Republicans Against Science

[konradv]

Right....But I'm not the one trying to pass off an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax as a theory.

At least evolution is a theory...Goebbels warming is an outright hoax.

They're BOTH theories. You got a problem with them, prove them false. Simply calling it "Goebbels Warming" doesn't do the job. As a matter of fact, it's the kind of "logic" that would make Goebbels smile.

 

[daveman]

Science teaches us that we are changing our climate and it may have serious repercussions.

Wrong. Science teaches us that we may be changing our climate.

Anyone who states it as a certainty has an agenda. And it's not about saving humanity.

 

[Oddball]

Right....But I'm not the one trying to pass off an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax as a theory.

At least evolution is a theory...Goebbels warming is an outright hoax.

They're BOTH theories. You got a problem with them, prove them false. Simply calling it "Goebbels Warming" doesn't do the job. As a matter of fact, it's the kind of "logic" that would make Goebbels smile.

Established theories don't continue to include deliberately falsified information, opinion and unquantifiable input/output values as does the Goebbels warming hoax.

 

[konradv]

Right....But I'm not the one trying to pass off an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax as a theory.

At least evolution is a theory...Goebbels warming is an outright hoax.

They're BOTH theories. You got a problem with them, prove them false. Simply calling it "Goebbels Warming" doesn't do the job. As a matter of fact, it's the kind of "logic" that would make Goebbels smile.

Established theories don't continue to include deliberately falsified information, opinion and unquantifiable input/output values as does the Goebbels warming hoax.

That's merely your slant and an excellent example of Goebbels' M.O., don't explain, just attack. You've learned your lessons well. Odd you wouldn't realize that. Get on the ball!!!

 

[Flopper]

What is it like in this fantasy world where you can claim a group of people think science is a threat when that's completely false. Science is amoral.

It's the people who want to misuse science that are the problems. You know, the ones who want to claim "Science" says something that it doesn't say.

I've found that people who say they rely on science have no clue what science actually is. I've also found that those people are usually lying to themselves what science is saying and refusing to change their lives to live by it.

There are many people who see science as a threat. For millions of Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, scientists are continually finding evidence that challenges their beliefs. If you believe scientist are wrong about the age of the earth, the creation of the universe, the evolution of man, age of the prophets, Noah and the ark, and the history of our ancient ancestors, then maybe the scientist have it wrong about a lot of other things such as global warming.

Then there are those that see scientific discovery as an economic threat. The economic repercussions of dealing with global warming are a threat to many industries. The cost would change economic priorities around the world.

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Define "scientific knowledge." Because there is academic hysteria and there is scientific knowledge.

Case in point.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

As for AGW, I would dispute a lot of the doomsday stories as well as the political measures (Kyoto through Copenhagen) as unscientific. Science teaches us that we are changing our climate and it may have serious repercussions. But the hysteria that comes out of that is totally political.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax

Scientific knowledge is fact or phenomenon acquired through scientific method which has been subject to peer review and has a wide degree of acceptance in the scientific community. Global warming has been accepted by every major academy of science in the world. The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. Still republicans reject science in favor of their ideological and religious beliefs.

 

[Oddball]

Scientific knowledge is fact or phenomenon acquired through scientific method which has been subject to peer review and has a wide degree of acceptance in the scientific community.

No, it's tested, retested, demonstrated, quantified and falsified...None of which can be said about the Goebbels warming hoax.

I don't need "peer review and acceptence in the scientific community" to prove that rising warm moist air eventually produces cumulus clouds...I can demonstrate that first time, every time.

Global warming has been accepted by every major academy of science in the world.

Source?....Link?

Still republicans reject science in favor of their ideological and religious beliefs.

Project much?

 

[Flopper]

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

Changes required to (reputedly) reduce Goebbels warming require expansion in government cost and control, which is in direct alignment with the political agendas of socialists and other assorted totalitarians across the globe.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax, because it would threaten their goal of total authoritarian central control over everyone and everything.

Cuts both ways, Scooter.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Ain't irony a bitch?

Thousands of scientist working independently in dozens of countries came to the conclusion that the planet is warming and man is the most probably cause. Their work was reviewed by thousands of their peers and their conclusion was supported by all major academies of science in the world and it's all a pseudo-scientific conspiracy.

That's about as likely as:

Man never landed on the moon. WWII was staged. And Stephen King killed John Lennon.

 

[Flopper]

Scientific knowledge is fact or phenomenon acquired through scientific method which has been subject to peer review and has a wide degree of acceptance in the scientific community.

No, it's tested, retested, demonstrated, quantified and falsified...None of which can be said about the Goebbels warming hoax.

I don't need "peer review and acceptence in the scientific community" to prove that rising warm moist air eventually produces cumulus clouds...I can demonstrate that first time, every time.

Global warming has been accepted by every major academy of science in the world.

Source?....Link?

Still republicans reject science in favor of their ideological and religious beliefs.

Project much?

Joint Science Academies' Statements: Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Science Academies:
of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
of Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
of Institut de France,
of Ghana,
of Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
of Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
of Royal Society of New Zealand,
of Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
of The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.


2001 — Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Scientific Consensus - National Wildlife Federation

 

[Oddball]

Consensus is politics, not science.

 

[Oddball]

Thousands of scientist working independently in dozens of countries came to the conclusion that the planet is warming and man is the most probably cause. Their work was reviewed by thousands of their peers and their conclusion was supported by all major academies of science in the world and it's all a pseudo-scientific conspiracy.

I didn't say conspiracy...It's what happens as a matter of course in echo chambers of all types...But speaking of conspiracies, I don't imagine you ever heard of that "climategate" thing, where the leading pimps of the hoax were in fact actively conspiring to freeze out contravening opinions and blackball journals that published them, did you?

Also, if you don't think that the IPCC and their "peer review" process are heavily steeped in politics, you're as deeply in denial as they come.

That's about as likely as:

Man never landed on the moon. WWII was staged. And Stephen King killed John Lennon.

Non sequitur, diversion, projection.

 

[Flopper]

Consensus is politics, not science.

Consensus of peers is required for wide acceptance of scientific knowledge.

 

[Oddball]

BTW, was it republicans who claimed that friggin' space aliens might invade if we don't do something about Goebbels warming?

 

[Oddball]

Consensus is politics, not science.

Consensus of peers is required for wide acceptance of scientific knowledge.

Irrelevant to the point that consensus is a process of politics, not science.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Consensus is politics, not science.

Consensus of peers is required for wide acceptance of scientific knowledge.

At one time there was great consensus that the Earth was flat.

But hey, there ya go.

 

[Oddball]

Consensus is politics, not science.

Consensus of peers is required for wide acceptance of scientific knowledge.

At one time there was great consensus that the Earth was flat.

But hey, there ya go.

I'll raise you.

At one time there was consensus that the sun, planets and entire universe revolved around the Earf....It was the consensus of all the people privy to the "secret and sacred knowledge", who subsequently rat fucked and branded the man who questioned their dubious conclusions a heretic.

Sound familiar?

 

[flacaltenn]

Flopper:::

Joint Science Academies' Statements: Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Science Academies:
of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
of Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
of Institut de France,
of Ghana,
of Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
of Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
of Royal Society of New Zealand,
of Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
of The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.


2001 — Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Scientific Consensus - National Wildlife Federation

UGANDA Flopper? Really? National Federation of Grocery Bags for Wildlife?

Let me help you out here. You've missed the part where the IPCC panels have become nothing more than a screened and selected panel of Grand Inquisitors. Any dissent is punished and the lucky ones who have escaped HAVE spoken out about the biased process and misinterpretations of their work..

How to improve the IPCC : Nature News

The use of 'grey literature' in IPCC reports, such as literature which is not peer-reviewed or not published in scientific journals, is under particular scrutiny, in part because it was the source of the glacier error. But many believe some of it to be valuable. "People automatically think that grey literature is [only] from activists and non-governmental organizations' reports. In fact, it includes reports from national academies of sciences, and reports from the International Energy Agency," says Chris Field, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford University, California and the co-chair of the working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability for the IPCC's upcoming fifth assessment. Field also testified before the committee.

In other words -- they would incorporate articles that support their pre-conceived more openly than they would EVER condone opposing scientific views. You want to know how to pervert science? Don't allow dissent. Don't include conflicting views. And claim consensus.

If you don't like it, resign (or don't get selected) - globalwarmingquestions

Christopher Landsea

Landsea has worked on hurricanes for over 20 years and has over publications in the field. He took part in the second and third IPCC reports. He resigned from the IPCC in January 2005 over the issue of exaggerated claims of the influence of global warming on hurricanes, discussed previously. In his resignation letter, he stated "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns." He added "All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin....It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming." and concluded: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Paul Reiter

Reiter is an expert in tropical diseases such as malaria. He was a contributing author to the WGII report of the TAR (2001) (chapter 9, dealing with impacts on human health). He found it impossible to work with lead authors who were not experts in the field, who were insisting on a link between climate change and diseases such as malaria, so he resigned from the IPCC process. He was interviewed for the Channel 4 programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle. He gave evidence to a US Senate Committee, launching a scathing attack on the IPCC: A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of “experts.” I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. In a report to the House of Lords he wrote: "In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities."

Richard Lindzen

Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, has over 200 publications in meteorology and climate. He was a lead author on Chapter 7 of the IPCC TAR, published in 2001. Subsequently, in May 2001, he was critical of the Summary for Policymakers, which he said "misrepresents what scientists say" and "Exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty". He also said that the IPCC encourages misuse of the Summary, and that the Summary does not reflect the full document, and that the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming (all of these comments refer to the 2001 TAR, but as we have seen on these pages, are equally applicable to the 2007 AR4). Lindzen played no part in the writing of AR4.

John T Everett

Everett is an expert in fisheries and the oceans. He worked for the IPCC until 2000. In a statement to the US House of Representatives in 2007 he called for "a reality check" and said that "Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing". He has written a web site climatechangefacts.info that is highly critical of the IPCC.

Tom Segalstad

Segalstad is a geologist and former IPCC expert reviewer. He also has a web site highly critical of the IPCC and climate alarmism.


Hans von Storch

Hans von Storch was a lead author in the Third Assessment Report (2001). In 2004 he published a paper that was critical of the "hockey stick" picture that was prominent in the TAR. He volunteered to act as a lead author in AR4, but was not chosen. He has been quite outspoken in his criticism of the IPCC: "IPCC authors have decided to violate the mission of the IPCC, by presenting disinformation".

Roger Pielke sr.

Roger Pielke is an atmospheric scientist with over 300 publications. He was invited to write as a coauthor for the second IPCC report (1995), but his comments were ignored, so he resigned from "this clearly biased assessment process" and was not invited to take part in the 3rd or 4th reports. See his comments for the IAC Review.

You don't silence dissidents in science.. The politicians with agenda may TRY to do that and the Media may be a busload of useful idiots propagating this "consensus" nonsense.

But you need to realize that the Process and Methods of Science have been horribly violated in this instance..

 

[Oddball]

heh....That'll leave a mark.

 

[Flopper]

Flopper:::

Joint Science Academies' Statements: Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Science Academies:
of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
of Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
of Institut de France,
of Ghana,
of Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
of Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
of Royal Society of New Zealand,
of Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
of The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.


2001 — Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Scientific Consensus - National Wildlife Federation

UGANDA Flopper? Really? National Federation of Grocery Bags for Wildlife?

Let me help you out here. You've missed the part where the IPCC panels have become nothing more than a screened and selected panel of Grand Inquisitors. Any dissent is punished and the lucky ones who have escaped HAVE spoken out about the biased process and misinterpretations of their work..

How to improve the IPCC : Nature News

The use of 'grey literature' in IPCC reports, such as literature which is not peer-reviewed or not published in scientific journals, is under particular scrutiny, in part because it was the source of the glacier error. But many believe some of it to be valuable. "People automatically think that grey literature is [only] from activists and non-governmental organizations' reports. In fact, it includes reports from national academies of sciences, and reports from the International Energy Agency," says Chris Field, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford University, California and the co-chair of the working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability for the IPCC's upcoming fifth assessment. Field also testified before the committee.

In other words -- they would incorporate articles that support their pre-conceived more openly than they would EVER condone opposing scientific views. You want to know how to pervert science? Don't allow dissent. Don't include conflicting views. And claim consensus.

If you don't like it, resign (or don't get selected) - globalwarmingquestions

Christopher Landsea

Landsea has worked on hurricanes for over 20 years and has over publications in the field. He took part in the second and third IPCC reports. He resigned from the IPCC in January 2005 over the issue of exaggerated claims of the influence of global warming on hurricanes, discussed previously. In his resignation letter, he stated "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns." He added "All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin....It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming." and concluded: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Paul Reiter

Reiter is an expert in tropical diseases such as malaria. He was a contributing author to the WGII report of the TAR (2001) (chapter 9, dealing with impacts on human health). He found it impossible to work with lead authors who were not experts in the field, who were insisting on a link between climate change and diseases such as malaria, so he resigned from the IPCC process. He was interviewed for the Channel 4 programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle. He gave evidence to a US Senate Committee, launching a scathing attack on the IPCC: A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of “experts.” I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. In a report to the House of Lords he wrote: "In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities."

Richard Lindzen

Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, has over 200 publications in meteorology and climate. He was a lead author on Chapter 7 of the IPCC TAR, published in 2001. Subsequently, in May 2001, he was critical of the Summary for Policymakers, which he said "misrepresents what scientists say" and "Exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty". He also said that the IPCC encourages misuse of the Summary, and that the Summary does not reflect the full document, and that the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming (all of these comments refer to the 2001 TAR, but as we have seen on these pages, are equally applicable to the 2007 AR4). Lindzen played no part in the writing of AR4.

John T Everett

Everett is an expert in fisheries and the oceans. He worked for the IPCC until 2000. In a statement to the US House of Representatives in 2007 he called for "a reality check" and said that "Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing". He has written a web site climatechangefacts.info that is highly critical of the IPCC.

Tom Segalstad

Segalstad is a geologist and former IPCC expert reviewer. He also has a web site highly critical of the IPCC and climate alarmism.


Hans von Storch

Hans von Storch was a lead author in the Third Assessment Report (2001). In 2004 he published a paper that was critical of the "hockey stick" picture that was prominent in the TAR. He volunteered to act as a lead author in AR4, but was not chosen. He has been quite outspoken in his criticism of the IPCC: "IPCC authors have decided to violate the mission of the IPCC, by presenting disinformation".

Roger Pielke sr.

Roger Pielke is an atmospheric scientist with over 300 publications. He was invited to write as a coauthor for the second IPCC report (1995), but his comments were ignored, so he resigned from "this clearly biased assessment process" and was not invited to take part in the 3rd or 4th reports. See his comments for the IAC Review.

You don't silence dissidents in science.. The politicians with agenda may TRY to do that and the Media may be a busload of useful idiots propagating this "consensus" nonsense.

But you need to realize that the Process and Methods of Science have been horribly violated in this instance..

Oh yea, It's grand conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and dozens of the most prestigious scientific societies, and academies of science whose purpose is promote world socialism.

 

[daveman]

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

Changes required to (reputedly) reduce Goebbels warming require expansion in government cost and control, which is in direct alignment with the political agendas of socialists and other assorted totalitarians across the globe.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax, because it would threaten their goal of total authoritarian central control over everyone and everything.

Cuts both ways, Scooter.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Ain't irony a bitch?

Thousands of scientist working independently in dozens of countries came to the conclusion that the planet is warming and man is the most probably cause. Their work was reviewed by thousands of their peers and their conclusion was supported by all major academies of science in the world and it's all a pseudo-scientific conspiracy.

That's about as likely as:

Man never landed on the moon. WWII was staged. And Stephen King killed John Lennon.

Thousands of scientists working independently in dozens of countries all using the same cherry-picked data and distorted computer models came to the same conclusion.

Big surprise.

 

[daveman]

A thread I started in June:

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'


What are you people afraid of?