What passes for Republican Science

[bripat9643]

Do you deny that "big oil" has undue influence over or politics? Where does the "anti" climate change opposition come? Where do scientists that claim there is no climate change get their money?

Opposition to climate change kookery comes from rational people who don't want to return to the stone age.

 

[blackhawk]

The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?

None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.

Really and you have the stats dating from around 1911 or 1912 up to this year to back that up.

 

[Chris]

The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?

None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.

Really and you have the stats dating from around 1911 or 1912 up to this year to back that up.

A year here or there doesn't matter.

100 years ago there were 125 glaciers in Glacier National Park.

Now there are 25.

 

[Mustang]

Some people have accused climate change deniers of being like Holocaust deniers. I disagree with that. They're more like the people who denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and emphysema.

 

[Chris]

Some people have accused climate change deniers of being like Holocaust deniers. I disagree with that. They're more like the people who denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and emphysema.

Actually they are some of the very same scientists!!!

Fred Singer.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.

Really and you have the stats dating from around 1911 or 1912 up to this year to back that up.

A year here or there doesn't matter.

100 years ago there were 125 glaciers in Glacier National Park.

Now there are 25.

And at many point is the history of the Earth there were no glaciers.... go read a book dummy.

 

[tjvh]

Some people have accused climate change deniers of being like Holocaust deniers. I disagree with that. They're more like the people who denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and emphysema.

What I resent is people who use the phrase "climate change deniers"... What is bullshit in the use of that phrase is it fails to address the majority who do NOT deny that climate does in fact go through changes all of the time, yet who do NOT feel climate change is the result of driving around in a SUV with the A/C blasting.

 

[Full-Auto]

Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week

In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.

1. Harassment is routine
Climate-change deniers often threaten scientists in attempts to distract them from their research — and the harassment goes beyond nasty emails. One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

2. Political associations don't matter
For Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist, political conservative, and evangelical Christian, her work can be as thankless as it is taxing — even from her own party. In 2007, Rush Limbaugh discovered her contributions to a book co-authored by Newt Gingrich and ridiculed her as a "climate babe." Following the backlash, Gingrich dropped her chapter on global warming entirely.

3. Research is often stifled by legal action
"Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks," says Clynes. Climate change skeptics regularly file lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests to disrupt ongoing research. "In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding,

4. Efforts to ruffle scientists are increasingly sophisticated
It's not "a bunch of crazy people" fighting against us, says Mann. "These efforts to discredit science are well-organized." "There's really only about 25 of us doing this," says Steve Milloy, a Fox News commentator and self-described "denier." He calls the core group of skeptics "a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army." The deniers often target scientists who speak up publicly, offering bounties to anyone willing to make their lives difficult. In one instance, Milloy offered $500 for anyone

5. Anti-climate change advocacy is well-funded
Following the Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute put together a $5.9 million task force (which included Milloy) charged with discrediting climate change science to "quash growing public support of curbing emissions."

Ah....the boys getting a little payback. GOOD!! Had they been honest in the first place and actually shared the data, we wouldnt be here today.

Do you remember how it all started? One freakin tree ring.

The group was exposed, it will be difficult to regain any credibility when absolutely none has been demonstrated. When you have that one experiment that conclusively ends the discussion, let us know................

 

[flacaltenn]

Hello from Florida! Two TS before June ended, and 3 of the 4 named storms began NORTH of standard for June. PLUS, we hit the fourth TS at the earliest date known. More strange coincidences.................................from drought to deluge in record time......................

Quick, turn off all your lights and sell your car!

ALSO, announced recently, a hot zone of 180 miles off the Atlantic coast. I conserve, walking when you can helps keep the blubber away. And chilling the house to 75 degrees in a Florida summer is ridiculous, if one cannot stand warm weather, leave FLORIDA.

you're such a hero...

A "hot zone" eh? How does that fit into "global" warming theory? There's been a "hot zone" off the Florida coast in summertime since I was a long-haired hippy.. It's called the Bermuda high..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.

If the government wasn't so powerful that they can tell us what light bulbs we can use and how large our toilet tank can be, corporations wouldn't have to spend so much on lobbying.

 

[flacaltenn]

The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?

None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.

Really Chris -- just 100 years eh? That's almost as bad as believing the earth is only 6600 yrs old...

I see you're not part of RDean's Democrat Scientific majority...

 

[blackhawk]

None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.

Really and you have the stats dating from around 1911 or 1912 up to this year to back that up.

A year here or there doesn't matter.

100 years ago there were 125 glaciers in Glacier National Park.

Now there are 25.

I didn't ask for a year here or there I asked for the last 100 years since that is time frame you said the climate has been consistently warming for.

 

[Peach]

The real problem the climate change people have is they can't find one theory and stick to it. First we had global warming then when we had record settings winters they changed it to global cooling then the record heat came back and since global warming had already been used they had to go with climate change. What catchy new name will they use when mother nature debunks climate change?

None of that is true.

The climate has been warming fairly consistently for 100 years.

Really and you have the stats dating from around 1911 or 1912 up to this year to back that up.

The NOAA accepts global climate change as fact; here is a good source explaining ocean temp increases:

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2011

The NOAA has accepted the impact of human habitation, and the attendant alteration of climate, since long before 2008. As we cannot alter our societies in a flash, and would suffer without advances in the sciences; we will have to adapt, and work to reverse what can be reversed. There is no hard science that proves the changes are not natural of course. There may have been as many hurricanes before modern day population growth, and techniques for identifying, analysis, and record keeping existed.

Logic and reason leads one to understand that humans have altered the natural earth. Many of the changes are for the betterment of the human race, and many are not. Who would choose to go back 150 years, before antibiotics, treatments for cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, whooping cough, tetanus, etc.? There is a good chance another influenza epidemic, like that of 1918-1920 will occur, easing both population, and industrial output. Thus the 'problem' may work out again by natural means.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geological cycles. We're but a pinprick.

Link?

 

[flacaltenn]

Geological cycles. We're but a pinprick.

Link?

Hahahahahahahahahah... what a dweeb...

 

[Old Rocks]

Got a link to a non partisan site proving that it was discredited?

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy | Union of Concerned Scientists

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

I specifically asked for a "non partisan" source. But thanks for trying.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation. Climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About half of Earth’s warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This “clear-sky” response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in the climate system: a very large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; and sizeable, but still uncertain, negative feedbacks from clouds and aerosols. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas “fingerprint” simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from clouds and aerosols has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades.

These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow the current trajectory, by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach two to four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of less than 2 °C to more than 5 °C compared to 1850. This range of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise along densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 10–20% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Exposed: The terrifying harassment faced by climate change scientists - The Week

In a sprawling new story in Popular Science, Tom Clynes takes an in-depth look at the seedy but influential range of people who take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for climate-change researchers.

1. Harassment is routine
Climate-change deniers often threaten scientists in attempts to distract them from their research — and the harassment goes beyond nasty emails. One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

2. Political associations don't matter
For Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist, political conservative, and evangelical Christian, her work can be as thankless as it is taxing — even from her own party. In 2007, Rush Limbaugh discovered her contributions to a book co-authored by Newt Gingrich and ridiculed her as a "climate babe." Following the backlash, Gingrich dropped her chapter on global warming entirely.

3. Research is often stifled by legal action
"Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks," says Clynes. Climate change skeptics regularly file lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests to disrupt ongoing research. "In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding,

4. Efforts to ruffle scientists are increasingly sophisticated
It's not "a bunch of crazy people" fighting against us, says Mann. "These efforts to discredit science are well-organized." "There's really only about 25 of us doing this," says Steve Milloy, a Fox News commentator and self-described "denier." He calls the core group of skeptics "a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army." The deniers often target scientists who speak up publicly, offering bounties to anyone willing to make their lives difficult. In one instance, Milloy offered $500 for anyone

5. Anti-climate change advocacy is well-funded
Following the Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute put together a $5.9 million task force (which included Milloy) charged with discrediting climate change science to "quash growing public support of curbing emissions."

Hello from Florida! Two TS before June ended, and 3 of the 4 named storms began NORTH of standard for June. PLUS, we hit the fourth TS at the earliest date known. More strange coincidences.................................from drought to deluge in record time......................

Peach, you should read what Munich Re and Swiss Re have to say concerning the increase in extreme weather events.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've got an idea, get all outside influence from lobbyists OUT of our political system & let the science speak for itself.

Interesting that you tie those together.

KISS: Stop politicizing science. Period.

Just stop.

Stop soiling yourself, Sis

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Geological cycles. We're but a pinprick.

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.


Water vapor is 99% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin, except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic.

Natural and geological processes ie water vapor, emissions, subduction zones etc. Again, our significance is negligible.