Why is climate science political?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The panels were profittable,

Obviously they were not.

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).

Based on the fact they went bankrupt.
You understand what that means?

or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production

You mean they earned more than the cost of production and still failed?
Please explain further.

 

[Liability]

Solyndra made a good deal of money. Ours.

 

[saveliberty]

The panels were profittable,

Obviously they were not.

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).

Solyndra was not the low cost producer. If they could have broke even, they should have been $585 million ahead with the governemnt cash infusion. Lies upon lies.

 

[code1211]

Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).

The fact of the government is that if any agency is given an 8% increase in funds, that agency will double in size in 10 years. This is what has happened to the EPA and virtually all of the agencies in DC.

It's insanity. That many motivated do-gooders are sure to create mischief as they strive to assure that a snail darter or a desert lizard is not adversely affected by people trying to make a living.


EPA Regulations Cause Drought in California - WSJ.com

When Did the EPA Jump the Shark? | RedState

Weekly Standard: Protect Lizards And Endanger Jobs : NPR

A rather entertaining dance, but it doesn't address the questions posed. Please support your previous assertion and answer the questions asked:

Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).

When it comes to beaureuctatic people, there is no need to have names or to have identities. They all operate as drones doing what they would do if they we insects in a hive.

The three links above were found in about a 2 minute search. I'm sure if i knew where to look, i could find plenty and they would be more damning yet.

More insidious than these, though, are the many regulations that exist "just in case". This is not just true of the EPA but of all beauracracies that have a many people who do nothing all day long outside of simply justifying their jobs. The result of attorneys and lobbyists just doing what they do and creating what they create absent any rational overview of the reasonable.

Al McGartland is a good candidate to fit the bill on you name the names thing, though.

When you add a guy like Mr. McGartland to the rest of the drones, you get things like this:

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

With all of that science to back you up, you should be able to produce a prediction of climate activity from 30 years ago that is accurate.

How about 15 years ago?

Whataya got?

 

[saveliberty]

Not much chance of a report like that getting peer reviewed.

 

[code1211]

The panels were profittable,

Obviously they were not.

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).

If they were profitable, they would have produced a profit. What is the secret code you're using to write this stuff?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The panels were profittable,

Obviously they were not.

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).

If they were profitable, they would have produced a profit. What is the secret code you're using to write this stuff?

Progressive speak?

 

[code1211]

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).

If they were profitable, they would have produced a profit. What is the secret code you're using to write this stuff?

Progressive speak?

 

[Liability]

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).

If they were profitable, they would have produced a profit. What is the secret code you're using to write this stuff?

Progressive speak?

That's where libs -- claiming to be something other than libs -- say stuff that gets progressively further and further away from the truth every time they speak.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

With all of that science to back you up, you should be able to produce a prediction of climate activity from 30 years ago that is accurate.

How about 15 years ago?

Whataya got?

Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time.

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why do the radicals always change the subject back to science...............as if it mattered??


Whats up with that?



Oh.......ya know >>smacks self in head<<.........I sometimes forget we are having discussions with people from the far, far left.


Carry on s0ns...............

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody




cares




about



the



data

 

[IanC]

My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.

 

[IanC]

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.

would you care to put up the loss of ice in glaciers and the Arctic from 1850-1900 up against 1950-2010? the people investigating the methane release put the reasons on conditions present 600-800 years ago. there has been no increase in extreme weather events in the last few decades. go back and read a newspaper from anytime in recorded history. and of course insurance companies say they are paying out more money now than in the past, things are more expensive and people are living and building in areas that have more risk.

you call me fruitloops but I know that you are gullible.

 

[IanC]

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.

his wife is a professor or something. the academic world is full of people that believe whatever they think is true simply because they say so.

 

[Big Fitz]

A "PhuD" candidate, nothing more.

 

[RollingThunder]

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.

LOLOLOL....you are such a great example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

"I find it insulting" - TS
"reasonably well informed people" - you are so far from being "well informed", it's not even in radar range of you.
"can have their opinions 'bought'" - you poor retard - they 'buy' your opinions by hiring clever propagandists to play on your prejudices and ignorance.
"how exactly does that happen?" - oooooh, that's easy......

US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'
The Guardian
John Vidal
30 March 2010
(excerpts)

A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe. The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels. Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

Climate Cover-Up
The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
(excerpts)

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

Climate change denial


"I understand the evidence for AGW" - no, you poor deluded retard, you have made it very, very obvious that you don't even begin to understand the evidence for AGW....your delusion that you do is just the Dunning-Kruger Effect biting you in the butt again.
"and find it very thin" - it is your mental powers that are pretty "thin"....the mountains of evidence supporting AGW have been more than sufficient to convince every scientific organization, society, institute and university in the world as well as virtually all of the climate scientists of the reality and seriousness of AGW.
"the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic" - it hasn't been too catastrophic so far, you short sighted fool, but it will get increasingly catastrophic as this century goes on and the warming, climate changes and sea level rising will continue for centuries. The world still has some choice about how bad it will eventually get, but it is indeed going to be quite catastrophic, as the world scientific community is affirming.
"feedbacks are not positive" - that's one of your idiotic and fraudulent denier cult myths but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a number of positive feedbacks such as the loss of Arctic ice cover caused by AGW that is itself causing more warming as the ice that reflects 90% of the sun's energy back out into space is replaced by dark ocean or land that absorbs about 90% of the sun's energy. The release of locked up methane from under the fast melting 'perma-frost' or from the methane hydrates on the ocean floor is one of the most dangerous positive feedbacks.
"they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system" - your suppositions are based only on your own ignorance and the propaganda you've absorbed, you clueless retard. Anthropogenic global warming is not a "natural" part of the Earth's climate processes.
"the predictions of doom" - are the scientifically based warnings of the top experts in many fields of science connected to the Earth's climate. Your willingness to ignore and discount these warnings for the sake of politics or your own wallet is a good indication of just what a blind, deluded idiot you are.