The Republicans’ war on science and reason

[Unkotare]

How many things do Republicans have to embarrassingly defend just because they have to defend their party at all cost on every issue? To be anti science?

I'm not ashamed of being environmentally friendly or Green. Aren't republicans embarrassed to argue for the polluters? Or to hurt the poor? Or for a president who lied us into a war? Bankrupted us? Spied on us and tortured? .

Apparently you have no shame about posting dishonest, hyperbolic partisan hysteria over and over endlessly as if you really believe you are convincing anyone of anything, and then having the gall to talk of "lies," tough-guy.

 

[Unkotare]

After investigating the furious controversy that became “Climategate,” a panel in Britain reported last week that the scientists at East Anglia University—the ones whose e-mails were hacked in late 2009—had not, as global-warming deniers charged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that the planet was heating up primarily because of human activity.

Debunked.

Next...

LOL! A "panel." LOL!!

 

[Old Rocks]

The argument has never been over whether the earth is getting warmer, but whether the actions of humans have accelerated the rate of warming. That has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and is still in question. Are we experiencing another spike in temperature, or do we really have a trend going. The midevil warm period and the mini-ice age have proven that those spikes happen, and they were not caused by humans.

Incorrect it has been proven It is basic 8th grade science. More greenhouse gasses means higher temperatures. Furthermore non human related things that effect temperature show that the earth should be cool (these incldes, volcanoes, sun activity, and dust concentrations)

It is basic 8th grade science.

That's why the warmers have to keep lying about the data.

Really?

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

Now I realize that actually reading real science is beneath willfully ignorant know nothings, but there are many more such articles at the link for any interested. All from peer reviewed journal.

 

[buckeye45_73]

IT's not science unless it comes from the UN. They would never politicize science...never.

 

[Old Rocks]

And just which of those papers came from the UN?

 

[Vidi]

How many things do Republicans have to embarrassingly defend just because they have to defend their party at all cost on every issue? To be anti science?

I'm not ashamed of being environmentally friendly or Green. Aren't republicans embarrassed to argue for the polluters? Or to hurt the poor? Or for a president who lied us into a war? Bankrupted us? Spied on us and tortured? .

Apparently you have no shame about posting dishonest, hyperbolic partisan hysteria over and over endlessly as if you really believe you are convincing anyone of anything, and then having the gall to talk of "lies," tough-guy.

Then follow the money trail.

Who makes more money? The polluters or the scientists? Who stands to lose?

You dont really think the scientists cant just study something else?

Its not logical.

And you're talking about a conspiracy of THOUSANDS, without ANY leaks at all? The ONLY evidence is some emails which certain phrases were taken completely out of context and heavily edited to be seen as a vast conspiracy that crosses international borders? Who are these scientists? The Illuminati? The Templars? The Masons?

Next, you'll be telling me that 9/11 was an inside job.

Maybe the aliens that abduct trailer park redisdents are doing it!

Claiming that all the scientists are in cahoots to fraud everyone is a ridiculous conspiracy theory best left for the tin foil hat wearing crowd.

 

[Unkotare]

How many things do Republicans have to embarrassingly defend just because they have to defend their party at all cost on every issue? To be anti science?

I'm not ashamed of being environmentally friendly or Green. Aren't republicans embarrassed to argue for the polluters? Or to hurt the poor? Or for a president who lied us into a war? Bankrupted us? Spied on us and tortured? .

Apparently you have no shame about posting dishonest, hyperbolic partisan hysteria over and over endlessly as if you really believe you are convincing anyone of anything, and then having the gall to talk of "lies," tough-guy.

Then follow the money trail.

Who makes more money? The polluters or the scientists? Who stands to lose? .

Why don't you ask Al Gore, who both pollutes and makes buckets of money off fear mongering and promoting an agenda posing as science? Take a good, hard look at the big, fat hypocrite and you'll see there is plenty of money being made (and careers, and reputations, tenures, publishing opportunities, grants, speaking engagements, peer affirmation, etc) on all sides.

If the focus were on reasonable steps to have industry pollute less and less over time, real progress (if not 'sexy' and 'dramatic') could be made, but when Chicken Little runs around insisting the world is going to end tomorrow if we don't immediately revert to a pre-industrial society then nothing will really happen and the opportunity for practical steps will be lost.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How many things do Republicans have to embarrassingly defend just because they have to defend their party at all cost on every issue? To be anti science?

I'm not ashamed of being environmentally friendly or Green. Aren't republicans embarrassed to argue for the polluters? Or to hurt the poor? Or for a president who lied us into a war? Bankrupted us? Spied on us and tortured? .

Apparently you have no shame about posting dishonest, hyperbolic partisan hysteria over and over endlessly as if you really believe you are convincing anyone of anything, and then having the gall to talk of "lies," tough-guy.

projection at its best, you retards do nothing but spit spin partisan lies and BS and accuse your opposition of the same, ironic.

 

[buckeye45_73]

How many things do Republicans have to embarrassingly defend just because they have to defend their party at all cost on every issue? To be anti science?

I'm not ashamed of being environmentally friendly or Green. Aren't republicans embarrassed to argue for the polluters? Or to hurt the poor? Or for a president who lied us into a war? Bankrupted us? Spied on us and tortured? .

Apparently you have no shame about posting dishonest, hyperbolic partisan hysteria over and over endlessly as if you really believe you are convincing anyone of anything, and then having the gall to talk of "lies," tough-guy.

projection at its best, you retards do nothing but spit spin partisan lies and BS and accuse your opposition of the same, ironic.

Look man, if it's so desperate why do all the rich environmental types still live like regular rich people? You would think if they believed this crap, they would be the first to drop the lifestyle and live their recomendations (soon to be law if these crazies get their way)

 

[Unkotare]

How many things do Republicans have to embarrassingly defend just because they have to defend their party at all cost on every issue? To be anti science?

I'm not ashamed of being environmentally friendly or Green. Aren't republicans embarrassed to argue for the polluters? Or to hurt the poor? Or for a president who lied us into a war? Bankrupted us? Spied on us and tortured? .

Apparently you have no shame about posting dishonest, hyperbolic partisan hysteria over and over endlessly as if you really believe you are convincing anyone of anything, and then having the gall to talk of "lies," tough-guy.

projection at its best, you retards do nothing but spit spin partisan lies and BS and accuse your opposition of the same, ironic.

Who asked you, Frenchman? Shut the fuck up while Americans are talking.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Since the Earth is 4.2 billion years old, there have ben approximately 26 of these increases of CO2 bursts into the biome, a fairly normal occurance for a planet like Earth that is rock based, molten center, roving landmasses and salty oceans on its surface, and a very varied and wild thermocouple (weather).

But, as I had said, it sure sells a lot of new age bullshit green crap to the multitudes.

Oh well,

Robert

 

[Bass v 2.0]

People are still in denial that manmade pollution raises CO2 levels, such retards still deny science.

 

[squinch]

Since the Earth is 4.2 billion years old, there have ben approximately 26 of these increases of CO2 bursts into the biome, a fairly normal occurance for a planet like Earth that is rock based, molten center, roving landmasses and salty oceans on its surface, and a very varied and wild thermocouple (weather).

But, as I had said, it sure sells a lot of new age bullshit green crap to the multitudes.

Oh well,

Robert

Saying that the earth is only six thousand years old sells even more bibles.

 

[squinch]

The Republicans’ war on science and reason - The Washington Post


Last month, Washington Post columnist Steve Pearlstein wrote that if you wanted to come up with a bumper sticker that defined the Republican Party’s platform it would be this: “Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP.” With their unrelenting attempts to slash Social Security, end Medicare and Medicaid and destroy the social safety net, Republicans are, indeed, on a quest of reversal. But they have set their sights on an even bolder course than Pearlstein acknowledges in his column: It’s not just the 20th century they have targeted for repeal; it’s the 18th and 19th too.

The 18th century was defined, in many ways, by the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement based on the idea that reason, rational discourse and the advancement of knowledge, were the critical pillars of modern life. The leaders of the movement inspired the thinking of Charles Darwin, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin; its tenets can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. But more than 200 years later, those basic tenets — the very notion that facts and evidence matter — are being rejected, wholesale, by the 21st-century Republican Party.


I never understood this obsession to deny and distort the reality of science.

The republican war on science is shameful but I always thought that reason was overated.

 

[Claudette]

I wonder where he gets the shit that the Republican party as a whole rejects climate change and that there is a WAR on science?? Talk about a bunch of hooey.

Al Gore, a Dem, has made millions off this climate change crap. Last I checked he is a DEM.

Shit. I have friends who are Dems and very Liberal who think its a crock of shit.

I'm sure we humans have something to do with it but Climate Change has been happening since there has been a planet. It would happen whether humans were on the planet or not.

Back in the 11th or 12th century there was a very cold spell in summer where crops died and people starved to death because the crops wouldn't grow. No carbon footprint there.

Climates change and will continue to change with or without humans.

 

[rdean]

Did you hear about the Republican who says they are "Pro" science, except for evolution, climate change, paleontology, geology, astronomy, plate tectonics and vaccines?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Incorrect it has been proven It is basic 8th grade science. More greenhouse gasses means higher temperatures. Furthermore non human related things that effect temperature show that the earth should be cool (these incldes, volcanoes, sun activity, and dust concentrations)

It is basic 8th grade science.

That's why the warmers have to keep lying about the data.

Really?

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

Now I realize that actually reading real science is beneath willfully ignorant know nothings, but there are many more such articles at the link for any interested. All from peer reviewed journal.

Really, the warmers keep lying about the data.

 

[Claudette]

Did you hear about the Republican who says they are "Pro" science, except for evolution, climate change, paleontology, geology, astronomy, plate tectonics and vaccines?

Since when does one Rep equal the entire party?

Jeeze. Get real.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Since the Earth is 4.2 billion years old, there have ben approximately 26 of these increases of CO2 bursts into the biome, a fairly normal occurance for a planet like Earth that is rock based, molten center, roving landmasses and salty oceans on its surface, and a very varied and wild thermocouple (weather).

But, as I had said, it sure sells a lot of new age bullshit green crap to the multitudes.

Oh well,

Robert

Saying that the earth is only six thousand years old sells even more bibles.

They only people I've heard make that claim are ignorant fools such as yourself.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Did you hear about the Republican who says they are "Pro" science, except for evolution, climate change, paleontology, geology, astronomy, plate tectonics and vaccines?

Did you hear about the rep who neged you for being a douchebag?