CDZ Conservatives and Climate Change

[320 Years of History]

I am not familiar with a single one of them. Why are you incapable of studying the subject and coming to your own conclusions?

TY for your answer.

See post #19 or reread the OP.

 

[Muhammed]

None. And they are much smarter than majority of you.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Three.

Do I find merit in them? Not really. I find the whole issue ridiculous. All issues are ridiculous except one, fixing what's wrong with our representative government. Climate change, like gun control, is an issue of vested interests against the interests of the general public. Our addiction to fossil fuels is a detriment to our health and national security. Isn't that enough motivation? Add climate change to the mix if you wish.

I'm not saying that the interests of oil companies and developing nations shouldn't be considered, just that they are over represented.

As far as my personal view of the science behind the issue, I don't have one. It's a subject that is the province of climatologists and there appears to be a consensus. Why should I have an opinion about their findings? Why should anyone care about the opinions of non-scientists on an issue of science?

As far as my personal view of the proper public policy response to this scientific consensus, I dunno. The issue is so obfuscated by the vested interests that rational discussion is not possible. By the worst projections we're doomed. Bye, bye Florida. By the most optimistic, it's all alarmist nonsense.

 

[9aces]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

 

[Arianrhod]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

 

[9aces]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

 

[Arianrhod]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

But the data are there, correct?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Arianrhod]

Links?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well you SHOULD believe me. I'm always pretty straight forward with folks. I AM baffled why Ponnunu has more scientific cred than say Nancy Pelosi. Or what I could learn about Climate Change from EITHER of them.

Now -- I find it entertaining to listen to Limbaugh -- because his job is to entertain folks. And I do think that in general, his POLITICAL observations on the topic are quite correct. But I'm certain, that if I hadn't invested 15 years of independent study on the topic -- that he's NOT where I would turn to BECOME informed about the actual IMPORTANT scientific issues that are up for debate... And by that -- I don't mean the trivial partisan baiting about "whether the Earth has warmed" or "is CO2 actually a pollutant" kinda tripe..

FWIW, absent plausible evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe whatever folks say about themselves.

Red:
Reviewing my OP, you'll find that I wrote, " Generally I read their remarks and then follow up with Google Scholar searches for academically rigorous material that supports and/or refutes what they say." I don't look to them for science; to the best of my knowledge I don't recall saying I did. The value I find in reading folks like Ponnurur and the others is in gaining an understanding of where influential folks are trying to direct policy and opinion, not just on climate change, but on other topics too.

Yeah --- But ---- Hank Paulsen??? --- really?? You are probably a lot more interested in the politics of AGW than I am. And that's why we don't have the same "reading list" on the topic. Opinions of the socio-political motivations for this movement are truely putting the cart before the horse.. As I said -- I am CERTAIN that Climate Science as we know it has NOT produced the metrics or the prognostications or the guidance to make any of these folks relevant.. Maybe that will change. But in my world -- we've only HAD accurate records on the climate for about 100 years (at least a set accurate enough to make a "global" warming signature visible).. And the "proxy temperature" studies of past climates using tree rings, ice cores, muck, and mudbug shells would NEVER be able to detect a warming blip as small as ours. Most IMPORTANTLY --- the FUTURE problems of GW are clouded by the fact that the AGW theory assumes positive feedbacks and magic multipliers on the warming power of CO2 that really aren't even close to being scientifically decided. This train is being DRIVEN by socio-political engineers, but the tracks for the trip aren't even finished yet..

 

[Arianrhod]

Links?

What do you mean links, asswipe, IT TELLS YOU WHEN and WHERE...You think it's wrong go look it up!

"Good Morning, America" is not a person. If what you posted were accurate, you'd know who said it. You don't. No one else is going to do your homework for you, no matter how aggressive you are.

 

[320 Years of History]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

Off Topic:
Are you now saying your best man consults for NASA rather than works for NASA?

I have yet to see instances whereby a government agency writes position papers or publishes studies at the behest of non-government entities. I have plenty of non-government organizations perform studies and produce reports at the behest of the government. NASA provides funding to others; NASA receives funding via tax apportionments from Congress. NASA has produced plenty of their own "stuff" pertaining to climate change. Additionally, unlike a great many organizations and individuals that study and write about climate change, NASA actually owns the equipment that produces/gathers a very large share of the raw data used by others, as well as by NASA.

It's preposterous that NASA would tell it's own people "what to find" rather that "what to find out" as goes climate change. What vested interest would NASA have in that? NASA's mission statement is, after all, "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (It used to include the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet," but that was removed in 2006.) Defining in advance what the results are before performing the study is called "proving a point," or "justifying a means" not "discovering" anything.

 

[Vigilante]

What do you mean links, asswipe, IT TELLS YOU WHEN and WHERE...You think it's wrong go look it up!

"Good Morning, America" is not a person. If what you posted were accurate, you'd know who said it. You don't. No one else is going to do your homework for you, no matter how aggressive you are.

You are too stupid to bother with...just ANOTHER OCDing Ant-American that concentrates on the inconsequential!

That's the second reference to "Ant-Americans" in as many days.

Are they the ones who made those claims on "Good Morning, America"?

Well you certainly fit the definition! Child

Kindly provide a link to where I said any of those things anywhere. (I'll help you out by stating that I've never been on "Good Morning, America.")

Also, are you aware of which forum you're in?

Did I call you the F word? But I just happen to HAVE that VIDEO that you pathetically had no idea what to look for...

 

[Arianrhod]

"Good Morning, America" is not a person. If what you posted were accurate, you'd know who said it. You don't. No one else is going to do your homework for you, no matter how aggressive you are.

You are too stupid to bother with...just ANOTHER OCDing Ant-American that concentrates on the inconsequential!

That's the second reference to "Ant-Americans" in as many days.

Are they the ones who made those claims on "Good Morning, America"?

Well you certainly fit the definition! Child

Kindly provide a link to where I said any of those things anywhere. (I'll help you out by stating that I've never been on "Good Morning, America.")

Also, are you aware of which forum you're in?

Did I call you the F word? But I just happen to HAVE that VIDEO that you pathetically had no idea what to look for...

What's the original source of that video? It isn't "Good Morning, America."

 

[Vigilante]

You are too stupid to bother with...just ANOTHER OCDing Ant-American that concentrates on the inconsequential!

That's the second reference to "Ant-Americans" in as many days.

Are they the ones who made those claims on "Good Morning, America"?

Well you certainly fit the definition! Child

Kindly provide a link to where I said any of those things anywhere. (I'll help you out by stating that I've never been on "Good Morning, America.")

Also, are you aware of which forum you're in?

Did I call you the F word? But I just happen to HAVE that VIDEO that you pathetically had no idea what to look for...

What's the original source of that video? It isn't "Good Morning, America."

It even has the GMA logo in the lower right corner.... XXXXX -- Mod Edit

 

[Arianrhod]

That's the second reference to "Ant-Americans" in as many days.

Are they the ones who made those claims on "Good Morning, America"?

Well you certainly fit the definition! Child

Kindly provide a link to where I said any of those things anywhere. (I'll help you out by stating that I've never been on "Good Morning, America.")

Also, are you aware of which forum you're in?

Did I call you the F word? But I just happen to HAVE that VIDEO that you pathetically had no idea what to look for...

What's the original source of that video? It isn't "Good Morning, America."

It even has the GMA logo in the lower right corner.... NOW you are starting to really make your self look like the idiot you are!

"MRC Newsbusters" is not "Good Morning, America," and their little clumsily edited video does not provide the names of any individuals who appear in the video.

I'll make it easy for you. Find the name of the first guy in the video. We'll glide right over how the video jumps from "2015" to a map of sea-level projections over more than a century.

 

[9aces]

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

But the data are there, correct?

To which data are you referring? The data which supports their position, therefore relevant to the position they're asked to provide research for?

Or the data which may not help support said position?

The 1st of course is.

Note: This does make them liars. No more than telling your wife you were at the office all day. Which you were, and banged the secretary twice.

She didn't ask what you did.

 

[9aces]

Translation: "I have no idea what those folks have had to say on climate change."

How do I know that? Because they don't all have the same views about climate change. In fact, there's enough variety and difference/opposition among their views that it's impossible for anyone to concur with all of them.

What most of them have in common with one another is that they aren't propagandists.

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

Off Topic:
Are you now saying your best man consults for NASA rather than works for NASA?

I have yet to see instances whereby a government agency writes position papers or publishes studies at the behest of non-government entities. I have plenty of non-government organizations perform studies and produce reports at the behest of the government. NASA provides funding to others; NASA receives funding via tax apportionments from Congress. NASA has produced plenty of their own "stuff" pertaining to climate change. Additionally, unlike a great many organizations and individuals that study and write about climate change, NASA actually owns the equipment that produces/gathers a very large share of the raw data used by others, as well as by NASA.

It's preposterous that NASA would tell it's own people "what to find" rather that "what to find out" as goes climate change. What vested interest would NASA have in that? NASA's mission statement is, after all, "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (It used to include the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet," but that was removed in 2006.) Defining in advance what the results are before performing the study is called "proving a point," or "justifying a means" not "discovering" anything.

Works for. They are no different than anyone else when it comes to position papers and what's being requested by those who provide their funding.

Surely you're not that naive.

 

[Arianrhod]

Translation: "These folks opinions most closely match my own."

I'll go with "none of the above". Mostly because I don't care what they think, I do my own thinking. Having the best man at my wedding work for NASA sort of helps when discussing the technical bits.....since he helps write some of those wonderful studies the global alarmists proclaim as the gospel. If they only knew.....

So your friend's deliberately misleading his readers? Why?

This is a joke right?

You do know most of the people who right those papers are given a position to support based on the funding request. They supply the data to support said position, they get paid.

They're not asked, or required to supply data which would conflict with that evaluation. In some cases they may be specifically requested to present only data from certain subsets.

But the data are there, correct?

To which data are you referring? The data which supports their position, therefore relevant to the position they're asked to provide research for?

Or the data which may not help support said position?

The 1st of course is.

Note: This does make them liars. No more than telling your wife you were at the office all day. Which you were, and banged the secretary twice.

She didn't ask what you did.

I'm aware that data can be manipulated. It's when they're patently suppressed (q.v. Exxon) that you follow the money.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yeah --- But ---- Hank Paulsen??? --- really?? You are probably a lot more interested in the politics of AGW than I am. And that's why we don't have the same "reading list" on the topic. Opinions of the socio-political motivations for this movement are truely putting the cart before the horse.. As I said -- I am CERTAIN that Climate Science as we know it has NOT produced the metrics or the prognostications or the guidance to make any of these folks relevant.. Maybe that will change. But in my world -- we've only HAD accurate records on the climate for about 100 years (at least a set accurate enough to make a "global" warming signature visible).. And the "proxy temperature" studies of past climates using tree rings, ice cores, muck, and mudbug shells would NEVER be able to detect a warming blip as small as ours. Most IMPORTANTLY --- the FUTURE problems of GW are clouded by the fact that the AGW theory assumes positive feedbacks and magic multipliers on the warming power of CO2 that really aren't even close to being scientifically decided. This train is being DRIVEN by socio-political engineers, but the tracks for the trip aren't even finished yet..

Blue:
There may be a fair amount of overlap between our "reading lists." I don't know. I never suggested that the editorialists' writings are all that I read or have read on the matter. In fact, I made a point of stating that I read "stuff" other than their commentaries, specifically scholarly stuff. Their writings are merely the ones that I inquired about, and the writers noted are the only ones I was curious to learn whether other members here also read their essays.

Earlier you wrote about being straightforward. I am very much that. I ask about what it is I want to know about. What I ask about says nothing about that of which I don't ask. That's more so, as it would be with anyone, for questions than for statements because statements can sometimes be ambiguous or vague. A question just is what it is; it's asked, and one answers it to one's best ability.

Red:
I can't say what be the comparative extent of yours and my interest in the politics of climate change. I can describe the process that has brought me to where I am right now on the matter of climate change and what (if anything ) to do about it.

1. I was aware of the weather changing each day, but not that climate was changing.
2. Scientists began to talk about the Earth warming and the climate changing.
3. Scientists began to posit that humanity may be the cause of the changes or a material share of the changes.
4. I read some of the "hard news" reports about then-called global warming (now called climate change). ("Hard news" being the sort that says "such and such is what scientists are saying and such and such is what the scientists point to as the reason(s) why they said it," but nothing more nor less than that.)
5. I read/heard some editorial commentary about global warming.
6. Some of the commentary questioned the scientists, some of it concurred with them, and some of it did both.
7. I decided I need to see for myself what the "full story" was because I knew damn well that what was on the news hardly covered the full scope of what was in the reports the scientists surely published about their research.
8. I "dug up" various scholarly, peer reviewed papers on the matter and read them, and where possible, the peer reviews of some of them.
   
   (This part of the process takes some time because in some of the papers, I came across "stuff" that I didn't understand and would then have to find something -- a textbook, another scientist's paper, call a scientist friend, whatever...anything except "ask the audience" LOL -- in order to understand the "stuff" I'd just read in the paper I'd set out to read. I don't like it when that's the case, but it is what it is; it's what I must do if I am committed to understanding and give a damn about the topic. As goes the only planet I have access to, believe me, I give a damn.)
9. Form my own opinion about whether the scientists know what they are talking about and are likely and plausibly so, correct in their predictions, or whether there is cause for me to doubt them.
10. Form my own opinion about what should be done give than I think whatever I determined in step 9.
11. Read more editorial commentary, only this time, I'm reading it to see where the respective political lines of thought lie. I'm also reading to discover which groups and/or individuals focus on ideology, facts, propaganda, fear tactics, fair presentation of facts to make a case, red herrings and other logical fallacies, etc. in order to promote their views about what they think should be done.
12. Identify which political group wants to "take things" in the direction I think they should go and which party does not. This isn't a binary sort of "direction," for often enough there are degrees of similarity between my view and that of one or several elements of a given political party's platform.

Note: there's some overlap between steps 11 and 12. Too, it's the general approach I think that matters more so than whether any single part happens entirely before the one that precedes it, but clearly some things must happen before others. What's important, for me or anyone else, is that I'm willing to question things on the basis that there exists dispute rather than accepting things on the basis that people whom I respect (and whom I may have agreed with on other matters) said/wrote them.

The process I described isn't a formal one, in the senese of my sitting down and deliberately saying "okay, let me do step one, then step two, and so on;" it's just the way I go about doing things.