Tea Party Hypocrites?

[DiamondDave]

What passes for science with the right wingnuts

No... the opposition to the manmade global warming hoax recognize this as humor.. it's you left wingers that fall for the hoax that try to pass of humorous things as science

 

[skookerasbil]

Human beings are generally very receptive to being intellectually persuaded that it's okay to be greedy.

The global warming deniers are just one more example of this.

In a broader sense, the otherwise inexplicable appeal of conservatism relies on it.

Twenty years ago this same group was denying that cigarette smoke was harmful. They just dusted off the same arguments and recycled them..

My grandmother smoked three packs a day and lived to be 90.......Gee, I live in Minnesota and it was 3 degrees today, how can there be global warming?

Not all scientists agree that cigarette smoke causes cancer....not all scientists believe that carbon emissions cause global warming

Think of all the people who will be put out of work.......think of all the people who will be put out of work

We need to do more studies.......we need to do more studies

exactly Sherlock.............you dont go and fubar a whole economy based upon a guess!!!!


For the first time in my life, I agree with this guy!!!

 

[Oddball]

Human beings are generally very receptive to being intellectually persuaded that it's okay to be greedy.

The global warming deniers are just one more example of this.

In a broader sense, the otherwise inexplicable appeal of conservatism relies on it.

Twenty years ago this same group was denying that cigarette smoke was harmful. They just dusted off the same arguments and recycled them..

My grandmother smoked three packs a day and lived to be 90.......Gee, I live in Minnesota and it was 3 degrees today, how can there be global warming?

Not all scientists agree that cigarette smoke causes cancer....not all scientists believe that carbon emissions cause global warming

Think of all the people who will be put out of work.......think of all the people who will be put out of work

We need to do more studies.......we need to do more studies

How many from the same crowd that thinks Creationism should be taught in science class are at the same time insisting that there isn't yet sufficient scientific evidence for climate change?

Holy non sequiturs, Batman...It's a feeding frenzy!

 

[Si modo]

Twenty years ago this same group was denying that cigarette smoke was harmful. They just dusted off the same arguments and recycled them..

My grandmother smoked three packs a day and lived to be 90.......Gee, I live in Minnesota and it was 3 degrees today, how can there be global warming?

Not all scientists agree that cigarette smoke causes cancer....not all scientists believe that carbon emissions cause global warming

Think of all the people who will be put out of work.......think of all the people who will be put out of work

We need to do more studies.......we need to do more studies

How many from the same crowd that thinks Creationism should be taught in science class are at the same time insisting that there isn't yet sufficient scientific evidence for climate change?

Holy non sequiturs, Batman...It's a feeding frenzy!

Yeah. The stupid in this thread is amazing.

 

[rightwinger]

How many from the same crowd that thinks Creationism should be taught in science class are at the same time insisting that there isn't yet sufficient scientific evidence for climate change?

Holy non sequiturs, Batman...It's a feeding frenzy!

Yeah. The stupid in this thread is amazing.

Yes it is since Si Modo chimed in

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, whatever.

What's next, you two moonbats gonna try and equate globalclimatecoolerwarmering with bigfoot?

 

[WillowTree]

Holy non sequiturs, Batman...It's a feeding frenzy!

Yeah. The stupid in this thread is amazing.

Yes it is since Si Modo chimed in

Hey! RWinger,, did you ever tell us if Al Gore and John Travolta are hypocrites? If not why not? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

[mightypeon]

Given Global Warming:

If you wish to argue that dumping a lot of CO2 into the athmosphere will not change the climate, you are very likely to be quite wrong.
If you wish to argue that this climate change is benificial to mankind, you are, in my opinion, likely wrong because of the following reasons: If the the temperature rises, a portion of the Ice on earth will melt. This is bad news for anyone living on a coast. However, an increase in temperature is good for people living in arctic or subarctic regions like Canada or Siberia.
People in the Sahara arent going to care much about 2 additional degrees, nor do they matter a lot.
Given that MUCH more people live on coasts than in Siberia and Northern Canada, the short term effects of global warming would not be beneficial. Long Term its a maybe, remember that the adjustment of the biophere towards to increase of temperature may a) take a while and may b) be messy.
If you argue that reducing carbon emmisions without doing anything else is a bad way to deal with the problem, I wholehartedly agree with you. Preparing for its effects, and increasing CO2 uptake by increasing the amount of CO2 consumers on the planet are both viable ways which should be utilized together with a reduction in CO2 emissions.

 

[code1211]

Sooner or later the bill will come due for unrestrained carbon emissions. Much like the dreaded deficit that the tea party bemoans, the bill for dumping unlimited carbon emissions into our atmosphere will be paid by our descendants

The difference being that if anthropogenic CO2 emissions were stopped today, there would be no "next generation" to worry about. We and they would starve.

If spending more than we collect in taxes stopped today, the only problem would be that the deficite would go away and our credit as a nation would be restored. Oh, and the unbridled graft and theft of the tax revenues by our elected pit vipers would have to end also.

The CO2 emissions in the USA has decreased, has it not? Better technology will solve this problem as efficiencies increase if nothing else. There will be plenty else, though, and it will happen under its own timing and soon as it becomes the better choice.

The TEA Baggers that you need to address are those who live and work in China and India.

 

[code1211]

Given Global Warming:

If you wish to argue that dumping a lot of CO2 into the athmosphere will not change the climate, you are very likely to be quite wrong.
If you wish to argue that this climate change is benificial to mankind, you are, in my opinion, likely wrong because of the following reasons: If the the temperature rises, a portion of the Ice on earth will melt. This is bad news for anyone living on a coast. However, an increase in temperature is good for people living in arctic or subarctic regions like Canada or Siberia.
People in the Sahara arent going to care much about 2 additional degrees, nor do they matter a lot.
Given that MUCH more people live on coasts than in Siberia and Northern Canada, the short term effects of global warming would not be beneficial. Long Term its a maybe, remember that the adjustment of the biophere towards to increase of temperature may a) take a while and may b) be messy.
If you argue that reducing carbon emmisions without doing anything else is a bad way to deal with the problem, I wholehartedly agree with you. Preparing for its effects, and increasing CO2 uptake by increasing the amount of CO2 consumers on the planet are both viable ways which should be utilized together with a reduction in CO2 emissions.

Questions:

1. When has an increase in CO2 in the air changed the climate in the last 5 million years?
2. How much has sea level risen in the last 8000 years?
3. What has been the net increase in temperature in the last 8000 years?
4. Compared to the peak temperature in any interglacial, how does our current temperature compare?

After you answer these questions, let me know if the panic should continue or abate.

 

[rightwinger]

Given Global Warming:

If you wish to argue that dumping a lot of CO2 into the athmosphere will not change the climate, you are very likely to be quite wrong.
If you wish to argue that this climate change is benificial to mankind, you are, in my opinion, likely wrong because of the following reasons: If the the temperature rises, a portion of the Ice on earth will melt. This is bad news for anyone living on a coast. However, an increase in temperature is good for people living in arctic or subarctic regions like Canada or Siberia.
People in the Sahara arent going to care much about 2 additional degrees, nor do they matter a lot.
Given that MUCH more people live on coasts than in Siberia and Northern Canada, the short term effects of global warming would not be beneficial. Long Term its a maybe, remember that the adjustment of the biophere towards to increase of temperature may a) take a while and may b) be messy.
If you argue that reducing carbon emmisions without doing anything else is a bad way to deal with the problem, I wholehartedly agree with you. Preparing for its effects, and increasing CO2 uptake by increasing the amount of CO2 consumers on the planet are both viable ways which should be utilized together with a reduction in CO2 emissions.

Please do not bring scientific facts into my thread. The only science the people here care about is farts and breathing. You see global warming cannot exist because Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh told me so

 

[WillowTree]

Given Global Warming:

If you wish to argue that dumping a lot of CO2 into the athmosphere will not change the climate, you are very likely to be quite wrong.
If you wish to argue that this climate change is benificial to mankind, you are, in my opinion, likely wrong because of the following reasons: If the the temperature rises, a portion of the Ice on earth will melt. This is bad news for anyone living on a coast. However, an increase in temperature is good for people living in arctic or subarctic regions like Canada or Siberia.
People in the Sahara arent going to care much about 2 additional degrees, nor do they matter a lot.
Given that MUCH more people live on coasts than in Siberia and Northern Canada, the short term effects of global warming would not be beneficial. Long Term its a maybe, remember that the adjustment of the biophere towards to increase of temperature may a) take a while and may b) be messy.
If you argue that reducing carbon emmisions without doing anything else is a bad way to deal with the problem, I wholehartedly agree with you. Preparing for its effects, and increasing CO2 uptake by increasing the amount of CO2 consumers on the planet are both viable ways which should be utilized together with a reduction in CO2 emissions.

Please do not bring scientific facts into my thread. The only science the people here care about is farts and breathing. You see global warming cannot exist because Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh told me so

Hey! RWinger,, are al gore and john travolta hypocrites? crybaby hypocrite, answer the question.

 

[mightypeon]

@Code 1211 I would ask you to inform yourself on that. The modells for climate are fairly well established, there is a likelihood that dumping of all that CO2 into the athmosphere will do nothing, but that is unlikely.
Also, climate dynamics are not exactly the fastest ones on the earth. With a high propability, we are now affected by the climate changes from lets say, 100 to 50 years earlier, which means that the effects of the largest CO2 emmission are still before us.
I am not saying you should panic, I am not saying that reducing CO2 by 50% will solve all troubles, but the constant denial of a quite well established scientific hypothesis and the means with which it is denied (largely ad hominem attacks at Al Gore, using some E-Mails from 10-20 years ago, or rather, rumours about 10-20 year old E-Mails), coupled with the fact that significant industrial interests have a large stake in having global warming denied, means I am quite sceptical of "Global Warming is a FAKE ZOMG" prophets.

For me, especially after Bush et. Al. trusting Republicans with Science is roughly like hmm giving the Catholic Church control over my kids? Having Russians play baseball? Giving Berni Madhoff my Money?

 

[Si modo]

@Code 1211 I would ask you to inform yourself on that. The modells for climate are fairly well established, there is a likelihood that dumping of all that CO2 into the athmosphere will do nothing, but that is unlikely. ...

Link to ther science that supports this claim.

.... Also, climate dynamics are not exactly the fastest ones on the earth. With a high propability, we are now affected by the climate changes from lets say, 100 to 50 years earlier, which means that the effects of the largest CO2 emmission are still before us. ....

Ditto.

.... I am not saying you should panic, I am not saying that reducing CO2 by 50% will solve all troubles, but the constant denial of a quite well established scientific hypothesis ....

Link to the science that supports your claim that the hypothesis is "well established".

.... and the means with which it is denied (largely ad hominem attacks at Al Gore, using some E-Mails from 10-20 years ago, or rather, rumours about 10-20 year old E-Mails), coupled with the fact that significant industrial interests have a large stake in having global warming denied, means I am quite sceptical of "Global Warming is a FAKE ZOMG" prophets.

For me, especially after Bush et. Al. trusting Republicans with Science is roughly like hmm giving the Catholic Church control over my kids? Having Russians play baseball? Giving Berni Madhoff my Money?

Really? Then I wonder why the GWB administration allocated so much money (much more than Clinton, for example) to scientific research?

.... The funding of the sciences during the GWB administration were at unprecedented high levels. Historically, there have been some administrations that have been quite generous to the sciences and some that have had to make hard cuts. Looking at the data for federal expenditures for scientific research and development from 1953 to 2007, it would be hard to say whether the Democrats or Republicans are more generous to the sciences. In fact, the Republicans have some of the highest percentages of increases, but they also have some big decreases.

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase
​

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08317/figure3.xls

 

[code1211]

@Code 1211 I would ask you to inform yourself on that. The modells for climate are fairly well established, there is a likelihood that dumping of all that CO2 into the athmosphere will do nothing, but that is unlikely.
Also, climate dynamics are not exactly the fastest ones on the earth. With a high propability, we are now affected by the climate changes from lets say, 100 to 50 years earlier, which means that the effects of the largest CO2 emmission are still before us.
I am not saying you should panic, I am not saying that reducing CO2 by 50% will solve all troubles, but the constant denial of a quite well established scientific hypothesis and the means with which it is denied (largely ad hominem attacks at Al Gore, using some E-Mails from 10-20 years ago, or rather, rumours about 10-20 year old E-Mails), coupled with the fact that significant industrial interests have a large stake in having global warming denied, means I am quite sceptical of "Global Warming is a FAKE ZOMG" prophets.

For me, especially after Bush et. Al. trusting Republicans with Science is roughly like hmm giving the Catholic Church control over my kids? Having Russians play baseball? Giving Berni Madhoff my Money?

I know the answers to those questions. You obviously do not.

Flowered rhetoric and misdirection are no substitute for informing yourself.

 

[mightypeon]

As of now, all important national academies of science support this hypothesis. If you wish to make a statement counterfactual to that, it is up to you to provice credible evidence. If you somehow think that Al Gore definies what the national academy of science says in the US, than thats you opinion. If you think that the German/Russian/Chinese National academy of science even cares in the slightest bit about Manbearpig, you are totally wrong.

Secondly, your problem is that you look exlucsivly at the US.
In the US global warming is a partisan issue and thus debated.
In the rest of the world, global warming is not a partisan issue, even the far right accept it as a very likely hypothesis, what is debated is how to deal with it.

Ask yourself why this debate happens in the US, ask yourself who is founding the global warming sceptics and you will have your awnsers.

 

[Si modo]

As of now, all important national academies of science support this hypothesis. If you wish to make a statement counterfactual to that, it is up to you to provice credible evidence. ....

That's not how it works. You made some claims, the burden is on you to support them.

Until you do, everything you say can be logically considered as bullshit.

As you have yet to support those claims, there is nothing of substance to anything you have said. Cheap talk - anyone can do it, even idiots.

 

[rightwinger]

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[Si modo]

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

....
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
....

Oh, I feel better now, knowing that journalists evaluated the integrity of science.

 

[rightwinger]

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

....
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
....

Oh, I feel better now, knowing that journalists evaluated the integrity of science.

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck doing so