Liberal scientists band together to cripple job creators like the Koch Brothers

[KAWDUP]

sorry But I am not holding on to the past like you and your party.... I find it funny how you never refute anything I say.... All you say is that I Hate..

At least I am not a racist like the majority of your party is.. Note I said Majority and not you..
But I find it funny how republicans try and stop any and all legislation That Obama wants to try and intact.. Funny how that was not the case under Bush.... funny how this republican congress has had the most filibusters of all time.. Which is a fact..... Hope the idiots at GOP headquarters will continue their game plan of all out Hatred... I does not work... But hey keep losing national elections...I am all for extreme right wing republicans getting blasted in elections.... Keep the likes of Ryan, Bachman ,Rand,Palin and others away from the Button...

Bob, refuting any of the "facts" you post would be like trying to answer your party's talking points. I'm never going to convince you of how silly some of the things you post are.

. . . but you need only read a portion of your posts talking about how much you hate other human beings who don't believe like you do, to understand why I accuse you of hatred. I just find it a bit hypocritical how you accuse me and my "party" of hating you or people who believe like you, and in the next breath talk about how you hate people who belong to the tea party.

If you toned down your rhetoric, and actually quit acting like being conservative is the same as being the devil incarnate, we might be able to discuss actual issues, but that has not happened yet. I expect that I will continue to answer in kind.

 

[Spartanmack]

S

my fucking god you're amazing. you say you don't listen to Rush or Beck but you fall in line on ever issue. it would be much easier to just laugh your views off but it's too sad when you realize that you're not alone. why do you think that there isn't another political party on the planet that denies that humans have caused global warming through cars, burning coal, and deforestation? other countries differ on policy to combat global warming but they don't deny that it's happening and that we're causing it. is it just that american conservatives have so much foresight? your boy dick cheney said that if there was a 1% chance that a terrorist attack would happen in the US they would treat it as if it was certain and prepare. I wonder why that doesn't apply here for you guys?

fuck me, it kills me to argue with the smart stupid person, someone who's educated but takes such asinine positions.

I thought you didn't believe in God. Anyway, that's your response? I do some fact checking and point out glaring flaws in this consensus claim and you double down with more unfounded claims that only American conservatives are skeptics? Do you ever fact check anything you read? You don't even try to defend the Zimmerman or Anderegg pieces - I bet you weren't even aware they were the source of your 98% number. Present some argument to defend their massive flaws or should I just add it to the list of liberal propaganda you blindly accept as irrefutable fact? It's funny how as a skeptic who actually reads studies (not executive summaries, studies) and critiques of studies, I sit accused by you, who never actually defends factual challenges of your arguments, of being the sheep. But you don't have to defend challenges to your claims, you can just laugh them off. And you're wrong about the smart stupid person, but if you weren't, at least its better than being the stupid stupid person...

As for the rest of your drivel in this post, it's another strawman. I don't deny climate change, I deny the 98% consensus and I'm skeptical of the alarmist argument that it's catastrophic or that man's contribution is significant. Why do you think not only have 0 predictions come true but the earth is actually cooling over the last 15 years and the polar ice caps are growing faster than they ever have before? Is that another result of man made climate change - increased polar ice cap volatility? Personally, I'm more concerned with the waste we produce and what's it's doing to fresh water and arable land - those affects are real, tangible and a serious problem. I have no idea where Rush and Glen Beck fall in on that issue either though...

 

[Monster]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...es-of-climate-change-now-and-in-the-pipeline/

enough said? I think so.

But I just don't understand how any human in their right mind can deny climate change. We may not be on this planet to feel the full effect of global warming, but our children and grandchildren will be. I don't see how you wouldn't want to at least attempt to clean up our mess.

 

[Sbee]

I thought you didn't believe in God. Anyway, that's your response? I do some fact checking and point out glaring flaws in this consensus claim and you double down with more unfounded claims that only American conservatives are skeptics? Do you ever fact check anything you read? You don't even try to defend the Zimmerman or Anderegg pieces - I bet you weren't even aware they were the source of your 98% number. Present some argument to defend their massive flaws or should I just add it to the list of liberal propaganda you blindly accept as irrefutable fact? It's funny how as a skeptic who actually reads studies (not executive summaries, studies) and critiques of studies, I sit accused by you, who never actually defends factual challenges of your arguments, of being the sheep. But you don't have to defend challenges to your claims, you can just laugh them off. And you're wrong about the smart stupid person, but if you weren't, at least its better than being the stupid stupid person...

As for the rest of your drivel in this post, it's another strawman. I don't deny climate change, I deny the 98% consensus and I'm skeptical of the alarmist argument that it's catastrophic or that man's contribution is significant. Why do you think not only have 0 predictions come true but the earth is actually cooling over the last 15 years and the polar ice caps are growing faster than they ever have before? Is that another result of man made climate change - increased polar ice cap volatility? Personally, I'm more concerned with the waste we produce and what's it's doing to fresh water and arable land - those affects are real, tangible and a serious problem. I have no idea where Rush and Glen Beck fall in on that issue either though...

great, you site a different survey where 90% of earth scientists say the world is warming and 82% say it's caused by human activity, big fucking deal, you want to be a contrarian and debunk the 98% number and say it's 82%, good for you. they're different polls with different respondents. regardless it's an overwhelming majority, don't you think that's cause for concern?

the worst thing ever to happen to conservationism is Al Gore, not that he produced a documentary to increase awareness on the issue but it had a democrats name on it. that means that the democrats then owned the issue so republicans have to fall in line against it. hell, the EPA was founded under Nixon. Do you guys hate liberalism so much that you will line up against common sense if we're on that side? I think i know the answer

 

[Sbee]

Thinking about this a bit more, here is what we have established

a large majority of climate/earth scientists believe that the earth is warming and caused by human activity. spartanmack wants to make the discussion about if we should go off 98% of the 79 most accomplished/published climate specific scientists or 82% of 1000 earth scientists, either way it's a resounding majority.

41% of non party republicans and 75% of tea party republicans feel that the earth is not warming. of those that feel that it is warming, i'd say even fewer think that humans are the cause. i don't know what % of those polled identified as tea party or not but let's for argument say that 50% of republicans polled feel that the earth is not warming.

why is there such a disconnect between the overwhelming majority of scientist and republicans? why do they feel the need to challenge the science?

 

[Thumb]

why is there such a disconnect between the overwhelming majority of scientist and republicans? why do they feel the need to challenge the science?

Because science challenges the bible/jesus

 

[turok]

why is there such a disconnect between the overwhelming majority of scientist and republicans? why do they feel the need to challenge the science?

It might be the Benjamins in lost revenues from penalizing corporate polluters, and business expansion as well as perhaps the jobs lost and the potential for increasing expenses incurred by industry and consumers in becoming more green.

 

[Sbee]

Because science challenges the bible/jesus

rhetorical question, republican base = low income whites = not trusting science.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What I don't get, is how people can understand how money can influence science, and then point to climate stuff like money is the reason so much of it points to climate change and human impact. Are you telling me the world's oil companies can't afford to fund more research? They're getting beat in a battle of spending? By who, governments? So all of the sudden, the government lobbyists that are so effective at steering policy and subsidies their way, can't do anything about all the horrible lies the government is funding. Right.

At least come up with a theory that's a little bit plausible.

 

[Michchamp]

What I don't get, is how people can understand how money can influence science, and then point to climate stuff like money is the reason so much of it points to climate change and human impact. Are you telling me the world's oil companies can't afford to fund more research? They're getting beat in a battle of spending? By who, governments? So all of the sudden, the government lobbyists that are so effective at steering policy and subsidies their way, can't do anything about all the horrible lies the government is funding. Right.

At least come up with a theory that's a little bit plausible.

I like how in the Forbes article the hack climate change denier attacked a government panel for having only 4 or 5 dedicated climatologist PhDs on it out of 17 or so. Presumably a study on climate change would need other scientific disciplines but he either failed to grasp that idea or is being misleading.

And of course he's not even in the natural sciences himself... He's an architect. That seems to be kinda common in the science denier world. Find someone - anyone who can cobble together some sciency sounding copy and promote it heavily... Then refer to it back and forth to create the appearance that there is more to the opposition than a handful of Koch-brothers funded PR materials

 

[biggunsbob]

Bob, refuting any of the "facts" you post would be like trying to answer your party's talking points. I'm never going to convince you of how silly some of the things you post are.

. . . but you need only read a portion of your posts talking about how much you hate other human beings who don't believe like you do, to understand why I accuse you of hatred. I just find it a bit hypocritical how you accuse me and my "party" of hating you or people who believe like you, and in the next breath talk about how you hate people who belong to the tea party.

If you toned down your rhetoric, and actually quit acting like being conservative is the same as being the devil incarnate, we might be able to discuss actual issues, but that has not happened yet. I expect that I will continue to answer in kind.

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

You miss the point every day...
There is a reason we should be careful with a party full of
Rand, Bachman, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, and the list goes on and on... None of my posts about filibusters and Healthcare, ect,ect, are off. The list goes on and on how your party wants to stymie everything Obama wants to try... The rhetoric you talk about goes both ways as it has been shameful what the republicans have done during Obama's tenure.. Freaking Shameful.. The right would have blasted the left if the same had happened under a republican president...

 

[Spartanmack]

great, you site a different survey where 90% of earth scientists say the world is warming and 82% say it's caused by human activity, big fucking deal, you want to be a contrarian and debunk the 98% number and say it's 82%, good for you. they're different polls with different respondents. regardless it's an overwhelming majority, don't you think that's cause for concern?

the worst thing ever to happen to conservationism is Al Gore, not that he produced a documentary to increase awareness on the issue but it had a democrats name on it. that means that the democrats then owned the issue so republicans have to fall in line against it. hell, the EPA was founded under Nixon. Do you guys hate liberalism so much that you will line up against common sense if we're on that side? I think i know the answer

You're not paying attention, it's not only the sample size that's the problem, the much bigger problem is the intentionally overly vague questions and the erroneous conclusions drawn from them. Not only is the 98% bullshit, so is the 82% number. here's the explanation again:

...Second, and more importantly than the meaningless sample size, the questions themselves were so vague as to render the conclusion from the those answers completely meaningless. Even most skeptics of man made global warming would answer both of those questions the same way. What's not there is whether any of the respondents believe that the rate or magnitude of change is unusual or if it is unusual that it's the human activity that is making it unusual. They also don't ask whether the change is catastrophic or even harmful. There are similar, valid criticisms of the Anderegg "research", which is basically a subjective classification of other scientists published research.

Considering this, along with the fact over 31,000 scientist from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” it's fair to say that the 98% number is meaningless bullshit. Yet the left continues to parade it around as if it were the ultimate trump card...

And since you bring it up, the 98% and 82% came from the same poll, just different sample sizes. Zimmerman had to cherry pick the 79 who self identified as "climate specialists" to get the 98% number.

And Al Gore was the worst thing that ever happened to the global warming movement - he is an assclown with ZERO credibility on the matter of climate change, except of course to liberal idiots who made him obscenely rich buying his data manipulation and outright lies hook, line and sinker. Al Gore is the PT Barnum of climate change - guess who the suckers are...

 

[Sbee]

You're not paying attention, it's not only the sample size that's the problem, the much bigger problem is the intentionally overly vague questions and the erroneous conclusions drawn from them. Not only is the 98% bullshit, so is the 82% number. here's the explanation again:



And since you bring it up, the 98% and 82% came from the same poll, just different sample sizes. Zimmerman had to cherry pick the 79 who self identified as "climate specialists" to get the 98% number.

And Al Gore was the worst thing that ever happened to the global warming movement - he is an assclown with ZERO credibility on the matter of climate change, except of course to liberal idiots who made him obscenely rich buying his data manipulation and outright lies hook, line and sinker. Al Gore is the PT Barnum of climate change - guess who the suckers are...

and you fail to address why there is such a disconnect between scientists and republicans. instead of diving into that one, how about you try to attack the numbers on republicans as climate change deniers, say that the % is much different or the question wasn't phrased properly, then you don't have to answer the question.

 

[Spartanmack]

Thinking about this a bit more, here is what we have established

a large majority of climate/earth scientists believe that the earth is warming and caused by human activity. spartanmack wants to make the discussion about if we should go off 98% of the 79 most accomplished/published climate specific scientists or 82% of 1000 earth scientists, either way it's a resounding majority.

41% of non party republicans and 75% of tea party republicans feel that the earth is not warming. of those that feel that it is warming, i'd say even fewer think that humans are the cause. i don't know what % of those polled identified as tea party or not but let's for argument say that 50% of republicans polled feel that the earth is not warming.

why is there such a disconnect between the overwhelming majority of scientist and republicans? why do they feel the need to challenge the science?

This is too funny - "self identified" does not equal "most accomplished", where do you even get that from? Read my original post and the one above where I repeated that the bigger problem is with the erroneous conclusions. I've now explained the real problem with your "data" THREE TIMES yet you desperately want and need it to be about the sample size so in typical liberal GW alarmist fashion, you cling to a straw man argument and ignore the real facts.

Arguing w/ liberal sheep about GW is a waste of time - first, to them everything is due to catastrophic man made climate change- both harsh and mild winters are due to CMMCC. Above and below average hurricane seasons are due to CMMCC. The west has a drought that's not even close to making the top 5 in duration or severity - CMMCC!!! They can never be wrong because literally EVERYTHING is due to CMMCC. Next, they ignore evidence that refutes their beliefs such as the fact that the earth has been warming for the last 15 years or that the polar ice caps are expanding despite Al Gore's prediction that they would be gone by now. Finally, and thus far the most effective tactic, they shout down anyone who disagrees with anything they say, even those like myself who acknowledge climate change (it's been a reality for however many millions of years the planet has existed) but questions the severity of it and whether it's unusual or catastrophic and if it is anomalous, whether human activity is what is making it so. They cling to lies about a bogus consensus and insist that a clearly unsettled question is settled.

Does this mean conservatives think we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment? Of course not. It just means we shouldn't go off half-cocked spending money we don't have on unproven, failed or wasteful efforts or implementing draconian and punitive regulations that accomplish nothing and reduce our competitiveness - like the ethanol mandate, everyone knows it's a horrible idea, does nothing for the environment (it's actually worse) but we can't get rid of it.

 

[Spartanmack]

and you fail to address why there is such a disconnect between scientists and republicans. instead of diving into that one, how about you try to attack the numbers on republicans as climate change deniers, say that the % is much different or the question wasn't phrased properly, then you don't have to answer the question.

I'm not so sure there is. First, we don't know the real number of scientists who agree that CC is catastrophic and/or man made. As the Forbes piece stated, 9,000 PhD'd climate scientists have signed a petition stating there is no conclusive evidence that human activity is causing climate change. Given that the Anderegg piece reviewed 12,000 published papers and almost all researchers had more than one published piece in the "study", even if his methods weren't flawed and we assume 100% agreed on CMMCC, that's at most 6,000 scientists. That means, at the very least there isn't a "consensus" of opinion among scientists, certainly not the 98% the left asserts. Second, I haven't read the Pew piece you're citing (you didn't provide a link) - wouldn't want to comment on the wrong one - they're are so many. But even if you do, without a reliable break down of where scientists line up on the issue, how can you make a reliable comparison?

 

[KAWDUP]

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

You miss the point every day...
There is a reason we should be careful with a party full of
Rand, Bachman, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, and the list goes on and on... None of my posts about filibusters and Healthcare, ect,ect, are off. The list goes on and on how your party wants to stymie everything Obama wants to try... The rhetoric you talk about goes both ways as it has been shameful what the republicans have done during Obama's tenure.. Freaking Shameful.. The right would have blasted the left if the same had happened under a republican president...

Haven't missed any of your points, Bob - but nearly all of those statements can be turned right around on you.

how your party wants to stymie everything Obama wants to try...

how your party and Obama wants to stymie everything that Congress wants to try. When was the last time Reid brought a budget to the floor of the Senate to be voted on? . . . oh right, of course it will be filibustered so why even bother trying to work it out - typical obstructionism on both sides.

The right would have blasted the left if the same had happened under a republican president...

The left blasts the right every day both when Bush was president, and even now. Why do you think the right isn't getting blasted every day? Really?!?

Rand, Bachman, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, and the list goes on and on...

There are nearly just as many Democrat idiots - Rankle, Sharpton, B. Frank, Pelosi, Gore, J Wright and the list goes on and on . . .

So, like I said, if I am out of touch, you aren't even in the same room.

 

[Sbee]

I'm not so sure there is. First, we don't know the real number of scientists who agree that CC is catastrophic and/or man made. As the Forbes piece stated, 9,000 PhD'd climate scientists have signed a petition stating there is no conclusive evidence that human activity is causing climate change. Given that the Anderegg piece reviewed 12,000 published papers and almost all researchers had more than one published piece in the "study", even if his methods weren't flawed and we assume 100% agreed on CMMCC, that's at most 6,000 scientists. That means, at the very least there isn't a "consensus" of opinion among scientists, certainly not the 98% the left asserts. Second, I haven't read the Pew piece you're citing (you didn't provide a link) - wouldn't want to comment on the wrong one - they're are so many. But even if you do, without a reliable break down of where scientists line up on the issue, how can you make a reliable comparison?

as for forbes, there's a big difference between saying conclusive and likely, two differnet things. your solution may be to sit on our asses, good idea.

here's the pew poll, 9% of tea partiers think that gw is caused by humans, I'm shocked the # is that high. 32% of non tea partiers think that it's caused by humans, still surprisingly high since 60% of them think that Noah's ark was real.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/

either way, what's the point? You'll spout the same party line bullshit.

 

[Sbee]

Haven't missed any of your points, Bob - but nearly all of those statements can be turned right around on you.



how your party and Obama wants to stymie everything that Congress wants to try. When was the last time Reid brought a budget to the floor of the Senate to be voted on? . . . oh right, of course it will be filibustered so why even bother trying to work it out - typical obstructionism on both sides.



The left blasts the right every day both when Bush was president, and even now. Why do you think the right isn't getting blasted every day? Really?!?



There are nearly just as many Democrat idiots - Rankle, Sharpton, B. Frank, Pelosi, Gore, J Wright and the list goes on and on . . .

So, like I said, if I am out of touch, you aren't even in the same room.

Please don't say that both sides are equivalent in their extremes. We don't have occupy wall street candidate primarying incumbent democrats for compromise with republicans.

 

[Spartanmack]

as for forbes, there's a big difference between saying conclusive and likely, two differnet things. your solution may be to sit on our asses, good idea.

here's the pew poll, 9% of tea partiers think that gw is caused by humans, I'm shocked the # is that high. 32% of non tea partiers think that it's caused by humans, still surprisingly high since 60% of them think that Noah's ark was real.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/

either way, what's the point? You'll spout the same party line bullshit.

We still have the problem of comparing this data to reliable data on how the scientific community breaks down on either side of these questions. Also, these questions don't address the rate or magnitude of warming and whether respondents perceive it to be a threat. Additionally, it's clear in the numbers those that identify as tea partiers are a clear minority so even if they are batshit crazy, they're not likely to be the ones driving policy.

Party line bullshit - that's an interesting accusation from the guy who probably still clings to the 92% or even 84% lie and supports virtually every piece of the liberal agenda, leveled at me who despite your constant false accusations, hardly totes the party line. I'm much more a libertarian with socially conservative tendencies than a Republican conformist. You are without a doubt, a dyed-in-the-wool libtard.

 

[KAWDUP]

Please don't say that both sides are equivalent in their extremes. We don't have occupy wall street candidate primarying incumbent democrats for compromise with republicans.

Why, because you will whine about it? Mine is most certainly a valid OPINION. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word. I'd be glad to help you out there - just let me know - I can post a link to Dictionary.com if you think it will help?