Huntsman supports science

[The Rabbi]

Put a fork in him. He is done in the GOP.

A candidate that is logical enough to accept the fact that he isn't a scientist and, that being the case, should defer to expert opinion?

That will never fly with the whacked out base of the GOP!

Plus, their corporate polluter/religious fundy overlords will really take a hit in the wallet if the public starts to pay attention to this.

I like Huntsman. He's too genuine to do a damn thing in the GOP as it is right now. It's a shame. I am pulling for Romney simply because he might actually win and is not batshit loco. Though, Romney is a giant pussy that changes his position at the drop of a hat.

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

 

[Photonic]

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Not really. That was more like providing research material to someone making a dogmatic, unsupported claim.

Yes, really. It's an appeal to authority. It's the entire argument of the AGW cult. "Dogmatism" normally is supported with logical fallacies rather than sound arguments.

Prove that it's dogma. I'm sorry but unless you can support your claims I'm calling strawman.

 

[candycorn]

Do you really believe you are destroying the world by exhaling?

That is what this so called "science" claims. How long before some nutcase gets power and decides the only way to save the world is the slaughter of billions of people?

And please don't say it won't happen. History says otherwise.

So you don't think that carbon monoxide, burning of fossil fuels, and the pollution of the oceans is having any effect at all on global climate?

 

[Photonic]

Put a fork in him. He is done in the GOP.

A candidate that is logical enough to accept the fact that he isn't a scientist and, that being the case, should defer to expert opinion?

That will never fly with the whacked out base of the GOP!

Plus, their corporate polluter/religious fundy overlords will really take a hit in the wallet if the public starts to pay attention to this.

I like Huntsman. He's too genuine to do a damn thing in the GOP as it is right now. It's a shame. I am pulling for Romney simply because he might actually win and is not batshit loco. Though, Romney is a giant pussy that changes his position at the drop of a hat.

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

What is with you people and not citing information, fucking hell.

You can't just imagine a statistic and make it true, BACK IT UP!

Put up or shut up.

 

[geauxtohell]

We don't target groups. We look at individuals.

 

[geauxtohell]

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

"Many"?

In the field of science, when you aren't an expert on something the logical thing to do is to defer to the expert consensus. With global warming, the overwhelming consensus agrees on global climate change that is caused by man.

It's supremely hilarious watching this be debated on an internet message board as if it makes a fucking difference. The overwhelming majority of people that have devoted their careers to studying this aren't wasting their time debating the patently obvious.

Furthermore, the issue can't even be discussed on this board without the introduction of conspiracy theory.

All piped in here like elevator music second hand from the talking heads that conveniently work for the big polluters. There's a conspiracy theory for you that actually has some teeth. I hear the right often refer to the left as "useful idiots". How does it feel to be a useful idiot for the corporation that runs your party? They've successfully convinced people to give them tax breaks and deregulate them. Times aren't tough in this country if you are a billionaire.

If you are anywhere in below that, you are getting squeezed after a couple of decades of converting this country to a big business oligarchy while hilariously blaming "liberals" for the problems of the day.

Bachmann drives me craziest. By all means, vote for that fucking retard. The country will continue to go to shit and you can continue to blame the liberals in your own back yard as opposed to your own political party that is bought and paid for.

Suckers.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh, as for that consensus:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If wiki doesn't do it for you, feel free to cross check the references.

As for the dissenters, big tobacco paid doctors to say that cigarettes were good for you in the early 60s. I am not claiming that anti-global warmers are on the take, but it's something to keep in mind.

 

[bripat9643]

So you don't think that carbon monoxide, burning of fossil fuels, and the pollution of the oceans is having any effect at all on global climate?

Spitting in the ocean will cause sea level to rise. That doesn't make it something to worry about.

 

[bripat9643]

Not really. That was more like providing research material to someone making a dogmatic, unsupported claim.

Yes, really. It's an appeal to authority. It's the entire argument of the AGW cult. "Dogmatism" normally is supported with logical fallacies rather than sound arguments.

Prove that it's dogma. I'm sorry but unless you can support your claims I'm calling strawman.

The fact that AGW cultists constantly resort to logical fallacies to defend your claims shows you don't know the first thing about science. Your adherence to the dogma is not based on science. It's based on faith.

 

[geauxtohell]

So you don't think that carbon monoxide, burning of fossil fuels, and the pollution of the oceans is having any effect at all on global climate?

Spitting in the ocean will cause sea level to rise. That doesn't make it something to worry about.

A sound scientific argument. Excellent rebuttal sir.

BTW, relative to the evaporation rate of the ocean, spitting in the ocean will, in fact, not cause the "sea level to rise".

This sounds as brilliant as the drug addict Limbaugh's proclamation that melting glaciers is nothing to worry about because melting ice in your cup of tea doesn't cause the water level to rise too.

If you want to change topics, perhaps you can hit us up with the "Athiest's worst nightmare Cameron/Comfort banana argument against evolution".

And you guys wonder why we laugh at you.

 

[Photonic]

Yes, really. It's an appeal to authority. It's the entire argument of the AGW cult. "Dogmatism" normally is supported with logical fallacies rather than sound arguments.

Prove that it's dogma. I'm sorry but unless you can support your claims I'm calling strawman.

The fact that AGW cultists constantly resort to logical fallacies to defend your claims shows you don't know the first thing about science. Your adherence to the dogma is not based on science. It's based on faith.

Given that I actually am a Scientist, a US patent holder in the field of optical physics and astrophysics/cosmology and have collaborated with researchers at NASA and CalTECH's Jet Propulsion Labratory...

I feel like I may know a little more about science than you, call me crazy.

 

[MiddleClass]

The only people who still don't believe in global warming are either ignorant of the facts, or just misguided mouthpieces for the right-wing.

It's time to move past the 'IF' and move forward with solutions.

Wasting our time to try to convince a very small minority of ignorant misguided mouthpieces for the rightwing is only slowing down our progress forward in saving our planet.

 

[Photonic]

The only people who still don't believe in global warming are either ignorant of the facts, or just misguided mouthpieces for the right-wing.

It's time to move past the 'IF' and move forward with solutions.

Wasting our time to try to convince a very small minority of ignorant misguided mouthpieces for the rightwing is only slowing down our progress forward in saving our planet.

I have postulated (Along with many other scientists) that it is simply a cyclical period of atmospheric destabilization (Similar to the switching magnetic poles). Certainly a theory can be developed from it but we need more geological evidence to support the stance I consider. Right now it is an acceptable Theory that the climate IS changing, we need to determine by how much and if there is some form of tipping point.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, this thread certainly proves to me just how really dumb teabaggers are about science. Holy shit...

Says the people claiming opinions are science.

The science behind the theory concerning global warming is not opinion. It is solid science from Fourier's observations concerning the earth's temperature in the 1820's to the present scientists that are observing solar output, ice caps, and climate changes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Huntsman was done before any debate...he always was an "also ran".
It depends on which scientist you want to listen to with global warming. It's all political at this point....just follow the money.

A lie that has been pointed out many times.

Care to show one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even on major University that states that AGW in not a fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

opinions arent science. Even if they are made by scientists.

Opinions made by those who actually do the research, know the material in and out, and live and breath the field they are commenting on...probably know it more than...say...you?

I know enough to realize when the temperature goes down it's not going up. I know enough to realize that if the planet is warming it won't cause an ice age. I know enough to realize that the temperature of the earth has gone up and down throughout all of earth's long history. I know enough to realize that when so called global warming scientists have to make up data that the data doesn't support what the politicians are trying to push on us.

You have no clue how much I know or don't know of the research I've actually studied. You just presume that since I call junk science for what it is, that I don't know anything about it.

Tell me something, why is it that the so called "solution" to global warming just happens to be the same policies the socialists couldnt convince the American people to enact for economic reasons? They can't convince people on the merits of the argument so they have to scare people into enacting their policies with a "crisis" that is always far off in the future.

Isn't it interesting that no matter whether the tempature goes up or goes down it's global warming? Global warming is going to warm the planet. No it's going to cause the next ice age. It causes hurricanes and earthquakes, except when it's not politically expedient for the left. Isn't that such an amazing coincidence?

You realize that according to those global warming "scientists" New York and many other Coastal cities were supposed to be underwater last year? Funny how that didnt happen and now it's completely ignored.

See, the problem with this so called "science" is that no matter how contrary the data is, it all seems to "prove" that it's happening for the left. And somehow questioning the inconsistancy of the facts is taboo. Since when is it anti-science to question the data? THAT IS SCIENCE! Science is all about questioning the data. Rejecting false theories. Yet, no matter how much we learn about the so called scientists making up data, no matter how many times the predictions are wrong, no matter how much data completely contradicts the theories, we are told we are crazy for questioning, that the debate is settled, and we need to give more control of our lives to an ever expanding government.

Well guess what. People are going to keep questioning. We aren't going to blindly follow you. When your data is inconsistant, when you have to out and out lie to support your position, we are going to question you even if you falsely claim it's all science.

Science doesn't stop questioning. And those who claim we shouldn't question or that anyone who does is crazy aren't being honest. If you have the truth on your side you aren't afraid of other opinions because the truth shines brighter and clearer than the lies. It's only the people who are afraid of the truth that need to shut down debate and pretend that it's over when it's never actually occured.

We realize that most of your assertions are pure bullshit and lies.

No, science never stops questioning. And all the anwers keep coming back that we are creating the rapid warming that we are experiancing by burning fossil fuels, adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

 

[Photonic]

Opinions made by those who actually do the research, know the material in and out, and live and breath the field they are commenting on...probably know it more than...say...you?

I know enough to realize when the temperature goes down it's not going up. I know enough to realize that if the planet is warming it won't cause an ice age. I know enough to realize that the temperature of the earth has gone up and down throughout all of earth's long history. I know enough to realize that when so called global warming scientists have to make up data that the data doesn't support what the politicians are trying to push on us.

You have no clue how much I know or don't know of the research I've actually studied. You just presume that since I call junk science for what it is, that I don't know anything about it.

Tell me something, why is it that the so called "solution" to global warming just happens to be the same policies the socialists couldnt convince the American people to enact for economic reasons? They can't convince people on the merits of the argument so they have to scare people into enacting their policies with a "crisis" that is always far off in the future.

Isn't it interesting that no matter whether the tempature goes up or goes down it's global warming? Global warming is going to warm the planet. No it's going to cause the next ice age. It causes hurricanes and earthquakes, except when it's not politically expedient for the left. Isn't that such an amazing coincidence?

You realize that according to those global warming "scientists" New York and many other Coastal cities were supposed to be underwater last year? Funny how that didnt happen and now it's completely ignored.

See, the problem with this so called "science" is that no matter how contrary the data is, it all seems to "prove" that it's happening for the left. And somehow questioning the inconsistancy of the facts is taboo. Since when is it anti-science to question the data? THAT IS SCIENCE! Science is all about questioning the data. Rejecting false theories. Yet, no matter how much we learn about the so called scientists making up data, no matter how many times the predictions are wrong, no matter how much data completely contradicts the theories, we are told we are crazy for questioning, that the debate is settled, and we need to give more control of our lives to an ever expanding government.

Well guess what. People are going to keep questioning. We aren't going to blindly follow you. When your data is inconsistant, when you have to out and out lie to support your position, we are going to question you even if you falsely claim it's all science.

Science doesn't stop questioning. And those who claim we shouldn't question or that anyone who does is crazy aren't being honest. If you have the truth on your side you aren't afraid of other opinions because the truth shines brighter and clearer than the lies. It's only the people who are afraid of the truth that need to shut down debate and pretend that it's over when it's never actually occured.

We realize that most of your assertions are pure bullshit and lies.

No, science never stops questioning. And all the anwers keep coming back that we are creating the rapid warming that we are experiancing by burning fossil fuels, adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

It has yet to be proven however that humans make up the majority of the cause, we still need to rule out natural climate destabilization. Some of the numbers are a bit dubious (up to 90%) because caused by humans.

Yes, it IS important we find out how much of this rests on the shoulders of humans, because it's stupid to think that we have no impact on this planet as a sentient species.

 

[Old Rocks]

Opinions made by those who actually do the research, know the material in and out, and live and breath the field they are commenting on...probably know it more than...say...you?

I know enough to realize when the temperature goes down it's not going up. I know enough to realize that if the planet is warming it won't cause an ice age. I know enough to realize that the temperature of the earth has gone up and down throughout all of earth's long history. I know enough to realize that when so called global warming scientists have to make up data that the data doesn't support what the politicians are trying to push on us.

You have no clue how much I know or don't know of the research I've actually studied. You just presume that since I call junk science for what it is, that I don't know anything about it.

Tell me something, why is it that the so called "solution" to global warming just happens to be the same policies the socialists couldnt convince the American people to enact for economic reasons? They can't convince people on the merits of the argument so they have to scare people into enacting their policies with a "crisis" that is always far off in the future.

Isn't it interesting that no matter whether the tempature goes up or goes down it's global warming? Global warming is going to warm the planet. No it's going to cause the next ice age. It causes hurricanes and earthquakes, except when it's not politically expedient for the left. Isn't that such an amazing coincidence?

You realize that according to those global warming "scientists" New York and many other Coastal cities were supposed to be underwater last year? Funny how that didnt happen and now it's completely ignored.

See, the problem with this so called "science" is that no matter how contrary the data is, it all seems to "prove" that it's happening for the left. And somehow questioning the inconsistancy of the facts is taboo. Since when is it anti-science to question the data? THAT IS SCIENCE! Science is all about questioning the data. Rejecting false theories. Yet, no matter how much we learn about the so called scientists making up data, no matter how many times the predictions are wrong, no matter how much data completely contradicts the theories, we are told we are crazy for questioning, that the debate is settled, and we need to give more control of our lives to an ever expanding government.

Well guess what. People are going to keep questioning. We aren't going to blindly follow you. When your data is inconsistant, when you have to out and out lie to support your position, we are going to question you even if you falsely claim it's all science.

Science doesn't stop questioning. And those who claim we shouldn't question or that anyone who does is crazy aren't being honest. If you have the truth on your side you aren't afraid of other opinions because the truth shines brighter and clearer than the lies. It's only the people who are afraid of the truth that need to shut down debate and pretend that it's over when it's never actually occured.

No, you should certainly be skeptical of any claim you haven't looked into, but your opinion will hold no weight until you do actual research. Common sense is a part of it, but it is very clear to me (As someone who has done the research and IS a scientist) that you have not yet actually looked into the facts. Simply claiming that "It isn't a science" isn't going to make it not.

In my opinion it's just as bad to twist what science says (What the left does) as to say it is straight out wrong because they refuse to look into it (The right).

Btw, I happen to disagree with the hypothesis that humans are the largest cause, the history of our planet is loaded with geological proof that this has happened in the past naturally. But that doesn't mean it isn't a science just because I disagree with the majority opinion. I believe humans have contributed significantly but not on the level claimed (Nearly 90%).

Yes, this has happened in the past a number of times. The rapid release of GHGs from volcanic activity interfacing with clathrates or coal has been indicated by a number of studies.

Most of the literature I have seen claims the human component at about 70%, however, with every ton of CO2 with put into the atmosphere, that component goes up. The primary point here is that we really don't know what the total effect will be. Little things, like local weather, are not included in the geological record. Allthough indications from the Karoo formation in South Africa, which has the P-T extinction period in it, indicates that extreme weather in the form of extreme precipitation events may be part of the mix.

We have about 7 billion people that depend on agriculture and the stable growing season that requires. If the past 14 months are an example of what lies ahead, we are going to see interesting times.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Global warming isn't science.

According to people like you who think that merely stating something makes it true.

 

[geauxtohell]

Prove that it's dogma. I'm sorry but unless you can support your claims I'm calling strawman.

The fact that AGW cultists constantly resort to logical fallacies to defend your claims shows you don't know the first thing about science. Your adherence to the dogma is not based on science. It's based on faith.

Given that I actually am a Scientist, a US patent holder in the field of optical physics and astrophysics/cosmology and have collaborated with researchers at NASA and CalTECH's Jet Propulsion Labratory...

I feel like I may know a little more about science than you, call me crazy.

Cultist!*

*Read to mean: "I am going to revert to hyperbole because I can't trump your CV".