Why is climate science political?

[OldManOnFire]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Long long ago in a faraway place people could find consensus in truths. After all, the truth is supposed to be the ultimate position, no matter if objective or subjective.

But today one man's truth is another man's lie or BS. The blind passions of religion and political and special interest dogma have superseded truth!

Lastly, the collective we believe or think we are an intelligent species. But the 'truth' is we barely have one foot out of the primordial muck! Most of the issues today are quite complex and wide in scope and without a great deal of time and focus are beyond the comprehension of average people. Yet most of us believe we can solve global climate change, or government deficit spending, or obesity, etc. in a few words in a public forum. And depending on the forum, and depending on how the dogma controls us, we can find eternal happiness today no matter if our foundation is based on truth or lies...

 

[westwall]

How can steamed milk be dry? LOL Dammit, now I'm craving one of their Fudge Drumsticks.... okay.. not really. I couldn't eat only one.

Maybe I should phone to see if Ray's Cherry Hut still exists or if the frozen cherries kept them safe?

I dunno, it would take a shitload of cherries to counter that much heat. i don't know if there are enough frozen cherries on the planet to do that!

but but but... frozen in sugar water!!!! that makes all the difference cause they're so sweet, right? Cuteness and tasty counteract physics right?



As an aside, is a 'shitload' more than a peck or bushel?

Oh, way, WAY more than a peck!

 

[starcraftzzz]

For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as naive gets s0ns..........


Our Team — American Carbon Registry


Winrock International - Clean Energy - Links



fucking dolts.........they think the opportunistic greedy are only in fossil fuels.


Ive always been fascinated by that............this profound level of naive amongst the environmental radicals. These people missed some meetings in the formative years.

Yes accepting realtiy and facts is totaly naive but you being a tool of big oil and telling us that all the eivdence and allt he scintsitis int he world is cooked is you being intelligent.

 

[westwall]

For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as naive gets s0ns..........


Our Team — American Carbon Registry


Winrock International - Clean Energy - Links



fucking dolts.........they think the opportunistic greedy are only in fossil fuels.


Ive always been fascinated by that............this profound level of naive amongst the environmental radicals. These people missed some meetings in the formative years.

Yes accepting realtiy and facts is totaly naive but you being a tool of big oil and telling us that all the eivdence and allt he scintsitis int he world is cooked is you being intelligent.

What reality and what facts? The reality is that the planet has been stable or cooling for the last 10 plus years no matter how much your high priests alter the data, the fact remains and the people KNOW it.

As far as facts go, see above. Once you are reduced to falsification the people realise you have no "facts" at all.

You folks have screwed the pooch in such a major way I can see why you are reduced to childish tantrums and ever larger lies to try and gin up support again. I guess you never read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Good story, encapsulates the AGW movement in a childs book.

Who knew.

 

[skookerasbil]

For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as naive gets s0ns..........


Our Team — American Carbon Registry


Winrock International - Clean Energy - Links



fucking dolts.........they think the opportunistic greedy are only in fossil fuels.


Ive always been fascinated by that............this profound level of naive amongst the environmental radicals. These people missed some meetings in the formative years.

Yes accepting realtiy and facts is totaly naive but you being a tool of big oil and telling us that all the eivdence and allt he scintsitis int he world is cooked is you being intelligent.

I only care that the "naive" side is winning s0n....................

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14553/Dead-Last-Pew-Poll-Global-warming-finishes-22nd-of-22-top-policy-priorities-of-2012-A-quarter-of-Americans-now-find-climate-change-a-top-concern-down-from-almost-4-in-10-in-2007

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[starcraftzzz]

For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as naive gets s0ns..........


Our Team — American Carbon Registry


Winrock International - Clean Energy - Links



fucking dolts.........they think the opportunistic greedy are only in fossil fuels.


Ive always been fascinated by that............this profound level of naive amongst the environmental radicals. These people missed some meetings in the formative years.

Yes accepting realtiy and facts is totaly naive but you being a tool of big oil and telling us that all the eivdence and allt he scintsitis int he world is cooked is you being intelligent.

I only care that the "naive" side is winning s0n....................

If you really cared you wouldn’t be part of the naïve side If you really cared you wouldn’t be part of the naïve side whose position is that all the evidence, every fact based organization and every scientist is some how wrong just because oil companies and Glenn Beck say so

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm happy. I just got to debunk the brains of 10 other men who were suckered with magic man-made CO2. Loved the lights that went off over their heads when they realized how insignificant we are to the power of nature.

 

[code1211]

Yes accepting realtiy and facts is totaly naive but you being a tool of big oil and telling us that all the eivdence and allt he scintsitis int he world is cooked is you being intelligent.

I only care that the "naive" side is winning s0n....................

If you really cared you wouldn’t be part of the naïve side If you really cared you wouldn’t be part of the naïve side whose position is that all the evidence, every fact based organization and every scientist is some how wrong just because oil companies and Glenn Beck say so

Are taking a poll?

Why not present the proof?

 

[theunbubba]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.

Here it is:
Speak truth to liberals: Global warming debunking resource guide

Have a good read and get back to us.

 

[skookerasbil]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.

Here it is:
Speak truth to liberals: Global warming debunking resource guide

Have a good read and get back to us.

Clicked on that "Follow the Money" link dude...........

94 billion over the years in green stimulus. About as smart as me buying a brand new ZO6 Corvette for my 9 year old so she can look at it in the driveway..


What a fucking disgrace. The crazies have taken over the world

 

[wirebender]

If you really cared you wouldn’t be part of the naïve side If you really cared you wouldn’t be part of the naïve side whose position is that all the evidence, every fact based organization and every scientist is some how wrong just because oil companies and Glenn Beck say so

I know that the kook aid makes the world around you fuzzy and hard to understand so I suppose you are unaware that there are over 1000 peer reviewed papers out there supporting the skeptical side of this argument.

 

[theunbubba]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.

Here it is:
Speak truth to liberals: Global warming debunking resource guide

Have a good read and get back to us.

Clicked on that "Follow the Money" link dude...........

94 billion over the years in green stimulus. About as smart as me buying a brand new ZO6 Corvette for my 9 year old so she can look at it in the driveway..


What a fucking disgrace. The crazies have taken over the world

Not yet. They are also a dead end philosophy. I have proof of that too.

 

[Saigon]

Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.
.

This really is very, very funny.

Irony really is the highest form of wit.

 

[IanC]

Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

for those unfamiliar, Briffa selected treering data that had showed a 20th century increase of temp and threw away the majority of data that did not show warming. by the 1990's he was down to a handful of trees out of thousands.

Climategate Continues - Andrew Montford & Harold Ambler - National Review Online

Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa’s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.

 

[code1211]

Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.
.

This really is very, very funny.

Irony really is the highest form of wit.

On this board we seem to round and round regarding the definition of Liberal and Conservative. I happen to be a Conservative, but that demands adherence to a Liberal Social Agenda since governmental control is demanded to enforce the limitation of activities by individuals.

Two people can look at the exact same political action and define as both Liberal and Conservative depending on what they understand the terms to mean.

I can't see how anyone could define climate and CO2 activism as anything but Liberal, but I've been surprised many times.

 

[Saigon]

Code1211 -

The definitions of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' are a minefield, and certainly I don't think the former can carry a single, global definition.

But what I think is so brilliant about Theunbuddas post is that he really skewers this thinking that if I am a conservative, I also define conservatism, and that I am free to rule that whatever anyone else things is simply not conerservatism.

Realistically, conservatism can cover a huge swathe of territory on the political spectrum, from McCarthy to McCain, from Thatcher to Sakorzy...and I challenge anyone to claim they aren't conservatives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

for those unfamiliar, Briffa selected treering data that had showed a 20th century increase of temp and threw away the majority of data that did not show warming. by the 1990's he was down to a handful of trees out of thousands.

Climategate Continues - Andrew Montford & Harold Ambler - National Review Online

Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa’s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.

Exxon made him do it.

 

[code1211]

Code1211 -

The definitions of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' are a minefield, and certainly I don't think the former can carry a single, global definition.

But what I think is so brilliant about Theunbuddas post is that he really skewers this thinking that if I am a conservative, I also define conservatism, and that I am free to rule that whatever anyone else things is simply not conerservatism.

Realistically, conservatism can cover a huge swathe of territory on the political spectrum, from McCarthy to McCain, from Thatcher to Sakorzy...and I challenge anyone to claim they aren't conservatives.

If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.