Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[westwall]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

You would be wrong on your assumption. Take a look at a few of the sceptics sites and then come back and talk to us about the "settled science".


Here is a little segement from climateaudit...


"Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. Read More »"

Why, oh why, if the science is so solid would anybody need or want to hide it?

Climate Depot

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Climate Audit

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

You are wrong. We the TAXPAYERS have paid them for it. It's EXACTLY the same as if they were an engineer or scientist working for a private company. That company OWNS the product of the work of those scientists/engineers. Likewise we OWN the product of the work they do because we have paid for it.

Not to mention the fact that the scientific method REQUIRES the release of all data so that the work can be checked by others. Climatologists are the only "scientists" and boy do I use the term loosely with them, who refuse to release their raw data so that others may check their work.

Academic fraud doesn't even begin to cover the bullshit these assholes are doing.

 

[westwall]

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Climate research has been analyzed and peer reviewed idiot for decades, idiot.

You're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

Yes. By friends and relatives. They refuse to release their data to scientists outside their field. When that data does get out it is invariably proven false. You might try reading more mr. sheeple.

 

[Cowman]

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Climate research has been analyzed and peer reviewed idiot for decades, idiot.

You're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

Yes. By friends and relatives. They refuse to release their data to scientists outside their field. When that data does get out it is invariably proven false. You might try reading more mr. sheeple.

Friends and relatives? What the fuck are you talking about. Climate scientists exist around the globe and there has been research for a very long time regarding the subject. Most scientists are in full belief of Climate Change, and Global Warming as one of the many effects.

Keep clinging to the few conspiracy theory stories that come out regarding the subject and ignoring the fact that they are debunked.

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

And refuse to release their data? There are countless pools of information out there to wet your fucking beak. But you idiots keep going to places like "Wattsupwiththat" for all your kooky conspiracy bullshit and refuse to believe the other information that is out there and backed by countless scientists globally.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Climate research has been analyzed and peer reviewed idiot for decades, idiot.

You're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

Yes. By friends and relatives. They refuse to release their data to scientists outside their field. When that data does get out it is invariably proven false. You might try reading more mr. sheeple.

Ol' Walleyes is a liar from the word go. Virtually evey issue of Science, Nature, Geology, and other Scientific Journals now have peer reviewed articles related to AGW. From scientists all over the world, and available to all.

AGW Observer

 

[Old Rocks]

And there is the history of the study of the relationship of climate and GHGs at the American Institute of Physics site.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[sparky]

guess his friends didn't get the memo....~S~

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate research has been analyzed and peer reviewed idiot for decades, idiot.

You're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

Yes. By friends and relatives. They refuse to release their data to scientists outside their field. When that data does get out it is invariably proven false. You might try reading more mr. sheeple.

Friends and relatives? What the fuck are you talking about. Climate scientists exist around the globe and there has been research for a very long time regarding the subject. Most scientists are in full belief of Climate Change, and Global Warming as one of the many effects.

Keep clinging to the few conspiracy theory stories that come out regarding the subject and ignoring the fact that they are debunked.

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

And refuse to release their data? There are countless pools of information out there to wet your fucking beak. But you idiots keep going to places like "Wattsupwiththat" for all your kooky conspiracy bullshit and refuse to believe the other information that is out there and backed by countless scientists globally.

More CowfAiL.............."kooky conspiracy bullshit".

LMAO..........then why is it the "real science" is losing? If those who dont embrace an alarmist AGW mentality are fringe, why is Cap and Trade as dead as a doornail? Carbon caps havent even been utterred on the floor of the Congress for almost 3 years.

Sheep on this forum who embrace alarmist crap ARE the fringe in 2012. They may well be good intentioned, but they are definately fringe.

This is a POLITICS forum. In 2012, only the fringe give a rats ass about the "science"............I dont care how many millions of volumes the alarmists have gathered. The nutters act as if we can go pursue all this green energy BS as if the rest of the world will embrace ( with glee ) paying LOTS more for energy just to jettison some guilt ( based upon some speculative computer models).

Cow s0n............you have the political IQ of a motorcycle battery terminal.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I don't really follow the politics of global warming, there is a struggle for power and money and resources and all sorts of things out of my hands

A bit of double think here because Anthropogenic Global Warming is 99.44% politics.
It's all about power, money and control. Those who support AGW want it. Those who refuse to agree want to deny others from having it over them.

Let me ask you a question I just heard about Climate Change in general.

Do you believe that what man does to the environment is Natural, or Unnatural?

That is one of the million dollar questions and goes directly to the sewage analogy. We can absolutely dismiss what man does to his environment as "natural" and use that to excuse ourselves from doing anything to counter act our "natural" impacts. However, there are already far too many things we have learned that we have to do to accept this, sewage treatment being one of them. We know that taking a shit is "natural". However, the results of that action creates a living condition that is unacceptable if we don't take measures to remove and treat the waste beyond what the Earth will do in it's own time. So, if you're saying that our impacts are just natural and we shouldn't be doing anything to change or alter them... then I ask again, you must be OK with me taking a shit in the middle of your floor? Or do you prefer some control of how I treat the environment?

The further analogy is that if you consider man's actions natural, including our industrialization of much of the planet, use of automobiles, etc., then wouldn't you lso just consider it natural that we learned how to deal with shit? So what's the problem learning to deal with the climate?

I see.... this is a political board. You guys aren't taking a natural or scientific approach, it is indeed, 99.44% politics for you.

By the "natural" rational, it is completely natural for man to use his knowledge to control his environment for his comfort and well being. Just like we learned to treat sewage instead of walk around in shit.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Actually you do have a point. Mankind does have the ability to cool the planet. Either through a nuclear winter or some other idiocy like that. We could definately cool the planet and that would lead to at least a billion dead.

So you accept that man has the power to cool the planet?

Neither heat nor cool. He can poison the shit out of it and kill himself off. But that's not climate.

Westwall says we have the power to cool the planet, but not heat it up. You say we can poison it and kill ourselves off but we can't heat or cool the planet.

I say it's a good idea not to speak in absolutes. Leaving the possibilities open is a good idea. You guys get so invested in these immovable positions that you lose your common sense.

 

[skookerasbil]

I don't really follow the politics of global warming, there is a struggle for power and money and resources and all sorts of things out of my hands

A bit of double think here because Anthropogenic Global Warming is 99.44% politics.
It's all about power, money and control. Those who support AGW want it. Those who refuse to agree want to deny others from having it over them.

Let me ask you a question I just heard about Climate Change in general.

Do you believe that what man does to the environment is Natural, or Unnatural?

That is one of the million dollar questions and goes directly to the sewage analogy. We can absolutely dismiss what man does to his environment as "natural" and use that to excuse ourselves from doing anything to counter act our "natural" impacts. However, there are already far too many things we have learned that we have to do to accept this, sewage treatment being one of them. We know that taking a shit is "natural". However, the results of that action creates a living condition that is unacceptable if we don't take measures to remove and treat the waste beyond what the Earth will do in it's own time. So, if you're saying that our impacts are just natural and we shouldn't be doing anything to change or alter them... then I ask again, you must be OK with me taking a shit in the middle of your floor? Or do you prefer some control of how I treat the environment?

The further analogy is that if you consider man's actions natural, including our industrialization of much of the planet, use of automobiles, etc., then wouldn't you lso just consider it natural that we learned how to deal with shit? So what's the problem learning to deal with the climate?

I see.... this is a political board. You guys aren't taking a natural or scientific approach, it is indeed, 99.44% politics for you.

By the "natural" rational, it is completely natural for man to use his knowledge to control his environment for his comfort and well being. Just like we learned to treat sewage instead of walk around in shit.

lmao............the "natural rationale" is, most of the public realizes we dont have 76 trillion ( UN dollar figure.....not mine)to spend based upon a possible Hail Mary Pass computer model. That is INDEED rational, and why in 2012, the AGW k00k contingent are easily the fringe.


When people see science able to accurately predict the movement of tornado's and hurricanes, they'll take this shit more seriously.

 

[daveman]

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Americans like to get paid...scientists included.

Real scientists also don't distort/modify/cherry-pick/invent data.

The AGW cultists have done all of that.

 

[daveman]

You have no more right to proprietary research on climate than free asprin from your drug store.

Maybe many of the researchers wanna make a buck for their trouble. Big whoop.

Real scientists WANT their work analyzed.

Climate research has been analyzed and peer reviewed idiot for decades, idiot.

You're nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

Ahhh, yes, "Peer review"...where you present your article to a short list of fellow believers who are guaranteed to rubber-stamp your conclusions.

Meaningless.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Sweet Willy]

Gentlemen, the Earth does not correct man made changes to the environment on any regular and observable scale. The natural condition of the Earth, absent man, in this picture is darkness. (I don't judge the goodness or badness of that condition. It just is). As you can see, man has the ability to far out pace the Earth's ability to adjust to man made conditions. Sure, hurricanes and storms take down power lines, things rust and corrode, lights burn out under the Earths wear and tear. But we build and replace faster than the Earth reclaims it's darkness. We are able to impose our will on the Earth and make it light, where the Earth would otherwise be dark.

The claim that man can only "locally" affect his environment is baloney. One picture shows us the cumulative affect. Light escapes into space also...but it's affect on Earth is quite visible on it's way out.

The claim that the Earth somehow balances man's actions is also debunked with one photo. The Earth can't tear down the lights as fast as we can put them up.

Now, again, lights are a good thing. I like lights. I think it's a heck of an accomplishment we have here to look at from space. But it also stands to demonstrate the capacity of man to make enormous changes to his environment on a global scale. To think this is only possible with light is naive or ignorant or just plain hard headed. This is all just political grudge matching against AGW. The simple fact for anyone to understand with half a brain is that all sorts of things are possible and claiming that it's impossible to cause significant environmental impact on a global scale is foolishness.

Ok, what effect does all of that light have?

It has the effect to demonstrate man's ability to make significant and global impacts to his environment.

100 years ago some guy was saying how we could light up the entire country with electricity and light bulbs. Some other guy was shitting bricks about how impossible it was. Need to wipe now?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Sweet Willy]

A bit of double think here because Anthropogenic Global Warming is 99.44% politics.
It's all about power, money and control. Those who support AGW want it. Those who refuse to agree want to deny others from having it over them.

Let me ask you a question I just heard about Climate Change in general.

Do you believe that what man does to the environment is Natural, or Unnatural?

That is one of the million dollar questions and goes directly to the sewage analogy. We can absolutely dismiss what man does to his environment as "natural" and use that to excuse ourselves from doing anything to counter act our "natural" impacts. However, there are already far too many things we have learned that we have to do to accept this, sewage treatment being one of them. We know that taking a shit is "natural". However, the results of that action creates a living condition that is unacceptable if we don't take measures to remove and treat the waste beyond what the Earth will do in it's own time. So, if you're saying that our impacts are just natural and we shouldn't be doing anything to change or alter them... then I ask again, you must be OK with me taking a shit in the middle of your floor? Or do you prefer some control of how I treat the environment?

The further analogy is that if you consider man's actions natural, including our industrialization of much of the planet, use of automobiles, etc., then wouldn't you lso just consider it natural that we learned how to deal with shit? So what's the problem learning to deal with the climate?

I see.... this is a political board. You guys aren't taking a natural or scientific approach, it is indeed, 99.44% politics for you.

By the "natural" rational, it is completely natural for man to use his knowledge to control his environment for his comfort and well being. Just like we learned to treat sewage instead of walk around in shit.

lmao............the "natural rationale" is, most of the public realizes we dont have 76 trillion ( UN dollar figure.....not mine)to spend based upon a possible Hail Mary Pass computer model. That is INDEED rational, and why in 2012, the AGW k00k contingent are easily the fringe.


When people see science able to accurately predict the movement of tornado's and hurricanes, they'll take this shit more seriously.

And I would agree with you there. The ridiculous part of this is that you guys make giant leaps of logic. Either I have to completely reject and denounce any effort of man to control his environment or I must be in favor of the most extreme action in the opposite direction.

You guys all need some moderation.

You guys understand why we treat human waste. We have to take control of some of our impacts or life becomes uncomfortable for us. Same with the garbage we generate. If we don't manage it, haul it away, recycle it, landfill it , it tends to pile up in unsanitary ways around where we live. We can go see places where the garbage and shit are still allowed to pile up where people live. They don't tend to have healthy, much less comfortable lives. Our impacts on our living quality, on large scales are fairly easy to see.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't really follow the politics of global warming, there is a struggle for power and money and resources and all sorts of things out of my hands

A bit of double think here because Anthropogenic Global Warming is 99.44% politics.
It's all about power, money and control. Those who support AGW want it. Those who refuse to agree want to deny others from having it over them.

Let me ask you a question I just heard about Climate Change in general.

Do you believe that what man does to the environment is Natural, or Unnatural?

That is one of the million dollar questions and goes directly to the sewage analogy. We can absolutely dismiss what man does to his environment as "natural" and use that to excuse ourselves from doing anything to counter act our "natural" impacts. However, there are already far too many things we have learned that we have to do to accept this, sewage treatment being one of them. We know that taking a shit is "natural". However, the results of that action creates a living condition that is unacceptable if we don't take measures to remove and treat the waste beyond what the Earth will do in it's own time. So, if you're saying that our impacts are just natural and we shouldn't be doing anything to change or alter them... then I ask again, you must be OK with me taking a shit in the middle of your floor? Or do you prefer some control of how I treat the environment?

The further analogy is that if you consider man's actions natural, including our industrialization of much of the planet, use of automobiles, etc., then wouldn't you lso just consider it natural that we learned how to deal with shit? So what's the problem learning to deal with the climate?

I see.... this is a political board. You guys aren't taking a natural or scientific approach, it is indeed, 99.44% politics for you.

By the "natural" rational, it is completely natural for man to use his knowledge to control his environment for his comfort and well being. Just like we learned to treat sewage instead of walk around in shit.

We can absolutely dismiss what man does to his environment as "natural" and use that to excuse ourselves from doing anything to counter act our "natural" impacts.

Okay. I await your condemnation of Ants, Beavers, Termites, Coral, Kudzu, most weeds and many other creatures that build and change their environment through their basic life processes. What plans do you plan to undertake to eradicate their threat to the climate? Obviously they need to justify their actions as a crime against nature.

then wouldn't you lso just consider it natural that we learned how to deal with shit?

One, highly assumptive in this "Mork from Ork" style of logic. Inventions and technology does not automatically come with a dust broom and pan or a garbage bin. I remember that Mork and Mindy episode when he learns of Three Mile Island and is stunned that humans don't use "Nuke-Away" and just make radiation and it's waste go away.

Your assumption is about the same level of silly fairy tale implausability.

You guys aren't taking a natural or scientific approach, it is indeed, 99.44% politics for you.

Has been ever since Mann faked his first Hockey stick with twisting data.

Just like we learned to treat sewage instead of walk around in shit.

But apparently we haven't learned to treat Intellectual Shit with the same disdain and prompt disposal.

 

[Big Fitz]

The ridiculous part of this is that you guys make giant leaps of logic.

You mean like the straight line logic of the Chicken Little Chorus, the Peak Oilers and every other catastrophic flavor of Malthusian extinction you Ecofascisti pimp?

Nope. You don't EVERRRRR do the same thing you accuse those in favor of rational testable science who deny your threat inflation.

Either I have to completely reject and denounce any effort of man to control his environment or I must be in favor of the most extreme action in the opposite direction.

You guys all need some moderation.

Emphasis mine.

Bubby, you are SHITTING me, right?

We need moderation, and you're throwing around absolutes. Good job. We are not denying that nature is going to do what nature is going to do. We ARE denying that mankind is THE prime mover in this. The sun gets hot, WE get hot. The sun gets cold, WE get cold. Simple isn't it. If GHG increase, what're we going to do when we produce so little of them??? One volcanic eruption equals all the pollution we've ever emitted as a SPECIES in HISTORY!

We need moderation? I'm sorry, it's time for your Haldol and the nurse is going to have to take away your current event privileges for a week. You need to calm down.

You will be allowed to participate in Thorazine Shuffle class to occupy yourself.

You guys understand why we treat human waste.

Scientifically proven cause able to be repeated? Direct provable link to diseases like Typhoid, Dysentary, Cholera and more? Nope! Don't get it. Too much empirical science in the way.

We have to take control of some of our impacts or life becomes uncomfortable for us.

I hear after death, discomfort is a relative thing.

If we don't manage it, haul it away, recycle it, landfill it , it tends to pile up in unsanitary ways around where we live.

What about Waste to Energy Incinerators? Very viable. But see, here's the problem. THIS is not equatable to CLIMATE. It is pollution and sanitation for the quality of life and protection of health. How much garbage rotting in the street will not change the CO2 one bit. It will have negligible effects on Methane as well. Besides, continued behavior of this sort will cause a rapid decline in it because people will die off in droves reducing overall population (I know you got a tingle up your leg at that) and lessening the impact of garbage producing quasi-natural humans.

We can go see places where the garbage and shit are still allowed to pile up where people live.

But enough about visits to our nation's capitol.

They don't tend to have healthy, much less comfortable lives. Our impacts on our living quality, on large scales are fairly easy to see.

And once again, you've failed to prove a link between litter, sewage and climate change. You've only spotted a SIMILAR but UNRELATED pattern in theory. Too bad the mathematics of scale and observable data just... well... agree with you.

Nice try. Here's the nice lady with your pills now.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Sorry Fitz, I don't follow you.

When beavers and ants start designing machines and chemicals that make their own habitat uninhabitable, you then might have a point. But most of us recognize man's special status as a species apart from the other animals. When we make a mess, we have learned how to clean it up or deal with it in order to mitigate our own impacts. Self awareness type thinking. Beavers and ants don't have the capacity to understand why they get sick or how one action may have a particular consequence.... it's pretty much the reason you find them dead in the road. They can't quite grasp the whole car / highway thing.

But please, continue to compare human industrialization to beavers. That'll teach those pesky plumbers to direct the shit out of your house!

 

[Dragon]

The reason that so many conservatives take an opposing stance towards the theory of global warming is because they are authoritarian thinkers and have been TOLD to do so by people who are paid to say that by the fossil-fuel industry whose interests will be harmed by any attempt to turn away from fossil fuel use. There is really no other reason at all. Every argument against AGW advanced here or anywhere else has its origin from that source, and is merely being repeated.

In fact, from a conservative perspective it doesn't even make sense to oppose the actions we would need to take to fight global warming. We are going to have to turn away from oil anyway over the next few decades as it becomes more and more expensive. We can replace oil with greater efficiency and renewable energy, or we can replace it (temporarily) with coal. Global warming (as well as other environmental considerations) argues against the latter. So the "sacrifice" needed to deal with global warming consists of having the energy of the future come from solar, wind, etc. instead of from coal. That's it. But because rank and file conservatives have been TOLD to oppose AGW by people they consider authorities, the knees obediently jerk.