The Republican/Conservative movement is much more faceted than your two wing simplification above.
It's a complex issue, one that in my lifetime has gone from a certain Ice Age, to Global Warming, to Climate change. With well documented natural dramatic climate change, and with climate scientists at East Anglia and other places (NOAA) withholding, editing or otherwise demeaning data and scientific thought that does not conform to a prescribed, foregone conclusion, I'm not yet convinced. The left yelling and screaming does not help convince me either.Originally Posted by seasch
Link me some scientific papers, in which scientists claimed, there was a "certain Ice Age" coming. I care for evidence and facts, you got any?
Then please show me this fraud by scientists to "conform to ... prescribed, forgone conclusion". I know the emails and the fuss the AGM made about them, but no scientifc or independent report I read has proven any such accusations. Have you got any proof and if yes, why haven't you brought it forward?
"The left yelling and screaming..." Yelling and screaming will convince nobody. I do agree. The US has a two-party system where one side (I guess your side) denies science like the theory of evolution which is the best explanation for the variety of life on earth because of religious doctrine and GW which has a large part of the experts in that field convinced that humans have an effect on climate change. What do the deniers of GW have to offer besides some nutters like 'Lord' Monckton? What scientific alternatives do they offer? Have those make any predictions for the future which can be tested?
Again, I myself are not sure, what the effects of man on the climate is. But I'd rather be safe, than sorry.
The interesting thing about the talk of ice ages in the 70s is that is was mostly media driven bollocks that only a handful of scientists wrote anything on. It wasn't a particularly well supported position from the outset and one that was presented at a time when the majority of papers were suggesting warming (sound familiar?). You only need to look at the peer reviewed literature from the time (which I doubt any of you harping on about it have) to see what the ideas were.
Another thing to consider is if a bunch of rank amateurs know about the effect of sunspot activity on global temperatures or whatever they've decided in their little heads is the cause today that scientists working in the field will know about it as well.
In the USA there is a conservative anti-left movement which reacts repulsively on everything shoved by "progressive" movement. Evolution is just one small piece of really huge package. (Abortion is another hot issue). And it's not like it's only them who went full retard. "Progressive" for example object to the such basic thing as "the right to defend your home" and on the other hand protect quite zealously "rights to work, housing, school" and now they fight for "the rights to health".
While, if to look beyond curtains, it's obvious that any and all of these "rights" are luxuries which a society can provide only if it's wealthy enough and it is sufficiently organizationally (politically, economically, socially) sophisticated. That it can actually resolve numerous choice puzzles and handle moral hazards which inevitably accompany any wealth redistribution.
It is gone beyond absurd many years ago.
I don't know were to start. Probably pointing that NASA mk 2012 is not the same as NASA mk 1980 would be good enough.Sadly, there are few Democratic politicians, who strongly are pro science. The Republican Party has two wings, the Tea Party/Christian/Anti-Science and a fiscal conservative/smaller-government one. At least in the past, you could be sure, that a Republican was pro science (Republicans spent more for science/NASA than Democrats) as they knew, that science is the best way to be safe and prosper. Sadly, I don't see them in the majority anymore.
LOL.As a general statement, educated people are generally less religious. The Republican Party panders to the the religious and receives contribution from companies that don't want a change in status quo (Koch brothers and Co.). Sure, there are also companies profiting from the GW-movement, but they are not as big and wealthy as their opponents.
Time is very good journal. Specifically this issue was about The National Energy Plan of Jimmy Carter. If you search their site you'll find names of the scientists publishing on "Ice Age topic". You can check Science, Nature and Scientific American which all had articles on this "hot topic".@ LD and riderboy (posting the same Time cover)
Time is not a scientific journal. It is written by journalists, not scientists. I tried to find the papers from the scientists, LD refers, but I only found extracts on AGW pages. In the extracts of the scientific papers, there was a cooling of 0.2 degree predicted and that it would need a 4 degree cooling, for a new ice age. I couldn't find a scientific paper saying, there would be a 4 degree cooling and therefore an iceage covering Manhatten.
LOL. Enter "climate cooling". "70s".I searched for about an hour, but maybe, LD's google-fu is better than mine.
What is interesting, that if to extract and remove all recycling noise, it's not difficult to see that modern "climate warming" is just as well is promoted by "a handful of scientists".
Good journalists tend not to invent "news" but go and ask specialists to explain a situation. In that case they were asking scientists. Who happened to have an agenda. You can see right above which one. Most of the modern scientists working in "ecology" have an agenda as well.Anyway, a journalist writing of a new ice age is not the same like a scientist writing of one. Just remember the story how the press worded the faster then light neutrinos at CERN and how scientists worded the same story.
Apparently they don't care that there will be no reduction of "human pollution" but it's transfer from the old (western) into new (asian) areas. And thats all about it.
Time had and still has good journalists.
LOL. compared to 100 years ago western countries are much less important. More of it the oceans and atmosphere are used much much more.So what was the reason of the predicted 0.2 degree cooling? It was smog. Smog is caused by air pollution and due to the albedo effect has a cooling effect. But compared to 100 years ago, smog is a far smaller problem in western countries, because we reduced air pollution.
You tried to tie creationist and 'denialist' together because 'their beliefs overlap'. I used the example I gave to show that is a completely specious and invalid argument. If you seriously do not get it, then you are on your own.... but I think you are just pretending not to get what I was saying.
----------What climagate? Using climagate as an argument shows a huge degree of ignorance. The only thing there, were some emails taken out of context. There is no climategate scandal.
----------The publishing and peer review processes are totally corrupted.The whole scientific process has become deeply compromised? Really? How?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...f-peer-review/
----------That is the propaganda line that the warm-mongers are so fond of parroting, anyways.Again, the only arguments against science, may it come from young-earthers, truthers, the AGW crowd, creationists, whatever, have no scientific basis.
----------Science is the *only* valid method. Science corrupted for political, careerist and establishment orthodoxy reasons is the problem here.I invite you to offer a better instrument than science, if you want to argue for your position. But you first have to prove, that your method works.
----------Precisely. Mann's 'hockey stick' graph, the 'normalized' datasets, the cherrypicking of the temperature station readings, cherrypicking tree ring data to falsely 'prove' the Medieval warming period 'did not exist', the claims about glaciers disappearing, the IPCC reports, the claims ocean levels would be up twenty feet in a few decades; all proven to be dead wrong by actual *science*. It is amazing that these things could occur in the first place. This is what happens when a careerist core group tries to quash the publishing of papers which contradict their pet theory and destroy the careers of their authors and the journals in which they are published. This is what happens when governments and bodies like the UN become so invested in a particular scientific outcome that they seek to create it at the expense of real science and the truth. This is what happens when those governments and bodies that control the vast amounts of money in the grant system use that system to select and support their favored 'scientific' theory. We desperately need to reform the peer review and grant system, and keep politics, money and careerism from further corruption of our research establishment.Science has brought us out of the caves to the surface of Mars. Science works. Science isn't perfect, but every time Science has been proven wrong, it has been proven by scientifc methods, not scripture, not a man shouting in the street.
Yeah, when I'm in need of real scientific sources to build my assesment of reality, I turn to Discovery Channel, where I also learn to drink my own urine and eat raw animal carcases when lost in the woods.
And seeing as you dodge the issue, I once again proclaim these changes to almost all extent have scientific hypotheses on how and why they happen. Just like we have with this one. But naturally, you know more then the actual scientists?
Lord knows NASA is filled with gullible dumbnuts.
*Succeeded
You'll have to back that claim up with some evidence.
See answer given above. It's not really productive giving you the same answer 3 times.
I have proclaimed there is no climate change. Close thread!
Give me that bottle of liquor and we'll have a deal.
Sure, you didn't think I had only one?
You've completely lost me. I'm saying climate change has occurred throughout recorded history. You say we know why and how they have happened, that's great, but no one else is sure exactly why. So, perhaps now you can explain the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the gradual re-warming theta occurred starting around 1850. Again, if you think man influenced those sudden and dramatic climate changes, do tell. Just because it's on the Discovery Channel doesn't mean they haven't interviewed historians, climate scientists and other scientists. As far as "Climategate" use your google-fu to find tons on that. I hear that in spite of clearly recorded shifts in the climate in our recent past that have nothing to do with the activities of man, unless medieval man was driving an internal combustion engine, any possible cause of global warming now HAS to be related to man. I'm not convinced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQHTdn8egw Here ya go. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the movie.
LOL. Hubert Lamb, the father of modern climatology (and I do not mean that corrupted pseudo-science we have today) predicted Little Ice Age by himself.
After a decade, I believe such as you will claim the "global warming" scare was just a job of irresponsible journalists.
The cooling between WWII and 1975 was real, with increase of arctic ice and shortening the growing season. Of course it goes contrary to "CO2 drives the climate" meme so it is being hushed down, but we are not that stupid, not to remember all kinds of crazy predictions from "scientists".
Rupert Murdoch is clearly the arch nemesis of Superhero Lisa Jackson:
http://www.standwithlisa.com/
Funny accent: check.
Evil empire: check.
Deadly femmebots: check.
Last edited by akd; 10-04-2012 at 11:55 AM.
Ask the most devoted politician around the Globe, Czech president Klaus and you will hear:
The Dangerous Faith (Sydney speech)The Global Warming Doctrine is an ideology, if not a religion, which lives more or less independently on the science of climatology. Climate and temperature are used or more often misused in an ideological conflict about human society.
This doctrine, this new incarnation of environmentalism, is not a monolithic concept that could be easily structured and summarized. It is a flexible, rather inconsistent, loosely connected cascade of arguments, which is why it has been so successfully escaping the scrutiny of science. It comfortably dwells in the easy and self-protecting world of false interdisciplinarity (which is nothing else than the absence of discipline).
I see the structure of this doctrine in the following way:
1. It starts with the claim that there is an undisputed and undisputable, empirically confirmed, statistically significant, global, not regional or local, warming;
2. It continues with the argument that the time series of global temperature exhibits a growing, non-linear, perhaps exponential trend which dominates over its cyclical and random components;
3. This development is considered dangerous for the people (in the eyes of “soft” environmentalists) or for the planet (among “deep” environmentalists);
4. The temperature growth is interpreted as a man-made phenomenon which is caused by the growing emissions of CO2. These are considered the consequence of industrial activity and of the use of fossil fuels. The sensitivity of global temperature to even small variations in CO2 concentration is supposed to be high and growing;
5. The GWD exponents promise us, however, that there is a hope: the ongoing temperature increase can be reversed by the reduction of CO2 emissions;
6. They also know how to do it. They want to organize the CO2 emissions reduction by means of directives (or commands) issued by the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world. They pretend that the CO2 emissions reduction will bring benefits which will exceed its costs.
The 'global cooling' thing did happen in the 70's - but it never really got much traction in the scientific community unlike what some folks pretend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
A few papers published, and a few sensational pop-sci articles in the MSM. Nothing like a consensus - and even back then most climatologists were concerned about warming.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
