Any republican believers?

[Article 15]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIDESZWAlz8]Romney: Global Warming Is Real, Humans Have Impact - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JWBooth]

Are there any republican believers in climate change on here?

1. Do you believe the Earth is warming?

2. If so, do you believe humans are causing it?

3. If so, do you think it will effect humans slightly, moderately, or in a major way?

4. Or do you not believe in it?

1. Nothing is ever static, from the time the mantle cooled the climate has gone from hot to cold and back again and again and again and again ad infinitum.

2. No, I aint buying the bullshit.

3. See second answer

4. See first answer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Weak attempt at a cheap shot. Being a Republican has nothing to do with believing in climate change. And of course it's happening. It always has, always will and no amount of CFL bulbs will stop it.

No, it has not happened before in recorded history. Not the rate of extreme weather events.

Methinks you need to pick up a book.

"Our years are turned upside down; our summers are no summers; our harvests are no harvests"

-John King, 1595

Our years are turned upside down; our summers are no summers; our harvests are no harvests because of manmade global warming...there now OR will sign on

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers are a Cult

 

[JWBooth]

Quick!

Everybody crank up your AC, freezer, and fridge, throw open the doors and beat this warming thing today!





Makes as much sense as swapping out light bulbs and buying Chevy Volts...

 

[PredFan]

Are there any republican believers in climate change on here?

Yes, I believe the climate changes all the time. Hot, then cold, then wet, then dry, windy, calm.... You may think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. there's a point to that.

1. Do you believe the Earth is warming?

I'm willing to accept that it might be, I know that not all scientists agree that it is.

2. If so, do you believe humans are causing it?

Nope.

3. If so, do you think it will effect humans slightly, moderately, or in a major way?

It depends, if it is warming, humans in some parts of the world will be adversely affected, some in other parts of the world will not, still others will benefit.

If it's happening, we did not cause it, and we cannot fix it. It is most likely the sun, which has been going through an abnormal period of low solar activity. Nothing we can do about that.

 

[PredFan]

Are there any republican believers in climate change on here?

1. Do you believe the Earth is warming?

2. If so, do you believe humans are causing it?

3. If so, do you think it will effect humans slightly, moderately, or in a major way?

4. Or do you not believe in it?

"Climate change"? Did Neanderthals cause the ice age and a gigkantic glacier that carved grooves in the rocks in Central Park in NYC? Climate change happens because....repeat after me children....changes in the earth's orbit and the sun's energy. I would suggest that the "man-made-climate-change diciples are influenced more by hatred for the United States than real science. Is it a coincidence that the global warmers came into power at the same time the US was undergoing a fiscal crisis? Why not table the global warming extortion scheme for ten or twenty years until we get back on our feet?

I'd have to disagree with your opinion that climate change disciples being influenced by hatred. I've been back and forth between believing and not over the years and read argumena and rebuttals from both sides. My motivation about the subject isn't due to hatred its all about my kids. I'm trying to understand how the decisions we make are going to effect them.

Isn't it true that most scientists support global warming though?

I thought the arguments of it not being a human factor and being caused by the sun/rotation was debunked?

It's too hard to discover the truth these days.

The history of science is largely populated with instances of the "general consensus of scientists" being wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Climate change"? Did Neanderthals cause the ice age and a gigkantic glacier that carved grooves in the rocks in Central Park in NYC? Climate change happens because....repeat after me children....changes in the earth's orbit and the sun's energy. I would suggest that the "man-made-climate-change diciples are influenced more by hatred for the United States than real science. Is it a coincidence that the global warmers came into power at the same time the US was undergoing a fiscal crisis? Why not table the global warming extortion scheme for ten or twenty years until we get back on our feet?

I'd have to disagree with your opinion that climate change disciples being influenced by hatred. I've been back and forth between believing and not over the years and read argumena and rebuttals from both sides. My motivation about the subject isn't due to hatred its all about my kids. I'm trying to understand how the decisions we make are going to effect them.

Isn't it true that most scientists support global warming though?

I thought the arguments of it not being a human factor and being caused by the sun/rotation was debunked?

It's too hard to discover the truth these days.

The history of science is largely populated with instances of the "general consensus of scientists" being wrong.

Care to share your proof of that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd have to disagree with your opinion that climate change disciples being influenced by hatred. I've been back and forth between believing and not over the years and read argumena and rebuttals from both sides. My motivation about the subject isn't due to hatred its all about my kids. I'm trying to understand how the decisions we make are going to effect them.

Isn't it true that most scientists support global warming though?

I thought the arguments of it not being a human factor and being caused by the sun/rotation was debunked?

It's too hard to discover the truth these days.

The history of science is largely populated with instances of the "general consensus of scientists" being wrong.

Care to share your proof of that?

He doesn't need proof, only consensus

 

[Old Rocks]

How is you hollow moon doing, Frankie Boy?

 

[daphillenium]

I'd have to disagree with your opinion that climate change disciples being influenced by hatred. I've been back and forth between believing and not over the years and read argumena and rebuttals from both sides. My motivation about the subject isn't due to hatred its all about my kids. I'm trying to understand how the decisions we make are going to effect them.

Isn't it true that most scientists support global warming though?

I thought the arguments of it not being a human factor and being caused by the sun/rotation was debunked?

It's too hard to discover the truth these days.

The history of science is largely populated with instances of the "general consensus of scientists" being wrong.

Care to share your proof of that?

I'll second that...

Yea maybe if you're talking about thinking the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and things similar.

This doesn't really apply to our modern sciences.

And it seems to me the responses from the deniers here are kind of all over the place.

Some don't believe in global warming at all. Some say that they think it could be warming at a rate we have never seen and just don't think we're causing it. Some appear to think that maybe we are but there's nothing we can do to fix it.

Now to me, these are the regular arguments of the deniers that go against the actual evidence they have on the subject.

I've looked at both sides for many years now. It seems to me the AGW supporters use evidence/data/numbers/facts and observations to support their theories.

The AGW Deniers use opinions and blanket statements like, "thinking humans caused this is egotistical" or "the Earth has been doing what it does for thousands of years."

I still have yet to see any "credible" data or evidence come from deniers.

That's what worries me. I'd be willing to try to understand some views because like I said before I'm torn. But you just can't get any good data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How is you hollow moon doing, Frankie Boy?

NASA was still looking into it as recently as earlier this year. Did you know that recently recalibrated calculations of moon rock radioactivity make the "big whack-- double" theory of moon formation virtually impossible? The Moon is apparently made from Earth and only from Earth.

The one and only theory attempting to explain how a supposed natural satellite could have formed like the moon did just bit the dust

Why does it trouble you that the moon could be hollow and therefore artifical

 

[flacaltenn]

The history of science is largely populated with instances of the "general consensus of scientists" being wrong.

Care to share your proof of that?

I'll second that...

Yea maybe if you're talking about thinking the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and things similar.

This doesn't really apply to our modern sciences.

And it seems to me the responses from the deniers here are kind of all over the place.

Some don't believe in global warming at all. Some say that they think it could be warming at a rate we have never seen and just don't think we're causing it. Some appear to think that maybe we are but there's nothing we can do to fix it.

Now to me, these are the regular arguments of the deniers that go against the actual evidence they have on the subject.

I've looked at both sides for many years now. It seems to me the AGW supporters use evidence/data/numbers/facts and observations to support their theories.

The AGW Deniers use opinions and blanket statements like, "thinking humans caused this is egotistical" or "the Earth has been doing what it does for thousands of years."

I still have yet to see any "credible" data or evidence come from deniers.

That's what worries me. I'd be willing to try to understand some views because like I said before I'm torn. But you just can't get any good data.

So really -- you simply baited me into spending time writing a response to your OP and youre here simply to mock anyone who's not signed on to Climate Change being primaryly caused by CO2.. Saves me a bunch of time..

I can name HUNDREDS of widely held scientific theories that have bit the dust. From the causes of ulcers and cancer to our understanding of matter and energy. That's not the point. And I'm not the one with the CO2 theory of warming that needs to defend it. I'm saying we don't know JACK about the largest components of Climate Change that have driven the planet for millions of years. And we have only had the tools to study this for a very limited time.

You do know don't you that CO2 follows temperature in the historical record as much as it LEADS temperature change? And that because the warming factor from CO2 is logarithmic, it takes MASSIVELY INCREASING amounts of CO2 to get the SAME temp change at each step? Indicating that at some point -- additional amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere have a very small effect on temp. That point is largely determined by the overlap in absoption with water vapor -- which is the PRIMARY greenhouse gas. And the effect of changes in the SPECTRAL content of the sun's radiation..... An effect JUST DISCOVERED since we've had real-time satellite spectral observations of the Sun. We are also short of understanding on MASSIVE EXCHANGES of CO2 that occur between the atmos. and the sea and land. The SEA puts 10 times the amount of CO2 into the atmos every year that man does and yet sinks more than it puts up.. Same with the land. And the ability of the sea and land to sink that excess is LARGER than it was assumed.

But I'm out of here. Because CLEARLY -- you have ulterior motives and don't WANT to discuss the facts or the DISTORTIONS represented about CO2 theory of warming. Your title indicates it's not about science, but a political opportunity..

Have fun... And PS ---

I noticed you dropped a load of crap about your love for windmills and solar on another thread and then abandoned that quest. Ever occur to you that without the CO2 theory of warming and ridiculous Fed Edicts about CO2 as a pollutant -- there wouldn't be 100s of BILLIONS in subsidies for these sketchy energy sources? I think you've got PLENTY of motivation to be spouting the warmer gospel and not much actual investment in UNDERSTANDING what you're selling...

 

[JWBooth]

So really -- you simply baited me into spending time writing a response to your OP and youre here simply to mock anyone who's not signed on to Climate Change being primaryly caused by CO2.. Saves me a bunch of time..
<snip>

But I'm out of here. Because CLEARLY -- you have ulterior motives and don't WANT to discuss the facts or the DISTORTIONS represented about CO2 theory of warming. Your title indicates it's not about science, but a political opportunity..

Dude, that's how he rolls.

 

[Bfgrn]

The history of science is largely populated with instances of the "general consensus of scientists" being wrong.

Care to share your proof of that?

I'll second that...

Yea maybe if you're talking about thinking the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and things similar.

This doesn't really apply to our modern sciences.

And it seems to me the responses from the deniers here are kind of all over the place.

Some don't believe in global warming at all. Some say that they think it could be warming at a rate we have never seen and just don't think we're causing it. Some appear to think that maybe we are but there's nothing we can do to fix it.

Now to me, these are the regular arguments of the deniers that go against the actual evidence they have on the subject.

I've looked at both sides for many years now. It seems to me the AGW supporters use evidence/data/numbers/facts and observations to support their theories.

The AGW Deniers use opinions and blanket statements like, "thinking humans caused this is egotistical" or "the Earth has been doing what it does for thousands of years."

I still have yet to see any "credible" data or evidence come from deniers.

That's what worries me. I'd be willing to try to understand some views because like I said before I'm torn. But you just can't get any good data.

daphillenium, the title of your thread is: Any republican believers?

Maybe there is an explanation as to why there are no republican believers? It is not rooted in science, it is rooted in ideology.

Here is an article that addresses Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming

1) Conservatism is a Defensive Ideology, and Appeals to People Who Want Certainty and Resist Change.

There's now a staggering amount of research on the psychological and even the physiological traits of people who opt for conservative ideologies. And on average, you see people who are more wedded to certainty, and to having fixed beliefs. You also see people who are more sensitive to fear and threat -- in a way that can be measured in their bodily responses to certain types of stimuli.

2) Conservative "Morality" Impels Climate Denial -- and in particular, conservative Individualism.

The individualist is threatened by global warming, deeply threatened, because it means that markets have failed and governments -- including global governments -- have to step in to fix the problem. And some individualists are so threatened by this reality that they even spin out conspiracy theories, arguing that all the world's scientists are in a cabal with, like, the UN, to make up phony science so they can crash economies.

3) Fox News is the Key "Feedback Mechanism" -- whereby people already inclined to believe false things get all the license and affirmation they need.

There are now a host of studies (video here) showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about various aspects of reality, including two such studies about global warming.

So if you've got Fox News, you've got a place to go to reaffirm your beliefs. And that serves this psychological need for certainty and security. So conservatives opt in, they get the misinformation, their beliefs are reaffirmed, and they're set to argue, argue, argue about why they're right and all the scientists of the world are wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you can't provide a single laboratory experiment that replicates your results, you get religion and make your "science" a matter of belief.

 

[freetime]

When you can't provide a single laboratory experiment that replicates your results, you get religion and make your "science" a matter of belief.

This sums up the global warming denialists very well.

 

[Wiseacre]

Are there any republican believers in climate change on here?

1. Do you believe the Earth is warming?

Yeah, probably is. The planet goes through warming and cooling periods all the time. Does that mean the warming has been accelerated? Could be.

2. If so, do you believe humans are causing it?

Yeah, probably.

3. If so, do you think it will effect humans slightly, moderately, or in a major way?

Not too much, no. Takes awhile to make a big difference, I suspect in time the human race will have developed mechanisms to curtail GW.

4. Or do you not believe in it?

Full disclosure, I ain't a republican, never was and never will be. I am however conservative by nature and politics, and do not trust those who have already been exposed as manipulators of the truth, as well as those who are trying to manipulate me. Trying economic times such as we currently find ourselves in are not the right time to be blowing huge amounts of money on wind/solar companies and express trains that are nowhere near feasible to run. Be different if the rest of the world wasn't polluting the planet worse than we are, or if there was definitive proof that ecological disaster was imminent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you can't provide a single laboratory experiment that replicates your results, you get religion and make your "science" a matter of belief.

This sums up the global warming denialists very well.

Let me see if I got this right, you claim that a tiny wisp of CO2, which is in quantities that could be described as a rounding error to being, is causing: the planet to warm, melting the ice caps, acidify the oceans, spawn Cat 5 hurricanes, floods and droughts, but you can't point to a single lab experiment that show how CO2 does any of that because the system is too complicated and has too many variables.

Is that about right?

 

[mamooth]

Let me see if I got this right, you claim that a tiny wisp of CO2, which is in quantities that could be described as a rounding error to being,

Don't be absurd. The rounding error nonsense, that is. Are you trying to demonstrate your total lack of statistical knowledge?

is causing: the planet to warm, melting the ice caps, acidify the oceans,

All well-proven. Only deranged political cranks deny such basics.

spawn Cat 5 hurricanes, floods and droughts,

Now you're veering into misrepresentation. As you always do.

but you can't point to a single lab experiment that show how CO2 does any of that because the system is too complicated and has too many variables.

Is that about right?

Middle-school science fairs regularly do such experiments. This has been pointed out to Frank before.

Science Fair Projects - Carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming

Frank is apparently upset because the big players aren't publishing papers replicating the century-old science demonstrated at the middle-school science fairs.