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

[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.

No response from anyone skeptical of climate change?

 

[Spartanmack]

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.

You don't have occupy wall street presenting primary candidates because occupy wall streeters are a bunch of shiftless layabouts who only got off the couch in their parents' basement long enough to find a seat in Zuccotti Park. The movement died from it's own indifference, do you really think they were capable of fielding candidates?

 

[Michchamp]

No response from anyone skeptical of climate change?

I'm guessing they'd be happy to dispute it if they can google and find a quick link to some Heritage Foundation or Koch Brothers' funded study explaining why that is. If not, they'll just ignore it.

To me, weighing the evidence presented (since I'm not a climatologist, physicist, etc. I am not actually conducting studies myself) I find the accounts linking climate change to human activity persuasive.

it's pretty easy to go to the links numbnutz posted and point out the flaws in their reasoning. Also, like I said, it seems much of the denier evidence is circular. They've funded a few "studies" that claim climate change is just a natural thing, unrelated to the massive amounts of CO2 that we've been belching into the air since the late 19th century (they appear to have given up the ghost when it comes to denying climate change is even occurring, at least)... and then they cite these studies, and cite the citations to these studies, etc. to create their own evidence against it. Since these "studies" are never peer-reviewed, or if they are, are exposed as frauds, it's important for them to have the massive amount of cross references out there to obfuscate the fact that all their "science" rests on one or two disproven reports or what not.

and you really have to wonder about the intelligence of someone that would fall for this schtick in light of the fact that there's the obvious conflict of interest between the petroleum/fossil fuels industries and efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, and expect to be taken seriously? it's fine if we're all a bunch of Tea Party jagoffs... but this board has more intelligent people than that.

 

[Spartanmack]

No response from anyone skeptical of climate change?

I don't think you're paying attention. First, nobody that I've seen here has said they are skeptical of climate change - just that they're not convinced it's catastrophic and/or primarily due to human activity. Second, there is plenty of research disputing climate change alarmist research. There is a debate among scientists, it's just that the media and GW alarmist politicians choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

As for michturd's assertion that it's easy to point out the flaws in the oppositions reasoning - if that's so, why hasn't he done it? Why instead has he only made a lame attempt to discredit the authors? Probably because it's easier to dismiss it off hand and say you did it than to actually do it. Not surprising coming from someone of his limited intellect.

 

[turok]

Yeah, perhaps we should just wait until there is incontrovertible proof of human-caused climate change, but by doing so the risk becomes that it might be irreversible by then.

The mega-massive floating island of decomposing plastic garbage swirling within a Pacific gyre between Hawaii and California, is reportedly grown to the size of several large states, and continues to increase. The toxic chemicals and small plastic fragments are being ingested by marine life within that area.

The 4 severely damaged and crippled Fukushima Daichi reactors are likely still leeching radioactive runoff into the Pacific 3 years after the earthquake and tsunamis struck Japan's Sendai region. TEPCO was supposed to begin the delicate and extremely hazardous/dangerous task early last December, of removing the hundreds of spent fuel rods from the cooling pool on what passes for the fourth floor of reactor #4 since the building itself is still very unstable. The radioactive rods must be kept cool while being removed a couple at a time, and they cannot be allowed to bash against each other during the process. Funny how little if any reporting is being done by the MSM about TEPCO's progress thus far. No news is good news, apparently.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the GOM 4 years ago, resulted in BP using an extremely toxic dispersant called CorExit, whose use was banned by other industrialized nations in Europe, to sweep the crude mess under the proverbial rug, sinking much of it to the seafloor, where it sits to this day doing who knows what to the deepwater marine life that survived the gusher. and the toxins.

Humans have and can do great harm to the earth, and being reactive instead of proactive might result in making ever larger areas of the plane uninhabitable, at the very least...

 

[Michchamp]

...

As for michturd's assertion that it's easy to point out the flaws in the oppositions reasoning - if that's so, why hasn't he done it? Why instead has he only made a lame attempt to discredit the authors? Probably because it's easier to dismiss it off hand and say you did it than to actually do it. Not surprising coming from someone of his limited intellect.

I already did it for the Forbes article, clown.

 

[Michchamp]

I already did it for the Forbes article, clown.

it's even worse for the "what's up with that link" which cites the forbes article.

like I said, that's the standard trick these charlatans have been playing: cite eachother in order to build some sort of consensus that only exists on paper. Linking to citations for support isn't actually legitimate when those same citations link back to you. Like I said, this is simply circular reasoning, and it's dishonest and false.

 

[Michchamp]

Okay... I read the heartland thing. This is just flat out wrong:

Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered “yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “98 percent of climate scientists believe” sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” A little research reveals the often-cited “98 percent” figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them claim.-2- Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless.​

That's not what the Doran study said. They either intentionally misread it, or they were too stupid to understand it. Since they're being funded by the petroleum and fossil fuel's industry, and Heartland did this same misleading thing with tobacco studies in the 1990's... I'm guessing it's the former. More on The Heartland Institute.

The Doran study actually found that among the 10,000+ surveyed, 3,146 researchers responded, and of those, 90% agreed that atmospheric temperatures had increased, and 81% agreed that this was human caused. That's a pretty big consensus. And then, beyond that, the percentages answering "yes" to both questions increased the more their expertise on climate change (based on published peer-reviewed articles) increased, and when you looked at the 79 most published researchers on the topic of climate change, a whopping 96% answered "yes" to question one, and 97% answered yes to question two. You can't really get closer to a consensus than that.

And of course, this is all circumstantial... the climate change deniers are simply and misleadingly attacking the credibility of the consensus study, what they don't want you to realize is that they haven't done any actual peer-reviewed studies on climate change themselves.

bush league, spartanmack. totally bush league.

 

[Sbee]

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?

Ok, take your ball and go home. a fringe element is replacing more mainstream republicans in primaries. You can hold on to your opinion that radical democrats are steering policy and winning elections but your opinion is wrong.

 

[Sbee]

You don't have occupy wall street presenting primary candidates because occupy wall streeters are a bunch of shiftless layabouts who only got off the couch in their parents' basement long enough to find a seat in Zuccotti Park. The movement died from it's own indifference, do you really think they were capable of fielding candidates?

No, you're right, back to my point about the radical right being much more organized and we'll funded. The tea party is a much larger segment of the gop than occupy is of the Democrats.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't think you're paying attention. First, nobody that I've seen here has said they are skeptical of climate change - just that they're not convinced it's catastrophic and/or primarily due to human activity. Second, there is plenty of research disputing climate change alarmist research. There is a debate among scientists, it's just that the media and GW alarmist politicians choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

As for michturd's assertion that it's easy to point out the flaws in the oppositions reasoning - if that's so, why hasn't he done it? Why instead has he only made a lame attempt to discredit the authors? Probably because it's easier to dismiss it off hand and say you did it than to actually do it. Not surprising coming from someone of his limited intellect.

You don't think I'm paying attention? Is that it, or is it that you and everyone else that argues the skeptic side is careful not to say what they actually believe?

Do you accept climate change? Good. Great. But are you willing to attribute a significant part of it to human activity? Yes, or no?

We don't need to waste time arguing about any 98% or issues of climate change. Let's talk about attributing our atmospheric composition and ocean pH to human activity. Where's the money coming from biasing the free market scientists on those issues?

 

[Spartanmack]

I already did it for the Forbes article, clown.

No, you didn't. You just tried to discredit the author. Whiff again.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay... I read the heartland thing. This is just flat out wrong:

Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered “yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “98 percent of climate scientists believe” sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” A little research reveals the often-cited “98 percent” figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them claim.-2- Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless.​

That's not what the Doran study said. They either intentionally misread it, or they were too stupid to understand it. Since they're being funded by the petroleum and fossil fuel's industry, and Heartland did this same misleading thing with tobacco studies in the 1990's... I'm guessing it's the former. More on The Heartland Institute.

The Doran study actually found that among the 10,000+ surveyed, 3,146 researchers responded, and of those, 90% agreed that atmospheric temperatures had increased, and 81% agreed that this was human caused. That's a pretty big consensus. And then, beyond that, the percentages answering "yes" to both questions increased the more their expertise on climate change (based on published peer-reviewed articles) increased, and when you looked at the 79 most published researchers on the topic of climate change, a whopping 96% answered "yes" to question one, and 97% answered yes to question two. You can't really get closer to a consensus than that.

And of course, this is all circumstantial... the climate change deniers are simply and misleadingly attacking the credibility of the consensus study, what they don't want you to realize is that they haven't done any actual peer-reviewed studies on climate change themselves.

bush league, spartanmack. totally bush league.

Whiff. Again. Keep attacking the sample size argument - already been around and around with sbee who also chooses not to take on the real problems with your bullshit consensus claim which is bullshit itself anyway since consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method. Here's the real problem with the Zimmerman piece (of shit):

The 98% consensus statistic is a myth that has been debunked on multiple levels. Most are referring to the the Zimmerman survey which asked these 2 questions:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?”

First, it is based on an incredibly weak sample size - 3,146 scientists who responded to a survey (10,257 were sent). Of those, only 79 self-identified as climate scientists. 77 of those 79 answered "rising" to Q1 and "yes" to Q2.

Second, and more important 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.

There are no peer reviewed studies that refute catastrophic man made climate change? And you say I'm in denial. Pathetic michturd. Completely pathetic.

 

[Spartanmack]

No, you're right, back to my point about the radical right being much more organized and we'll funded. The tea party is a much larger segment of the gop than occupy is of the Democrats.

The "radical right" to you is anyone who is skeptical of your beliefs.

 

[Michchamp]

Whiff. Again. Keep attacking the sample size argument - already been around and around with sbee who also chooses not to take on the real problems with your bullshit consensus claim which is bullshit itself anyway since consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method. Here's the real problem with the Zimmerman piece (of shit):

bullshit. now that I eviscerated your link, you want to claim something else? denial and deflection.

There are no peer reviewed studies that refute catastrophic man made climate change? And you say I'm in denial. Pathetic michturd. Completely pathetic.

Really? Well, fuck, if they exist, they would support your bullshit claims a lot better. maybe you should've posted those instead of links to a hack Forbes writer and the Heartland institute. Just a thought. Why am I having to help you make your argument?

 

[Michchamp]

Those liberal-know-nothings and busybodies at the Pentagon also seem convinced climate change is real and is going to be a significant threat to the human race, such that they have commissioned a number of studies and formulated strategies to deal with it.

Google search: https://www.google.com/#q=pentagon+climate+change

Those who actively deny that climate change is a scientifically-established reality have never really been able to square one simple fact: The nation's military leadership is in unified agreement that climate change is real, and also that it poses a clear and present danger to the troops.

The Pentagon's thinking is revealed plainly and publicly in its own 2014 Quadrennial Review, which features no fewer than eight direct, specific, and unambiguous evaluations of climate change as it relates to geopolitics and military strategy. Forget the climatologists, for a second, ye of little faith in the scientific method, and let the military explain, in its own words, verbatim, what climate change is, and why we should be very worried about it.​

vice article.

 

[Sbee]

The "radical right" to you is anyone who is skeptical of your beliefs.

bullshit. you really think that the tea party doesn't have radical beliefs? obama is often called a socialist, kenyan, muslim, a fascist, and often compared to hitler. i think there's a touch of radicalism there, don't you?

 

[Spartanmack]

bullshit. now that I eviscerated your link, you want to claim something else? denial and deflection.


Really? Well, fuck, if they exist, they would support your bullshit claims a lot better. maybe you should've posted those instead of links to a hack Forbes writer and the Heartland institute. Just a thought. Why am I having to help you make your argument?

Eviscerated? saaaaaawing, and a miss. Saying over and over again that you did something doesn't make it true. You suck at this.

 

[Michchamp]

Eviscerated? saaaaaawing, and a miss. Saying over and over again that you did something doesn't make it true. You suck at this.

Well, I know I'm never going to convince someone as blind and dumb as you.

But fortunately the record stands for other people to see, and unfortunately for you, you can't do anything about that.

 

[Spartanmack]

bullshit. you really think that the tea party doesn't have radical beliefs? obama is often called a socialist, kenyan, muslim, a fascist, and often compared to hitler. i think there's a touch of radicalism there, don't you?

Did you really just say this? Yes, I really think the tea party does not have radical beliefs. The media focuses on a vocal minority, who most conservatives don't pay any attention to, then paint the entire group with a very broad brush. I also know you need to believe this in order to dismiss the opposition offhand rather than engage with them based on the facts. All you ever post here is just editorial nonsense and disdain for people who don't agree with you or more accurately, the people who give you your opinions. And what's so "radical" about any of that? How man times was Bush compared to Hitler? How many equally bad or worse things were said about him? Was that radical? And, of course, the only possible motivation for this "radical" tea party agenda is the color of the President's skin, right? It couldn't possibly be the fact that he's the least accomplished person ever to be elected to the office (and probably the senate as well), or that he holds many positions that as much or more than half the country disagree with him on, or the fact that his administration has been one domestic or foreign policy disaster after another. Nope, clearly if you don't love him, you're a racist. That my friend, is radical - and asinine.