Why is climate science political?

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

I think the analogy of medicine and doctors is a good one.

Naturally if we feel ill, we think first ourselves what the diagnosis might, and consider some common sense possibilities and solutions.

We may then choose a doctor we trust.

If his diagnosis doesn't fit, we might consult another doctor, perhaps a specialist.

But when 50 doctors all come to a similar conclusion, and there is no real dissenting voice, I tend to go with the 50 doctors.

I've read quite a few studies on particular issues - largely to do with glaciers, desertification and coral reefs, because I have seen evidence of these with my own eyes, so they naturally interest me more.

My conlusion based on those reports and my own observations in places like Spain, Australia, Mozambique and Bangladesh, I think the scientists have got it right.

To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.

 

[Saigon]

To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.

No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'.

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.

 

[Big Fitz]

To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.

No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'.

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.

You chose the poor analogy. I just ran with it.

OR did you mean you prefer to accept only the actuarial tables of the health insurance industry because 'their studies indicate' you need medical treatment when you exhibit no symptoms because it's the typical time these problems happen?

I don't need to be your research monkey. I just have common sense and questions that even an 8th grade science book and basic understanding of proportions show mankind is NOT the cause of any change in climate and therefore NO governmental action need be taken. Adapt and thrive like we have since the dawn of man.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

I think the analogy is excellent, and I stand by it.

And I think we can assume that if there was any scientific backing for your position, you'd be using it yourself.

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

I think the analogy is excellent, and I stand by it.

And I think we can assume that if there was any scientific backing for your position, you'd be using it yourself.

I have. I did. You ignored.

It's called an 8th grade science text. Do I need to get fancier?

You've not answered my question once about it saying instead that I need to obey somebody with a fancy title somewhere else even though they use corrupt data.

I'm sorry, but the "Don't beleive your lying eyes, believe this person's title." argument doesn't hold water. Appeal to authority argument fails every time.

So I'll ask again.

How does mankinds contribution of 0.0024% of all atmospheric composition, which is only 0.06% of CO2 control the climate of the planet when the remaining 99.04% of natural production is A) Ignored and B) insignificant compared to the power of Water Vapor?

Answer me that.

Why do we need global fascism for something so absolutely insignificant and with zero chance of changing what is going on with the natural climate of the planet?

 

[Liability]

IF mankind were actually the cause of climate change, then we'd expect to see no evidence of climate change prior to humankind or at least prior human society dumping so-called greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in any significant volume. But, we DO see climate change -- historically -- both before human society took technology to that point and before humankind even existed.

One need not be a Ph.D., therefore, to conclude that the "A" part of AGW is not really a significant factor in historical climate change.

To this the AGW-faithers say, "ah but NOW humankind IS dumping tons of 'stuff' into the environment which our models predict will lead inevitably to climate change."

What the AGW type proponents have NEVER done is to show any verifiable correlation between human activity and actual climate change. Lots of "theory." Not a speck of "proof."

And despite that, the loons of the AGW-faith insist that there is "no credible dispute" to their fanciful contentions. They are, of course, merely mouthing their belief as fact. That still doesn't make it so.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.

Ask your PhD candidate wife about the logic of appeals to authority as a method of argumentation.

 

[westwall]

Code -

Please try to respond to what I post, rather than just make up stories.

I am recommending that you take a look at some of the 800+ latest research papers, none of which have ever stood accused of any kind of shortcuts or junk science, rather than get lost in red herrings.

Keep in mind - not a single scientific body agrees with your position on this topic. Not one.

Have you looked at the 1000+ papers that disagree with the warmists? Have you looked at the CV's of the 30,000+ scientists who don't agree with the AGW premise. No, you havn't. I have read a great deal of the papers you are so enamored with and they are examples of such poor science as to be pathetic.

Computer models accepted as data! Ridiculous! AGW science is as poor an example of the scientific method as you could witness. What is particularly galling is Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than the scientists involved in AGW research!

That's ABSURD!

 

[Big Fitz]

Huh... poof Saigon disappeared when confronted with a direct question.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE]The tale of Sir Robin with subtitles (Brave Sir Robin) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.

Really?

Can you give me the post number where I said this?

You are recommending the dissemination of misleading propaganda from governments to trick the populations into following an agenda that is neither explained nor revealed.

Stupid, stupid posting from you, Code.

And yet, that's exactly what you mean. After all, one of the scientists involved is famous for making the statement that each scientist had to choose between what was factual and what would get their policies adopted...in other words he was counseling them to LIE!

I suggest you quit and go home. You're not very good at this.

 

[westwall]

Fitz -

No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.

Earlier I posted a list of more than 50 scientific bodies from right around the world, and across a huge range of different areas of science - everything from geophysics to biology, from geography to climatlogy.

If you are right and they are wrong, then it only makes sense that a fair number of other scientific bodies would take up your case.

But none do.

So this is a little like consulting 50 different doctors, and then claiming that they are all wrong and you are right, despite the fact no doctors agree with you.

And just think those same societies were all in agreement that Plate Tectonics was wrong until around 1965, in spite of all the evidence to support it. They also supported the idea that Pellagra was a gene based disease...till they started getting it during the Great Depression and they finally decided to really investigate it.....and found it was a nutrition based disease.

I can go on and on about how often the scientific bodies have been wrong in their opinions.
That's why appeals to authority are fraught with problems. Large groups like that vote based on the money they get from their opinions. You're just not educated enough to figure that out. Some day you might.

 

[code1211]

It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.

Really?

Can you give me the post number where I said this?

You are recommending the dissemination of misleading propaganda from governments to trick the populations into following an agenda that is neither explained nor revealed.

Stupid, stupid posting from you, Code.

Your post #342:

"Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap.

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine.

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me."
__________________


How would you interpret this tho mean anything other than what I said?

 

[code1211]

Fitz -

No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.

Earlier I posted a list of more than 50 scientific bodies from right around the world, and across a huge range of different areas of science - everything from geophysics to biology, from geography to climatlogy.

If you are right and they are wrong, then it only makes sense that a fair number of other scientific bodies would take up your case.

But none do.

So this is a little like consulting 50 different doctors, and then claiming that they are all wrong and you are right, despite the fact no doctors agree with you.

Ho w do they explain that the worming that we currently enjoy has been under way for 2000 years with an interruption for the Little Ice Age?

Also, how do they explain that the cooling portion of the Little Ice Age ended about 150 years prior to the cause they cite as the one that is causing our current warming?

Did the CO2 level increased by the Industrial Revolution have a time machine?

 

[code1211]

To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.

No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'.

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.

You pretty much discount the guys at CERN as idiots, then?

 

[RollingThunder]

To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.

No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'.

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.

You pretty much discount the guys at CERN as idiots, then?

The "guys at CERN" are fine. It is you and the other denier cultists who are the idiots.

And, BTW, the CERN results have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

 

[westwall]

No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'.

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.

You pretty much discount the guys at CERN as idiots, then?

The "guys at CERN" are fine. It is you and the other denier cultists who are the idiots.

And, BTW, the CERN results have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

Other than to refute the underlying science I agree! What a doofus you are. I mean really, do you know anything? At all?

 

[percysunshine]

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?

European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO!

Moron.

 

[code1211]

No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'.

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.

You pretty much discount the guys at CERN as idiots, then?

The "guys at CERN" are fine. It is you and the other denier cultists who are the idiots.

And, BTW, the CERN results have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

That response is everything that all of my experience with you has taught me to expect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

 

[RollingThunder]

You pretty much discount the guys at CERN as idiots, then?

The "guys at CERN" are fine. It is you and the other denier cultists who are the idiots.

And, BTW, the CERN results have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

That response is everything that all of my experience with you has taught me to expect.

Other than to refute the underlying science I agree! What a doofus you are. I mean really, do you know anything? At all?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......oh lord, you retards are soooooo gullible.....it just breaks my heart to see you so totally bamboozled.....your arrogance on top of your ignorance is pretty funny too....

The lead scientist at CERN pursuing this particular line of inquiry, Dr. Jasper Kirkby, had this to say, as quoted in an article in Nature magazine, about his recent CLOUD cosmic ray experiment:

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

Dr Kirkby also had this to say in an interview with MSNBC.COM's LiveScience:

The research doesn't call into question the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, Kirkby emphasized, but rather refines one facet of the research. Climate models currently predict an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The data generated by the CLOUD experiment (CLOUD stands for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") will feed into global models of aerosol formation, Kirkby said, which in turn will carry into global climate models. "It's part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you could say it adds to the understanding of the big picture," he said. "But it in no way disproves the other pieces."

Moreover, in order for cosmic rays to be actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, there would have to have been a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades, and there hasn't been any such trend. You gullible denier cult dimwits are so full of spun-up propaganda BS, it's pouring out your ears.