your liberties curtailed and your money squandered to deal with this 'crisis'", he writes.

At its very roots, argues Delingpole, *climate change is an ideological battle*, not a scientific one. *Green on the outside, red on the inside, the liberty-loathing, humanity-hating "watermelons" *of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

Delingpole is the bestselling British writer who helped expose the Climategate scandal in his Daily Telegraph blog. He also writes a column for The Spectator. His other books include 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy (Regnery, 2010) and Welcome to Obamaland" (Regnery, 2009).


"...beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red."


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> The hack OP even puts this in politics.
> 
> Damn, stay the fuck out of science.
> 
> ALL hacks.  I don't give a shit what YOUR political views are...stay the fuck out of it.



It really should be in science shouldn't it?

Why are Republican thugs making climate change a political issue?

Have to protect Big Oil at all costs


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

US Oil lobby outspends green movement by factor of five

Members Who Supported Massive Giveaway To Big Oil Have Received $38.6 Million From The Industry


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Big Climate is behind the AGW scam



Damn, all those billionaire scientists are funding this scam over the whole world, right? Frankie Boy, you just get increasing stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Are you ever going to post anything relevant, or even slightly sane?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Republican thugs are using similar tactics that were used to attack cancer scientists a generation ago

Cigarettes can't cause cancer. You can't be 100% sure. We need more study. My grandmother smoked three packs a day and lived to be 95...

It is amazing what you can do with unlimited corporate funding


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sorry....the word was 'car.'

"Which industry gets more subsidies?"


You're not serious, are you?

Green Energy R & D:

Exxon gave $125,000 for research

US  $2.1 billion

EU  $3 billion


*$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and sola*r

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOL. And calling you Sis still seems to annoy you, Sis

So, posting articles from peer reviewed scientific journals concerning global warming is soiling science. That is what you are stating. Seems your bias is really showing here.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
Oh really, what in post was wrong? Go ahead, do they not blame cars and cattle? They dont want to controll you thermostats or outlaw black paint?
Fuck your this is "science" no it's not, it's politics, the green movement is political, so stop that shit right up front. 


I dont?

Cattle causes global warming"

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent
Kathy Freston: Healthy Living, Conscious Eating
*First of all, animal agriculture disastrously effects the environment*
See liberals dont like meat, so since people wont volunteer to get off it, they scare you or guilt you into it. Just one of the many things they do to try and control you, with......climate change!

Black cars
California May Ban Black Cars | TechCrunch
California Backpedals on Plan to Ban Black Cars to Reduce Emissions · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader

Black car ban in California? Not quite yet - latimes.com

Black cars are bad, I didnt say it, global warming liberals said it and tried to ban them. They lost for now, but they'll be back. 

Thermostats:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html
Critics cool to 'smart thermostat' proposal - SFGate


how much do you bet Al Gore will not have to do this in his own Malibu mansion?


So in essence those are just a few of the things. And of course you've seen in New York, the "healty" laws of getting rid of large sodas and now looking at "bad" food.

Is any of this comming together for you?


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The hack OP even puts this in politics.
> ...


Curiously, YOU keep saying "Republican".

I'll neg you again for your hatred of science when I spread more around.

These scientists would thank you, but they have more pressing issues.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hmmm......   of the stated 94 billion, most went to nuclear. So you don't like nuclear? Is that your point?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Ah yes, ol' Sis is very good a negging people that point out the truth.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Republican thugs are using similar tactics that were used to attack cancer scientists a generation ago
> 
> Cigarettes can't cause cancer. You can't be 100% sure. We need more study. My grandmother smoked three packs a day and lived to be 95...
> 
> It is amazing what you can do with unlimited corporate funding



In an almost forgotten time, prior to the ascension of modern liberlism, one could equate the term science with objective.

Alas, this is no longer true.  *The new world replaces objectivity with a malleable version of truth, of science, that conforms to a political ideology.*

a.	In academia, *truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the greater truth of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. *Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. Post-modern science starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor. 

b.	The leading proponents of post-normal science, PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, facts and values are unified by replacing truth by quality.  http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

c.	Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also

In his own words, published in the UK Guardian, *Professor Hulme, tells the world that post-normal science we cannot wait to prove global warming, but must trade normal truth for influence and must recognize the social limits of their truth seeking.*

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] 


See what you can learn if you read?


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I neg those who politicize science.

See, that is quite a simple sentence, but I would bet good money the meaning still is lost on you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I can see why you'd like to change the subject, Ragu.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nuclear isn't green or renewable so hardly "alternative". You left out half the story. Where's "big oil"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...



*the American Petroleum Institute put together a $5.9 million task force *

Compared to the billions government has wasted on "global warming", that's barely a rounding error.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...



Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




It will appear both relevant and sane as soon as you realize the truth.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...


 

That's what I thought


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jun 25, 2012)




----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> ...


Why exactly is that fucking funny?

It's a travesty caused by politicization of science.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Someones panties sure get into a knot when climate change is brought up.

Your rants on this thread are confusing. Why do you take scientific discussion so personally?

I have spent 35 years in the field of science. What is your background?

Do you, or do you not, support the tactics of Republican thugs?


----------



## tjvh (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The hack OP even puts this in politics.
> ...



When Politics enters the realm of science, the result is scientists passing emails about purposely manipulating FALSE data to reflect their agenda... Sound familiar? Democrats have been politicizing science for years to have their environmental issues pushed through... Those who believe the science behind those issues is *suspect*, are not allowed to voice their disagreement? Apparently they are not... In your wind driven perfect world. The next time you start up your car remember the word "HYPOCRITE".


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
It's not science, when you make shit up to fit your conclusion. It's politics.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Of course my rants confuse you.  You and too many are hacks who politicize science.

And, look at the results.

Pat yourself on the back for it, hack.  Your and others' political hackery are completely responsible for this.

And, if you think this is a scientific discussion, that says quite a bit about your background.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That is an excellent idea. How do you suggest we punish the lying scientists who altered data and tried to suppress those scientists who had doubts about AGW?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No shit.  And oddly, the "pro science" crowd soils themselves at every point of critical review or questioning of their methods and/or conclusions.

_My way or the highway_ is not science.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 25, 2012)

Poor babies, two years ago they were on top of the world making a good living with junk science and now ....sob.... they are being harassed by ....gasp....deniers. Rush called an alleged climate expert a "climate babe" and the thin skinned bunch of wimps think the world is coming to an end (no pun intended). The reporter guy can't find enough evidence to fill his op-ed so he digs up some story concerning a dead rat left on a door step in Austrailia, How horrible. What a bunch of crap.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 25, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Well, not entirely "not science" It's 6% science, 19% hysterics and 75% bullshit.
(according to my scientific study). Yup My career was in Science as well, RW.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 25, 2012)

Will the left ever stop whining?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jun 25, 2012)

Why don't all the manmade global warming hysteric types just kill themselves and save the planet?

It always cracks me up that those who cry man made global warming the loudest are also the ones who still are exacerbating the problem. Please, GW LOLberals, just kill yourself and save the planet.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 25, 2012)

Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

tjvh said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



 No it doesn't sound familiar because independent investigation showed it never happened. More GOP thuggery to discredit climate change


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why don't all the manmade global warming hysteric types just kill themselves and save the planet?
> 
> It always cracks me up that those who cry man made global warming the loudest are also the ones who still are exacerbating the problem. Please, GW LOLberals, just kill yourself and save the planet.


 

That's the problem, I mean called rocks out and he ignores, cuz he's a pussy. He said I had nothing and I showed him how they want to control various aspects of his life. I'm against abortion, but I'm more Pro-Choice than he is.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.



No question the earth will survive. It always does

It is humans who are the weakest link


----------



## konradv (Jun 25, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Why don't all the manmade global warming hysteric types just kill themselves and save the planet?
> 
> It always cracks me up that those who cry man made global warming the loudest are also the ones who still are exacerbating the problem. Please, GW LOLberals, just kill yourself and save the planet.



How are the ones crying the loudest exacerbating the problem?  Flying somewhere isn't proof of anything.  You're assuming you know the ins and outs of the lives of people you don't know.  What evidence do you have that people haven't changed their habits in a myriad of ways?  This is about cutting down on our effect on the environment, not the elimination of anything having to do with the modern world.


----------



## konradv (Jun 25, 2012)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.



What geological cycle is increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere?


----------



## tjvh (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Got a link to a non partisan site proving that it was discredited?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

tjvh said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy | Union of Concerned Scientists

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing. 
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit." 
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading. 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees. 
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of  research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."  
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails. 
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question. 
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false." 
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

konradv said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't all the manmade global warming hysteric types just kill themselves and save the planet?
> ...


 
Yeah cutting down our effect is to let the rich liberals do as they please and the rest of us have to lower our standard of living. To that I say HELL NO.
IU dont see any of those rich liberals lowering their standards. IN FACT, people at a Brazil conference called Richard Branson out on being a hypocrite.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Anyone, seriously anyone, who thinks the UCS is non-partisan is an idiot.

Although pressured to join, never.  Ever.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 25, 2012)

konradv said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't all the manmade global warming hysteric types just kill themselves and save the planet?
> ...



Cutting down our effect is one thing, destroying the Coal, and Oil industries without *already HAVING* a viable Green replacement to them is quite another.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I specifically asked for a "non partisan" source. But thanks for trying.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

tjvh said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Nobody is advocating shutting down coal or big oil without something to fill the void. But we do have to get off of our addiction to fossil fuels at all costs. If not for environmental reasons than economic reasons. 
There are limited fossil fuels available....in time, we will cut out own throats


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


I agree.  Let science do what it does best so that the state of the science can help us.

Forcing facts, data, observations, etc. to fit policy is not science.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

tjvh said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



LOL

Associated Press
Factcheck.org
Politifact.com
UK Parliament

If you were only going to accept FoxNews and Breitbart as non partisan sources, you should have said so


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You TRIED -- but you failed to make this a DEM -- REP issue.. The supoenas and FOIA documents and what you call harrassment is because the high priests of AGW sitting in protected govt sponsored institutions won't share their data with other researchers. 

And everytime they DO -- they get caught cherry-picking tree rings or marking up thermometer readings without a cause.. 

If you think science means that you win if you control the means to publish and the data set that you're using --- then you don't understand the process.. ESPECIALLY if you think the warmers are being persecuted primarily by Republicans and without a just cause.

Maybe you ought to look at the DEM motivation for making climate change political. Certainly shouldn't take you too long to find HUGE connections there.. IF -- you could be objective about it... "Green Jobs"? "Carbon Tax"? "Sustainable Development"? "Global Equity"?

Nope -- nothing under that rock...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

BTW RightWinger:: Posting on another thread just now that I voted against the Leftist State of California going into the EMBRYONIC Stem Cell research business just to spite those "anti-science" Republicans.. 

$BILLs that the state could not afford wasted to make a political statement. You want MORE examples of Democrat science fantasies --- or should we consider this a draw?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

OR --- we could stay on your faulty topic and ask you why Dems are constantly trying to ram thru their views in violation of free speech principles be it campaign financing or science.. 

I suppose when Al Gore speaks -- we should all STFU and swallow it... 



> An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News
> 
> One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High *Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors. *
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Lets cut to the chase here
> 
> Why are climate scientists being harassed?
> 
> Is it because some people disagree that man is influencing the environment or because there is an immense amount of money being made off of fossil fuels and they don't want to lose the golden goose?



"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."











From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tims got a diagram here well send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. Mikes series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." - IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> OR --- we could stay on your faulty topic and ask you why Dems are constantly trying to ram thru their views in violation of free speech principles be it campaign financing or science..
> 
> I suppose when Al Gore speaks -- we should all STFU and swallow it...
> 
> ...



So you are saying that the British say that global warming is occurring just the world will not end tomorrow

Got it....no reason to lift a finger until death is knocking on our door


----------



## NoNukes (Jun 25, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules



Are you denying that the oceans are being destroyed by mankind?


----------



## NoNukes (Jun 25, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.
> ...



Always finding a way to blame everything on the lefties makes you someone not to be taken seriously.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OR --- we could stay on your faulty topic and ask you why Dems are constantly trying to ram thru their views in violation of free speech principles be it campaign financing or science..
> ...



Let's ponder this.. I live in LogicVille. So if AGW WAS a huge threat to mankind --- WHY is it that DEMS (primarily) aren't BEGGING for 120 new nuclear reactors in this country to cut carbon emissions? 

Because it's just a game to them? Or because they want to IMPOSE a reduced energy society on the rest of us? 

The fear of the Earth melting is somehow NOT SUFFICIENT to get them to consider a scientifically legitimate solution to the crisis.. Or is it just IGNORANCE of science/engineering on their parts. Maybe leftists like NoNukes can't tell the diff between a bomb and a power plant that would "save the planet".


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 25, 2012)

Global warming is a crock. Junk science isnt real science. It's not a coincidence that all the solutions for global warming is socialism. Nor is it a coincidence that no matter what happens with the climate, that is evidence for it. Nor is it a coincidence that they had to change the name from global warming to climate change.

After all, it's hard to convence people that the earth is in crisis from man made global warming when the tempature goes down. And if there isnt a crisis then how do politicians dupe naive people into surrendering their liberty so politicians and their friends can get rich?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 25, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules
> ...



absolutely.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules
> ...



Yes, absolutely!  There's not a chance that it works as proposed by the Warmers


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Your proposition that a wisp of CO2 is: melting the ice caps, making the oceans rise, turning the oceans to acid and starting forest fires, is just plain fucking stupid and self-ridicules
> ...



We should be monitoring the health of the oceans, not leaping to conclusions.. Ocean Acidification is the BEST and scariest reason that the "warmers" now have. Much more scarier than 1.4degC.  I am somewhat concerned about the cause of PH change. 

But there are at LEAST 4 other legitimate reasons for decreasing PH and THESE should be considered also.. The oceans GENERATE and SINK 12 times the amount of CO2 that man is contributing every year and is a HUGE reservoir of CO2 from NATURAL causes. We don't even accurately know the natural PH fluctations at the shallow ocean shelves and reefs adequately enough to PROJECT any damage from the observed change.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



...all we can say for certain is that manmade global warming is to blame


----------



## Dr.Drock (Jun 25, 2012)

Before I scroll through the 7 pages, are there actually people who believe in Obamanomics trying to play the smarter than thou card with regards to science?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 25, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Before I scroll through the 7 pages, are there actually people who believe in Obamanomics trying to play the smarter than thou card with regards to science?



Yes.

Of course, these are the same people that argue that the tempature going both up and down is evidence that the planet is warming.


----------



## Chris (Jun 25, 2012)

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

They prefer mythology.


----------



## Peach (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...



Hello from Florida! Two TS before June ended, and 3 of the 4 named storms began NORTH of standard for June. PLUS, we hit the fourth TS at the earliest date known. More strange coincidences.................................from drought to deluge in record time......................


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2012)

Peach said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> ...



Quick, turn off all your lights and sell your car!


----------



## blackhawk (Jun 25, 2012)

The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What  catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?


----------



## Peach (Jun 25, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



ALSO, announced recently, a hot zone of 180 miles off the Atlantic coast. I conserve, walking when you can helps keep the blubber away. And chilling the house to 75 degrees in a Florida summer is ridiculous, if one cannot stand warm weather, leave FLORIDA.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 25, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Not only are YOU telling people what temperature they can set THEIR Air Conditioners at, you are telling them "if they don't like it to leave". Who are you again? I've always had a problem with people who "only" conserve "part of the time"... It seems to me, if you have a problem with big Oil (an example) you should give up driving your car, rather than pretend outrage, in between fill-ups.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.


Interesting that you tie those together.

KISS:  Stop politicizing science.  Period.

Just stop.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.



As long as that includes environmental crazies


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 25, 2012)

konradv said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.
> ...



Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.


Water vapor is 99% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin, except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




What do crackpots who instigate Anthrax scares have to do with legitimate criticism of global warming hocus-pocus?


----------



## rdean (Jun 25, 2012)

6%

what do you expect?​


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.




Science will be political so long as "scientists" are sucking on the government tit.


----------



## Chris (Jun 25, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What  catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?



None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.


----------



## Chris (Jun 25, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Oil and Gas lobby has undue influence over our legislators, Climate Science is going to be political.
> ...



Not true.

There is nothing a scientist wouldn't like more than proving another scientist wrong.

You really don't know any scientists, do you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?




Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.


----------



## blackhawk (Jun 25, 2012)

Chris said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What  catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?
> ...


Really and you have the stats dating from around 1911 or 1912 up to this year to back that up.


----------



## Chris (Jun 25, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



A year here or there doesn't matter.

100 years ago there were 125 glaciers in Glacier National Park.

Now there are 25.


----------



## Mustang (Jun 25, 2012)

Some people have accused climate change deniers of being like Holocaust deniers. I disagree with that.  They're more like the people who denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and emphysema.


----------



## Chris (Jun 25, 2012)

Mustang said:


> Some people have accused climate change deniers of being like Holocaust deniers. I disagree with that.  They're more like the people who denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and emphysema.



Actually they are some of the very same scientists!!!

Fred Singer.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 25, 2012)

Chris said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



And at many point is the history of the Earth there were _no _glaciers.... go read a book dummy.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 25, 2012)

Mustang said:


> Some people have accused climate change deniers of being like Holocaust deniers. I disagree with that.  They're more like the people who denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and emphysema.



What I resent is people who use the phrase "climate change deniers"... What is bullshit in the use of that phrase is it fails to address the majority who do NOT deny that climate does in fact go through changes all of the time, yet who do *NOT* feel climate change is the result of driving around in a SUV with the A/C blasting.


----------



## Full-Auto (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...



Ah....the boys getting a little payback.  GOOD!!  Had they been honest in the first place and actually shared the data, we wouldnt be here today.

Do you remember how it all started?  One freakin tree ring.

The group was exposed, it will be difficult to regain any credibility when absolutely none has been demonstrated. When you have that one experiment that conclusively ends the discussion, let us know................


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



you're such a hero... 

A "hot zone" eh? How does that fit into "global" warming theory? There's been a "hot zone" off the Florida coast in summertime since I was a long-haired hippy.. It's called the Bermuda high..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.



If the government wasn't so powerful that they can tell us what light bulbs we can use and how large our toilet tank can be, corporations wouldn't have to spend so much on lobbying.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

Chris said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What  catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?
> ...



Really Chris -- just 100 years eh? That's almost as bad as believing the earth is only 6600 yrs old... 

I see you're not part of RDean's Democrat Scientific majority...


----------



## blackhawk (Jun 25, 2012)

Chris said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I didn't ask for a year here or there I asked for the last 100 years since that is time frame you said the climate has been consistently warming for.


----------



## Peach (Jun 25, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



The NOAA accepts global climate change as fact; here is a good source explaining ocean temp increases:

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2011

The NOAA has accepted the impact of human habitation, and the attendant alteration of climate, since long before 2008.  As we cannot alter our societies in a flash, and would suffer without advances in the sciences; we will have to adapt, and work to reverse what can be reversed. There is no hard science that proves the changes are not natural of course. There may have been as many hurricanes before modern day population growth, and techniques for identifying, analysis, and record keeping existed.

Logic and reason leads one to understand that humans have altered the natural earth. Many of the changes are for the betterment of the human race, and many are not.  Who would choose to go back 150 years, before antibiotics, treatments for cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, whooping cough, tetanus, etc.? There is a good chance another influenza epidemic, like that of 1918-1920 will occur, easing both population, and industrial output. Thus the 'problem' may work out again by natural means.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.



Link?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.
> ...




Hahahahahahahahahah... what a dweeb...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

tjvh said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
 Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate changean additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decadeis far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, andif sustained over centuriesmelting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. 

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth&#8217;s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. 

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming. 

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation. Climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About half of Earth&#8217;s warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This &#8220;clear-sky&#8221; response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in the climate system: a very large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; and sizeable, but still uncertain, negative feedbacks from clouds and aerosols. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas &#8220;fingerprint&#8221; simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from clouds and aerosols has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades.

These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow the current trajectory, by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach two to four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of less than 2 °C to more than 5 °C compared to 1850. This range of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise along densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 10&#8211;20% of the anthropogenic CO2 &#8220;pulse&#8221; could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Peach said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> ...



Peach, you should read what Munich Re and Swiss Re have to say concerning the increase in extreme weather events.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.
> ...



Stop soiling yourself, Sis


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

I'll believe the motives of the left-leaning church of global warming when they run to us and ask us for 120 nuclear plants to save the planet.. Hasn't happened, won't happen.. They are NOT CONVINCED enough to take IMMEDIATE, MEANINGFUL, action... 

Comments?? 

Why should I believe you never heard of the "green agenda", "sustainability", and all that global "social justice" political baggage --- if you really don't want to fix the problem... There must be a reason eh? 

It's all about FOISTING that infernal list of alternative energies that never were alternatives, hobbling economic growth, population control, economic redistribution, and all the other "watermelon" baggage. 

Cant believe ANY of it is serious til we build out ample CO2 FREE nuclear power... Better hurry your asses up too.. 

Because 20 reactors are offline in Japan. And ALL of Germany's are slated to go cold.. 

Right NOW TODAY -- you're forcing the planet to play Russian Roulette

Makes me think everyone of you baptized warmers are bluffing..
There's your "politics of climate change" in a watermelon...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

LordBrownTrout said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



Good lord. Another dumb ass. Water vapor depends on heat to evaporate into the atmosphere. There have been times in our geological history when the CO2 was at a very low level. And in spite of all of our oceans still being there, they froze nearly to the equator. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days in the atmosphere. CO2 a residence time measured in centuries.

95% of the climatologists will tell you exactly what I just said. Not only that, but the contribution to the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 40%. We have increased the amount of CH4 by over 150%.

At the depths of the ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. At the time of the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 stood at 280 ppm. Today it nealy 400 ppm. 100 ppm was the differance between continental glaciers down to the Midwest and the climate of 1850. As the effects of the addition of 120 ppm, plus the increasing amount that is being added every year, are felt, what do you think the results will be? 

At present we are feeling the effects of the level of GHGs in the 1980s. And we are already seeing consequences in the melting of the continental ice caps, and the increasing amount of extreme weather events.

Brown T, you need seriously to take some remedial science classes.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

What a contorted load of shit OleRocks... So many weak and faulty assertions.. 
And about half a dozen outright lies.. I didn't realize how little you comprehend about this until now.

Say WHAT was the CO2 level during "the ice age"? It didn't vary? Say What - 100ppm caused the glaciers to meltdown in the midwest? No other explanations? 

For the sake of the thread, and my research report due tomorrow, I'll just say ----

Run Dorothy --- Run... Take LordBrownTrout with you and go far far away from this repetitive fanatic.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?
> ...



Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".

http://earthship.com/designs
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016016390_bullitt28.html

Oh look, they are lucrative too.

http://m.fsinsight.org/m/i/d/green-office-buildings-high-returns


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't like the earthship look but some of the straw bale designs are pretty sharp looking.  I prefer log houses though.

http://tcpermaculture.blogspot.com/2012/03/straw-bale-homes-are-beautiful.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



LOL. But you have to consider that knuckle dragging Pattycake has never left the stone age.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 
Unga Bunga bitch! Old Rocks just wants  the govt to tell him what to do. My question is what if they want you to a have a sex change? hmmmmm..  Inquiring minds....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2012)

*The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.*

Clearly. LOL! 

Thanks, that was funny.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Not only are you oblivious to how damaging your hackery is, I actually feel sorry for you.

Your cult-like reality has such a grip on you that you are immune to any deprogramming.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Let's see, I have flat screen TV, cable, internet, VOIP phone service, an iPhone and an iPad and I want to keep it that way, but I'm from the "stone age."

You, on the other hand, want to return to using wind mills, shivering in the dark, riding a bicycle to work and you are supposed to be some kind of high tech guru?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

Quoting IPCC...fucking hysterical!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Yeah, fully sustainable buildings and homes are sooooo "stone age".
> 
> Sustainable Green Buildings: Sustainable Green Building Designs
> Business & Technology | Ultra-green office building breaking ground | Seattle Times Newspaper
> ...



The term "sustainable" is the ultimate in kookery.


----------



## tererun (Jun 25, 2012)

These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Let's look at those residence times:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), &#964;, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if &#964; > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if &#964; 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50&#8722;200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5&#8722;15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer adjustment time (100 years) governing the long-term rising quasi-equilibrium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with &#964; = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. *With the short (5&#8722;15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident*.​Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

[Emphasis added]


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

tererun said:


> These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.



Really? I'm not a right-winger, but I'd LOVE to have you argue with me... How about we start with a question.. 

Has the Average Global Surface Temperature rise been ACCELERATING or DECELERATING over the past 8 or 10 yrs?


----------



## TruthSeeker56 (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...



How come you leftists refuse to answer ONE simple question............

Why did you people change your phrase from "global warming" to "climate change"?

"Climate change" is an all-encompassing phrase that has no finite definition, because every second of every day there is "climate change" everywhere in the world.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2012)

tererun said:


> These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.




I don't believe any of the things you claim I believe.  So now where does your bullshit argument take you?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.
> ...



You mean you didn't INVENT the Loch Ness Monster?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...





http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

CO2 persists for quite a long time in the atmosphere; its atmospheric residence time is on the order of decades to a centuries (30 - 800 years; Catalyst fall '07). About ~ 1/2 of the emissions that we put out today will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, while ~ 1/5 will persist for ~ 800 years.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Hmmm, peer-reviewed science or undergraduate course work?

I'll take peer-reviewed.

Thanks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Title:




Well Known . . . to a Few People: Attribution of Excess Atmospheric CO2 and Resulting Global Temperature Change to Fossil Fuel and Land Use Change Emissions



Authors:




Schwartz, S. E.



Affiliation:


Well Known . . . to a Few People: Attribution of Excess Atmospheric CO2 and Resu

AA(Atmospheric Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA ses@bnl.gov)

Publication:

American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #A21A-0018

 Publication Date:
12/2010

 Origin:
AGU

Keywords:

[0300] ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, [1600] GLOBAL CHANGE, [1610] GLOBAL CHANGE / Atmosphere, [3305] ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES / Climate change and variability

 Bibliographic Code:
2010AGUFM.A21A0018S

 Abstract
 The increase in atmospheric CO2 over its preindustrial (1750) value exceeded 100% of cumulative emissions from fossil fuel combustion (FF, including also cement manufacture) until about 1960, Figure 1. How could this be? Throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century the major source of incremental atmospheric CO2 was not FF emissions but emissions from so-called "land-use changes" (LUC), net changes of carbon stocks in the terrestrial biosphere, due mainly to deforestation. LUC CO2 emissions have been a substantial fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions throughout the industrial period and even at present are about a third as great as FF emissions. Cumulative LUC CO2 emissions exceeded cumulative FF emissions until about 1965. Because of the long residence time of atmospheric CO2, the increase in atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial that can be attributed to LUC likewise exceeded that from FF until about 1965. LUC CO2 continues to represent about one-third of total excess atmospheric CO2 and the corresponding forcing; this attribution is robust to the CO2 impulse profile used but is sensitive to uncertainty in the estimate of LUC CO2 emissions. These conclusions come as a surprise to many. However, the dominant contribution of LUC to excess CO2 emissions and atmospheric mixing ratio was recognized in early work by Stuiver (Science, 1978) and Broecker and Peng (Tracers in the Sea, 1982) and unequivocally demonstrated by Keeling et al (AGU Monograph 55, 1989). The shadow of prior emissions of CO2 is lengthened further by the relaxation time of the physical climate system. However it is the relatively long residence time of excess carbon in the coupled atmosphere-mixed ocean layer system, about 50 years, that is primarily responsible for the persistent influence of prior CO2 emissions. These findings have implications for understanding the impact on subsequent generations of CO2 emitted by prior generations and on climate management. Figure 1. Cumulative CO2 emissions from land-use changes and fossil fuel combustion (including cement manufacture), and measured mixing ratio of atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

It sure looks like the state of the science doesn't even allow for "consensus" on CO2 RTs, eh Rocks?


----------



## tererun (Jun 25, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.
> ...



Before you even get there 8-10 years is barely any time to be inferring much in regards to global temp change. That would be like determining whether or not your health is improving or getting better by measuring your temperature for a minute. 

If you wish to talk the realities of pollution and it's effects you really need to be taling about pollution levels and not something lie temperature which could be drastically altering over the course of a decade naturally. The reality is that there is globally a much higher level of pollutants than there has been for many centuries that corresponds with the increase of the industrilaization of mankind. This effect is actually clearly visible in the skies over major cities across the US and in the known spread of cemincals in things like rainwater across things lie our major agricultural areas and farmlands in the midwest. It also should be noted that as you move up the food chain these pollutants become more and more present in the creatures higher up as those creatures consume masses of smaller creatures who injest larer and larger amounts of pollutants. 

But really I do not have the time to include the entirety o what I learned in 6th grade science class to an idiot like yourself. If you are too much of a blind faith fool that you cannot see the effects of pollution in every major city in this world, and along our major highways, you don't even belong in the conversation, and if you are ignorant of the fact our pollutions are growing and that our present regulations are merely slowing down growth and certainly not reducing global output then you are way to ignorant to even be arguing with me or anyone else. 

The reality is I don't give a fuck if mankind wants to pollute itself into some real problems they cannot change. I have lived a good chunk of my life, and at best I can only hope to see the apocalypse and not live beyond it if it truly comes from pollution. I am glad to see the kids of our time have started to realize their elders are fucking their futures for convenience now, but I am just not going to impede them but I am sure as hell not going to have to deal with fixing the problem. Use whatever excuse you wish to be wasteful and stupid, but it does not change the reality your scientific knowledge is lacking, and you are a fucking idiot. I only hope that if mankind survives it learns from it's mistakes and removes people lie you from important decisions about the future and relegates you to jobs like burger flipper or fry cook which seems to be the extent of your intellectual abilities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Title:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



50 years =/= 100 years or 800 years


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

A very good discussion of carbon sinks and the time involved, as well as the present trends.

http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/ngruber/publications/vol55no8page30-36.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



*LOL.  Some peers.*


American Chemical Society - SourceWatch

ACS activities against open access

The American Chemical Society has been actively involved in fighting open access for science journals. In 2004, Editor Rudy Baum penned an editorial in Chemical & Engineering News against, what he called, "open access advocates." The editorial was titled "Socialized Science."[15]. "Their unspoken crusade is to socialize all aspects of science, putting the federal government in charge of funding science, communicating science, and maintaining the archive of scientific knowledge. If that sounds like a good idea to you, then NIH's open-access policy should suit you just fine."

In June 2005, Nobel Laureate Richard J. Roberts made a letter publicly available that announced he was withdrawing his membership in ACS because the Society "vehemently opposed the Open Access initiative."[16] Dr. Roberts wrote, "Frankly, the recent actions of the ACS are a disgrace to its image in the USA and around the world."

In January 2007, Nature reported that public relations operative, Eric Dezenhall, "spoke to employees from Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society at a meeting arranged last July [2006] by the Association of American Publishers." The publishers were seeking to counter economic threats from open-access journals and public databases.

In an email leaked to Nature, Dezenhall suggested that the publishers "focus on simple messages, such as 'Public access equals government censorship.' He hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and 'paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles.'" Nature added that "Brian Crawford, a senior vice-president at the American Chemical Society and a member of the AAP executive chair, says that Dezenhall's suggestions have been refined and that the publishers have not to his knowledge sought to work with the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[17]

Scientific American reported that ACS had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against open-acess. "In fact, the ACS paid lobbying firm Hicks Partners LLC at least $100,000 in 2005 to try to persuade congressional members, the NIH, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that a 'PubChem Project' would be a bad idea, according to public lobbying disclosures, and paid an additional $180,000 to the Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates to promote the 'use of [a] commercial database.' It also reportedly spent a chunk of its 2005 $280,000 internal lobbying budget as well as part of its $270,000 lobbying budget last year to push the issue, according to disclosure documents. The ACS publishes more than 30 journals covering all aspects of chemistry, and the organization did not return phone calls for comment."[18]

After stories appeared in the press, Brian Crawford wrote a statement on behalf of the American Association of Publishers. "Regrettably, the news reports above were somehow stimulated by reporters gaining access to internal emails and background information...."[19] Crawford is head of ACS publications.[2]

Crawford later defended hiring Dezenhall in an editorial: "In essence, the premise of a January 24, 2007 article in Nature was that [publishers] should be admonished for seeking advice and assistance from a media consulting firm known for its effectiveness in working with high-profile clients on controversial issues," he wrote. "Peer-reviewed science and medicine should be free of any government intervention or funding agency bias, and we will fulfill our responsibility to communicate that point of view, because doing so is in the best interest of science and society."[20]

The American Chemical apparently took Dezenhall up on his offer, according to New Scientist, which reported that publishers had established a front group called Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM).[3] "Dezenhall's strategy includes linking open access with government censorship and junk science  ideas that to me seem quite bizarre and misleading," wrote the reporter. [21] New Scientist acquired a copy of Dezenhall's strategy document for creating PRISM and released it on their Website.[22]


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

Seems the ACS is totally against the American Public being allowed access to the science they pay their taxes for. Now that wouldn't have anything to do with the close ties the organization has with various industries, would it?


----------



## Si modo (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


OMG!



Rocks is hating on the ACS?  THE largest scientific society in the world? Chemists, chemical engineers and scientists of other disciplines?  One of THE largest publishers of scientific journals in the world?

OK...I'm hyperventilating I'm laughing so hard.

Ya gotta stop.....It's killing me. 

L



O



L


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

World & Environment
























Yale researchers elected to world&#8217;s largest scientific society






January 12, 2011

YaleNews | Yale researchers elected to world

Five Yale scientists have been selected as fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Members of the AAAS bestow the honor on their peers in recognition of their efforts to advance science and its applications. All told, 503 scientists and scholars from around the world were elected this year.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?

Hope you saw the REAL harrassment coming at ANY dissenting scientist that dares to question the concepts or prognostications of this bunch of bullies..


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?
> 
> Hope you saw the REAL harrassment coming at ANY dissenting scientist that dares to question the concepts or prognostications of this bunch of bullies..



The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

The Battle Over Climate Science 


> Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?...
> 
> ...Weird is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists children.
> 
> ...



And this is a limited accounting of the criminal thuggery that many of the more extreme denialist activists engage upon at an ever escalating scale and pace.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?
> ...



This is prime proof that the AGW accepts lower levels of evidence for their "science" and their harrassment claims.. 

A dead RAT in the driveway?? A HUGE YELLOW Hummer speeding away?? We all know that knuckle-dragging beserko rw deniers think YELLOW hummers are gay.. 

I once found 3 pounds of perfectly wrapped knockwursts and kosher franks in my driveway and the first thought I had was that it was OldRocks revenge for negging him back.. 

Completely void of logic, reason and evidence. It fits the pattern...


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?
> ...


And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.

THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.

Those who try to force data, observations, etc. into science that is not at a state where ANY conclusions can be made are responsible for all of this.  (And, in case no one notices, I repeat - ANY conclusion.)

Just stop making this political and things will be fine.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.
> 
> THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.
> 
> ...



You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.
> ...


Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

Now Traker, Sis will be accusing you soiling science. Especially if you post from peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Traker, Sis will be accusing you soiling science. Especially if you post from peer reviewed journals.


As I have never done that, I find it interesting that you are so compelled to lie when it comes to what I do or say.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Al Gore says so, that's better than anything scientists can do.

That's why Al Gore stopped flying around in a fleet of private jets and stopped owning multiple energy draining mansions and stopped having his luggage driven around by limos, because he's a man of integrity who believes every word he says.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


Al Gore is an asswipe and patient zero for this malady on science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


Global Climate Change Position Statement

Global Climate Change

PDF version 


Position in Brief

 Recommends action on reducing greenhouse gases as well as adaptation strategies for dealing with climate change
 Encourages continued research and funding into the effects of climate change, while also emphasizing the importance of educating the public on the issue 

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earths climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles. (IPCC, 2007) Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks forand in many cases is already affectinga broad range of human and natural systems. (NRC, 2010a) The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided. (NRC, 2010b, c) 

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

AGW Observer


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOL.   Sis believes that anybody that is to the left of Westbrook Pegler is a commie.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


It's unfortunate that you still confuse political advocacy, policy groups, and blogs with actual science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



In "Earth in the Balance" Al Gore blamed water vapor for he warming

True story


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Too bad the rhetoric of facts has never been your dominating rhetoric.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

Well, Sis, only better than 90% of real scientists disagree with you. But don't let that discourage you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



AND --- a Nobel Prize winner.. He did got shamed into removing several Nat Gas lanterns on his front walk here in Nashville.. Now -- he doesn't seem to be here as much.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Sis, only better than 90% of real scientists disagree with you. But don't let that discourage you.



AGW Cultists are not "Scientists"


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Sis, only better than 90% of real scientists disagree with you. But don't let that discourage you.


Believe it or not, Rocks, scientists have very diverse beliefs.

But, beliefs are not science.  Now you know.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



My, my, Frankie Boy once again demostrating his enormous ignorance. Water vapor is the dominent GHG. However, it has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than ten days. So it is a feedback from the longer lived GHGs like CO2, CH4, and NOx.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> It is what passes for science within the Grand Old Party
> 
> Republicans can't counter with data of their own and with 92% of scientists agreeing with global warming they have to do something. So they fall back on their usual tactic of harrassment, threats and intimidation to get their way



Fucking Michael Mann, complaining that he was harassed.

RW, are you too stupid to grasp that this is like Hitler complaining that the Jews were persecuting him?

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Jun 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



And as we know, those are never given out for political reasons.

So has Gore actually stopped flying private jets around, living in energy draining mansions and having luggage delivered by limos?  Or does he still not believe a word of the bs he spreads that you take as gospel?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

Now Sis, you are assuming that I have never met any scientists. Bad assumption. Yes, many and diverse beliefs. One common to good scientists is accepting reality, even when they don't like it, and it seems contrary to their politics. You don't fall into the group.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Sis, you are assuming that I have never met any scientists. Bad assumption. Yes, many and diverse beliefs. One common to good scientists is accepting reality, even when they don't like it, and it seems contrary to their politics. You don't fall into the group.


No, I am not assuming that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > It is what passes for science within the Grand Old Party
> ...



Now here we have a real asshole spewing. 

Just whom has Mann harrassed? He has done real science. Because his conclusions don't please you, does not mean you have the right to harrass him.

So take off the brown shirt, and rejoin the sane among us.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You keep repeating the 10 days statistic like it meant something as if Earth will be devoid of water vapor 9 days hence.  It's a meaningless statistic

How much water vapor was in the atmosphere 800,000 years ago?

Also, is English not your first language? I was quoting from your Bible "Earth in the Balance"  Gore said Water Vapor was the primary driver for AGW


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now here we have a real asshole spewing.



You fucking cultists are something else.

{I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !}

Mann threatening journals who dare publish science - in contrast to the cult.



> Just whom has Mann harrassed? He has done real science.



Mann is among a cadre who crush real science for the moronic cult you and he follow.



> Because his conclusions don't please you, does not mean you have the right to harrass him.



He's a pile of shit, he suppresses science and oppresses scientific inquiry, as is the way of your cult.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Interesting that you find Uncensored to be the only asshole spewing.


----------



## Dante (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...



some cyberspace pretend scientist will disagree


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Dante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> ...


Disagree about what, Dante?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



It is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports most specifically in:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

(the older 2007 report some issues have been revised over the last 5 years)
Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - AR4 WGI

(and this special report concerning current and near future impacts which just became publically available this month)
IPCC

Of course, the basic science understandings and processes are available in the upper level primary science (chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.,) textbooks and references published over the last 50-100 years.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Please cite this specific reference.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


I'll address the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

Could you please quote where the science concludes that they have identified anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming?  Thanks.

As to the IPCC, that is a political and advocacy group.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now here we have a real asshole spewing.
> ...



unevidenced and uncompelling conspiracy theories do not equate to a valid counter-point except among the delusional.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now here we have a real asshole spewing.
> ...



And the warmer cultist says::



> unevidenced and uncompelling conspiracy theories do not equate to a valid counter-point except among the delusional.



No comment on the EVIDENCE eh? You really have to be a special type of liar to avoid something this obvious..
Mann can just throw hissy fits and push his weight around as much as he likes.. But THAT'S not intimidation or harrassment. But a dead rat and YELLOW Hummer -- that's a different story...


----------



## rdean (Jun 27, 2012)

Republican Science!​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> unevidenced and uncompelling conspiracy theories do not equate to a valid counter-point except among the delusional.



These are facts, written by Mann (and Jones, et al.) That you despise fact and evidence is why you follow the AGW cult.  Real science is based on facts and evidence, but your cult represses anything that exposes the fallacy of your faith. (Now you can scream "the email was stolen," as if that alters the facts.)

Michael Mann is a two-bit charlatan. He milks the suckers by feeding them what they want to hear.  Open fraud (the hockey stick chart) is his MO, but as long as it feeds into statist goals of reduced liberty and more authoritarian control, what the hell, right?

Science cannot coexist with the AGW cult. As long as dogma, rather than a search for facts is the foundation of the community, science will remain in "the little dark age" that it currently is in.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

rdean said:


> Republican Science!


Science is science and only morons assign a party to it.

Congrats.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

> {&#8220;I will be emailing the journal to tell them I&#8217;m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.&#8221;&#8220;It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. *I&#8217;ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.* Another thing to discuss in Nice !&#8221;}



Reminded me that EVERYTHING EVERYONE needs to know about this thread topic was provided by the Grand vonStorch.. He is one of the most objective and HONEST players in this whole shameful saga... 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487042381045746014439



> By HANS VON STORCH
> "Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist
> wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On
> this, we agree&#8212;I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a
> ...



Hans -- the PEER REVIEWER himself of one of Climate Research's most prestigious magazines is a heretic to the Church of Global Warming and doesn't much care for skeptic's CONSPIRACY theories. 

But he is saying EXACTLY what the skeptics on this thread have been trying to tell y'all about the deception, harrassment, and politicalization of the process of AGW science.. This is the most DAMNING response to being professionally flamed in recent science history.. 

It's really is -- the best summary of why us skeptics are NOT the "deluded" team..


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away



If anything can attract the daveman it's a dead rat and speeding YELLOW  Hummer.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2012)

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot

Columnist says that global warming skeptics 'should have their houses burnt down' | Mail Online

Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof

» Greenpeace To Global Warming Skeptics: &#8220;We Know Where You Live&#8221; Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Climate change deniers will be seen as racists one day, says Al Gore | Mail Online


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

daveman said:


> 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot
> 
> Columnist says that global warming skeptics 'should have their houses burnt down' | Mail Online
> 
> ...



Game -- Set --- Match 

From the daily mail link... 



> Mr Gore recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.
> 
> 'Secondly, back to this phrase "win the conversation,"' he continued.
> 
> ...



Don't talk that way to me.. Don't talk back to me. In fact, Don't talk.

What a boob.

From the Daily Mail article.. 



> 'We know who the active denialists are... Lets start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, lets make them pay. Lets let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued,' Mr Zwick wrote in Forbes on Friday.
> 'Lets swap their safe land for submerged islands. Lets force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.'



Much better than a dead rat and speeding YELLOW Hummer...


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I did not say to take the IPCC's word on anything (which, btw, is not a political advocacy group, it is a multinational intergovernmental scientific and diplomatic panel tasked to study and assess the published science regarding climate change issues and report their findings back to the governments involved); I said the science "is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports."  

With regards to the Copenhagen Diagnosis and CO2's impact on climate warming the science is in the references - This first is probably the closest to the specific information you are requesting but the most complete response would require and involve a synthesis of many if not all of the references, which is what the Copenhagen Diagnosis report was intended to be,...but I will give you what you ask for, the science: 

"The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions" - H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld
Vol 459| 11 June 2009| doi:10.1038/nature08047
(note CCR = Climate-Carbon Response)


> ...The CCR is a simple, yet robust representation of the global temperature
> response to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and as such is directly relevant to current policy negotiations surrounding international climate mitigation efforts. The EuropeanUnion has proposed restricting global warming to less than 2 uC above pre-industrial temperatures
> 16; however, large uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity 17 prevents confident estimates of the CO2 stabilization level required to avoid 2 uC warming, and climate sensitivity alone provides no policy-useful information about the allowable CO2 emissions for a given stabilization level. The CCR represents a synthesis of previous efforts to quantify the temperature response to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by aggregating the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon sinks and climatecarbon feedbacks into a single well-constrained metric of climate change that is related directly to
> cumulative carbon emissions.
> ...



There are more and many that, as stated, give a more complete answer in synthesis, but I've way over extended my "play time" for today. I'll see if you have further questions or requests put them up here or send me a personal message and I'll be glad to see what I can do for you as my time allows.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


The IPCC is definitely an advocacy group.  It has done no science, rather it is involved in policy.  Period.

Secondly, I am finding it odd that someone would use synthesis as it pertains to synthesizing references or some "answer in synthesis".

Thirdly, that is a model.  Models are great for testing theories as to mechanism and the significance of that work is great for insight into mechanism, but models actually have to be tested with actual data and observations.  As Matthews' model grossly overestimates actual warming, it doesn't really hold much water with many as something that is a good or even satisfactory estimate of the magnitude of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on warming, but is valued for mechanistic insight.

Furthermore, with respect to models before 12/2009, the input data is now known to be highly questionable, and thus, new models need to be developed.

And, finally, as we are now 2012 and most scientists readily admit, in their scientific papers, that the science still has some way to go to be able to predict accurately the magnitude of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on any warning, it is surprising that in 2009 you believe the state of the science was in such a position.

It's not.  Just for example, a recent paper:

In conclusion, we remain convinced that the identi&#64257;-
cation of the warming discrepancy and the examination
of its possible causes contribute valuably to understand-
ing the consequences of the increases in atmospheric
greenhouse gases over the past 200 yr.​http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/ReplyKnuttiJClim12Why.pdf  (March 2012)

Still - today - the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the magnitude of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on any warming.

If you are interested in more information about the difference between science and advocacy, the gross overestimate of Matthew's model. other issues with his model, other issues with other models,  and/or the actual state of the science, feel free to PM me and I'll be glad to see what I can do for you as my time permits.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot
> ...


Typical, isn't it?  If you can't convince people your ideas are correct -- force them by threat of violence and actual violence.  

They have no choice but to force people.  Because the science simply doesn't support their conclusions.


----------



## rdean (Jun 29, 2012)

Si modo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republican Science!
> ...



magic isn't science.  Never has been.  Except to the right wing.​


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week
> 
> In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.
> 
> ...






you fucking dummy.............nobody cares about climate change science in 2012. IN fact, the environmental k00ks are down in Brazil this week changing the game plan once again. Why? Because they are losing big.

Yup........wont be seeing "climate change" in future years..........its now gonna be "sustainable development".

Everything "green" is going to shit. The public has figured out that all this green shit is about some money chasers and fucked up weather predictions that never happened. It will remain fringe until innovation brings a change in technologies for renewables. Solar and wind are a joke.



Dean never did get that POLITICS is about perception.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jun 29, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> *What passes for Republican Science?*



*Sitting on the sidelines*.....watching others pass-us-by.....'cause it's _haaaarrrrd_.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





> *June 29, 2012*
> 
> *China; Space Mission's Success*
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Jun 29, 2012)

Mr. Shaman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > *What passes for Republican Science?*
> ...



Out of curiosity I look at one of Shaman's post and he's pouting about China "passing" our space program and he probably just got done in another thread telling everyone why Obama is a genius for slashing NASA.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2012)

Trakar said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I have to find the book again. I had the quote on an old computer, I thought it was on page 137, but I could be wrong I used to quote the entire paragraph on the other bulletin board I belonged to


----------



## The T (Jun 29, 2012)

Dr.Drock said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
Err...uhmm? Could it be Colouring Book Boy is not only a schmuck but a brainless hack?


----------



## The T (Jun 29, 2012)

OwlGore Sings (Actually Paul Shanklin)





(Image: EIB NETWORK )​ 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_d0SP5jg4"]Al Gore Blinded Us With Science - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 3, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> *What passes for Republican Science*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0i4Sx1edJE]Global Warming and George Bush - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2012)

Mr. Shaman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > *What passes for Republican Science*
> ...



The warmers are right, that's why they have to keep manipulating the data.


----------



## Trakar (Jul 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I should be home this weekend, I should have a copy lying around somewhere. He is only a PoliSci/journalism person, not anyone who had more than a minimum of the general science coursework. He's fairly intelligent (for someone literally born in Washington DC), so I'm sure he's read up on the issue a bit over the last decade or two, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him mis-, or poorly, state the actual science. I would prefer to actually read the piece, however, because while water vapor is the most powerful GHG in our atmosphere (in terms of capacity and overall mass fraction.) its persistence is so short that there are only relatively rare circumstances under which it can act as a primary forcing agency. Water's main climate role is as a climate buffer and as a feedback multiplier to other primary forcing agents. But, I'll take a look and see if I can find what you are referring to.


----------



## Lakhota (Jul 11, 2012)

> What passes for Republican Science


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2012)

Germany's Green Disaster: Wave Of Solar Bankruptcies Wipes Off Almost 25 Billion Euros

LOL!


----------



## Trakar (Jul 13, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Germany's Green Disaster: Wave Of Solar Bankruptcies Wipes Off Almost 25 Billion Euros
> 
> LOL!



From your link:


> ...The reason for the decline: the balance of power in the solar market has changed. The cheaply-manufacturing competitors from China, such as Yingli, Trina Solar and Suntech go with predatory pricing in the market. The German companies cannot compete with the companies from the Far East because the production costs of German companies are up to 15 percent higher than those of the Asians.
> 
> In addition, the German companies made mistakes. For years, they failed to develop new products, but relied on generous government subsidies. But the state cannot and will not afford those subsidies any longer. "Many German companies did not have a clear and viable business model and they relied on too many technologies," says Wolfgang Weger, energy expert at the consulting firm Oliver Wyman...



Not a problem with solar energy, just a shift to conservidiot austerity measures in a time of global economic malaise demonstrating the effect such flawed economic decisions have as they ripple throughout the German (and EU) economies, and demonstrating the weakness of Germany's industrial sector when attempting to compete against a giant like China who is willing to fully underwrite and support fledgling energy industries until they are mature enough to compete and win dominant global market share. More a case of naive business planning on the part of the companies and the German nation (again, as well as the EU in general)  rather than any flaw in solar energy concepts. The global solar panel market grew from about 17GW installed in 2010 to about 30GW in 2011, and are currently on track to exceed 45GW in 2012. 

Take note, if you want to see America follow Europe into double-dip territory, institute the austerity programs that the tea-baggers are clamoring for.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Germany's Green Disaster: Wave Of Solar Bankruptcies Wipes Off Almost 25 Billion Euros
> ...



It's not just the crash of solar companies. It's also the awakening in Europe of what's been committed in subsidies and how little they've gotten from it.. Austerity forces some hard choices -- but cutting those subsidies seemed to be extremely easy to do..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Germany's Green Disaster: Wave Of Solar Bankruptcies Wipes Off Almost 25 Billion Euros
> ...



* For years, they failed to develop new products, but relied on generous government subsidies.*

Is the article talking about German companies, or the ones Obama has been wasting our tax dollars on?

*Take note, if you want to see America follow Europe into double-dip territory, institute the austerity programs that the tea-baggers are clamoring for.*

Let's waste more on solar, otherwise Trakar will call it austerity!


----------



## Trakar (Jul 13, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Agreed! Barry and company have continued to render far too many subsidies, underwritings and write-offs for sources of energy that are more costly, less efficient and unsustainable just in the name of putting public dollars in the pockets of private business than any public assistance program ever conceived yet alone implemented in this country. I would agree, that it is better to improve everyone's standard of living as the best and most efficient way of minimizing the need for public dollars to provide a floor standard of living. Traditionally, the debate is about the level and depth of that floor, not whether or not a floor should even exist.



> *Take note, if you want to see America follow Europe into double-dip territory, institute the austerity programs that the tea-baggers are clamoring for.*
> 
> Let's waste more on solar, otherwise Trakar will call it austerity!



Actually, I'd rather institute a national public carbon bank to pay for the process through the open and transparent investment of collected taxes, special issue public and international bond fund purchase investments - for such projects as an additional 5TW of publically owned and maintained nuclear power plants linked to provide a baseline national HVDC power backbone by 2050 that private utilities (and individuals) can sell power to at what ever market demand brings. The current power and energy companies themselves would be some of the largest investors in such bonds as they are doubly benefitted from increased contracts by such projects for line and network construction and upgrades, maintenance and repair, and even R&D. Not to mention that they can still sell power to the grid at a steady and constant (read as efficient) rate so long as they generate it as cleanly and as cheaply as they are required to, to generate profit. Oh, and they'll earn the profit of ther investment as their bond matures. There are many ways that the process of converting to a more efficient and sustainable energy structure can be made to fund and support itself. While providing boost to the economy and paying back the national debt.

You want wealth to increase you have to get it moving, you invest in the foundation to create opportunities and build a strong and vibrant future upon. If you let your base crumble and shatter because you focus your resources lavishing the penthouse you're only building a more decorative tomb.


----------

