The March for Science: Smart people......politically very dumb!!

[skookerasbil]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Could not be more wrong..........and proves again how incredibly naïve you are s0n. Actually.........not sure how you even navigate in life being so naïve.

The science being right doesn't mean dick if the people don't think it........then it is nothing more than a billboard, or in this case, a march nobody will care about by Monday!!

Why do you think all renewable projections out 30 years from now show them being still a fringe source of energy? Is that real enough for you s0n?

Im a winning ass kisser..........and that's the only thing that matters to me. Who is winning..............and who is not.


The left thinks it can just shove shit down peoples throats..........but as weve seen in the last several elections, they're doing it wrong!!



And by the way...............dummy.............the guy who wrote the article is marching in the parade or whatever you call such things.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks to the idiocy of the 'Conservatives', scientists are becoming well aquainted with politics. And many are now running for local offices. It is about time. We just learned the dangers of letting the lowest common denominator of intellect determine the outcome of an election. Time to put the 'Conservatives' back in their position as an unimportant outlier in American politics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thanks to the idiocy of the 'Conservatives', scientists are becoming well aquainted with politics. And many are now running for local offices. It is about time. We just learned the dangers of letting the lowest common denominator of intellect determine the outcome of an election. Time to put the 'Conservatives' back in their position as an unimportant outlier in American politics.

Your so called scientist were political hacks long ago.. They are well acquainted with it.. Socialism is tier political ilk.. I noticed the socialist buzz words and use of force to get what they want..

Your really are a socialist piece of crap..

 

[Billy_Bob]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

Falling back on their "social justice by force" mantra.. Most of these idiots couldn't tell you the base hypothesis... IE: Bill Nye....

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Our 'atmospheric physicist' that can't do third grade science, and gets the Enso wrong 100% of the time is once more dissing real scientists. LOL The orange clown and his brain dead sycophants have energized a lot of intelligent people that would rather have just done their science and let others handle the politics. We will see the results in 2018 and 2020.

 

[task0778]

I do not believe that science ought to be in the business of advancing the causes of equality and justice, IMHO we've already got too many scientists doing that already at the expense of honest and unbiased research and reporting. Science ought to be all about truth and integrity, if you're going to be looking into something like GW then it should be with no preconceived political agenda. You should not change the parameters or the process to achieve a desired result, and I fear that is happening all too often.

 

[Old Rocks]

I do not believe that science ought to be in the business of advancing the causes of equality and justice, IMHO we've already got too many scientists doing that already at the expense of honest and unbiased research and reporting. Science ought to be all about truth and integrity, if you're going to be looking into something like GW then it should be with no preconceived political agenda. You should not change the parameters or the process to achieve a desired result, and I fear that is happening all too often.

OK, that is what you fear. And your fears are based on what? Can you show us evidence that the physicists are wrong in their conclusions concerning GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[task0778]

I do not believe that science ought to be in the business of advancing the causes of equality and justice, IMHO we've already got too many scientists doing that already at the expense of honest and unbiased research and reporting. Science ought to be all about truth and integrity, if you're going to be looking into something like GW then it should be with no preconceived political agenda. You should not change the parameters or the process to achieve a desired result, and I fear that is happening all too often.

OK, that is what you fear. And your fears are based on what? Can you show us evidence that the physicists are wrong in their conclusions concerning GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The evidence is all over the place, every freakin' GW computer model over the past the past 30 years has been WRONG and I think you know that. How many times have we heard some liberal politician or hotshot Hollywood star telling us about how the dire consequences of GW that did not come to pass? Even our own President spread the nonsense about the 97% of scientists BS, you know what I mean. And it was totally debunked. Look, if you want to say the scientists that support your political agenda are 100% honest and accurate, fine by me. And if you want to say that the scientists who disagree or at least aren't fully supportive of your position, that's okay too. You can believe whatever you think is true; I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you or anyone else of the possibility that GW is not the looming disaster that the alarmists are predicting.

But since you asked for a link I'll give you one that shows how dishonest that 97% crap is. Not that it'll matter, but here you are:

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Could not be more wrong..........and proves again how incredibly naïve you are s0n.

This is Matthew that you are addressing. Yes, he certainly can be more wrong, and in fact, has been more wrong. It is an error to underestimate the depths of wrongness to which he is capable, or to look at one instance of him being wrong, and assume that to be the limit of how wrong he can be.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Task, show me one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, one major University with a policy statement that states that AGW is wrong. The fact is, almost every one of these Institutions have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a general consensus that the warming we are seeing is primarily a result of human activities.

As for the models, you are totally wrong. Either you are a dumb fuck too damned lazy to do your own research, or you are another bald faced liar.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

The Northwest Passage opened in 2007, and last year, a very large, 1000 passenger, cruise ship transited the passage. This was written in 1981. Pretty damned accurate prediction. Same for the rest of the mainline science predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Could not be more wrong..........and proves again how incredibly naïve you are s0n.

This is Matthew that you are addressing. Yes, he certainly can be more wrong, and in fact, has been more wrong. It is an error to underestimate the depths of wrongness to which he is capable, or to look at one instance of him being wrong, and assume that to be the limit of how wrong he can be.

OK, now you tell us what you think of AGW, and we can see how right you can be. I bet you will do nothing but reveal a vast ignorance of the whole subject and science in general.

 

[Mad Scientist]

 

[task0778]

Old Rocks: As for the models, you are totally wrong. Either you are a dumb fuck too damned lazy to do your own research, or you are another bald faced liar.

Me: Generally when somebody stops to this kind of vitriol it's a sure sign of a losing argument. Consider this, shortened somewhat to cut to the chase:

Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature datasets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), analyzed all 73 UN computer models. “I compared the models with observations in the key area — the tropics — where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy told CNSNews. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.”

Using datasets of temperatures from NASA, the U.K. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, NOAA, satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, he found, “All show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.” In other words, global warming has been on “pause” for almost two decades — a fact that has been acknowledged even by many of the most zealous UN climate alarmists. “All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world.”

Other warming predictions have also fallen flat. For instance, for almost two decades now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past.

The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The latest data from Rutgers’ Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than 22 million square kilometers were covered.

And according to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow, surpassing the previous record — 36.5 percent — set in 2006. Worldwide, similar trends have been observed. Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.

After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America and beyond. Seriously. Among the “experts” making that argument was former cooling zealot Holdren, Obama’s science czar: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

When asked for the “growing body of evidence” behind his assertions, Holdren’s office refused to provide it, claiming the ramblings were just his “opinion” and therefore not subject to transparency and accuracy laws. Still, Holdren’s claim directly contradicts the IPCC, which in 2001 predicted “warmer winters and fewer cold spells.”

The melting ice caps: Another area where the warmists’ predictions have proven incorrect concerns the amount of ice at the Earth’s poles. They predicted a complete melting of the Arctic ice cap in summers that should have already happened, and even claimed that Antarctic ice was melting rapidly.

As far as the Antarctic is concerned, in 2007, the UN IPCC claimed the ice sheets of Antarctica “are very likely shrinking,” with Antarctica “contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr - 1 to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003.” The UN also claimed there was “evidence” of “accelerated loss through 2005.” In 2013, the UN doubled down on its false claim, claiming even greater sea-level rises attributed to the melting in Antarctica: “The contribution of … Antarctic ice sheets has increased since the early 1990s, partly from increased outflow induced by warming of the immediately adjacent ocean.” It also claimed Antarctica’s “contribution to sea level rise likely increased from 0.08 [ - 0.10 to 0.27] mm yr - 1 for 1992 - 2001 to .40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr - 1 for 2002 - 2011.” The reality was exactly the opposite.

In a statement released in October (2015), NASA dropped the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on the UN’s climate-alarmism machine, noting that ice across Antarctica has been growing rapidly for decades.

NASA said only that its new study on Antarctic ice “challenges” the conclusions of the IPCC. In fact, the UN could not have been more wrong. Rather than melting ice in the southern hemisphere contributing to sea-level rise, as claimed by the UN, ice in Antarctica is expanding, and the growing ice is responsible for reducing sea levels by about 0.23 millimeters annually. According to the NASA study, published in the Journal of Glaciology, satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet featured a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 — more than a trillion tons of ice in less than a decade. Between 2003 and 2008, Antarctica gained some 82 billion tons of ice annually.

The UN’s inaccurate Antarctic claims were illustrated most comically, perhaps, when a ship full of alarmists seeking to study “global warming” was trapped in record Antarctic sea ice in the summer of 2013 and had to be rescued by ships burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. (Anybody remember that?)
.
.
Increased storms, drought, and sea-level rise: The ice sheets have not cooperated with warmists, and neither have other weather-related phenomena, such as mass migrations owing to sea-level rise.

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and none of those things actually happened. But that didn’t stop the warnings.

In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

Even the low-lying Pacific islands scare appears to have flopped. Supposedly on the “front lines” of AGW-caused sea-level rise, the Pacific atoll island nations don’t face imminent submersion and have experienced the opposite of what was predicted. Consider a paper published in March of 2015 in the journal Geology. According to the study, the Funafuti Atoll has experienced among “the highest rates of sea-level rise” in the world over the past six decades. Yet, rather than sinking under the waves, the islands are growing. “No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century,” the paper says.

Then there are the claims about drought. Some UN alarmists have even predicted that Americans would become “climate refugees,” using imagery that may be familiar to those who suffered through the infamous (and natural) “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s. Prominent Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, for instance, made some dramatic predictions in 1990. By 1995, he said, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as Gore’s advisor, refused to apologize. “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he claimed. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that claim in a 2012 study for Nature, pointing out that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.”

Countless other claims of AGW doom affecting humans have also been debunked. Wildfires produced by AGW, for instance, were supposed to be raging around the world. Yet, as Forbes magazine pointed out recently, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On hurricanes and tornadoes, which alarmists assured were going to get more extreme and more frequent, it probably would have been hard for “experts” to be more wrong. “When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900,” noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado. On January 8, 2015, meanwhile, the Weather Channel reported: “In the last three years, there have never been fewer tornadoes in the United States since record-keeping began in 1950.”


Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

As for you Old Rocks, if you can't be civil then this discourse is over from my end. Have a nice day.

 

[MaryL]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

Science IS skepticism, what IS the point of this thread? Scientist's aren't dictating morals or politics.

 

[westwall]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Except when idiots like nye claim that science must influence and direct politics. It was shit like that that got us eugenics and mass murder. All in the name of "science".

 

[yiostheoy]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

AGW -- Alt Great White ???

You're supposed to define your acronyms before you use them.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Read the signs being carried, they know how to spell.

As opposed to tea baggers and drumpf supporters who believe their way of spelling is just as good as anyone else's because this is Amuhrca.

 

[yiostheoy]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Except when idiots like nye claim that science must influence and direct politics. It was shit like that that got us eugenics and mass murder. All in the name of "science".

Eugenics -- got that part.

Mass murder -- not sure what you are saying here however.