When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?

[CrusaderFrank]

Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.
Every bit of credible data shows the median temperature average has risen 1 degree over the past 100 years. There are literally dozens of things which can explain this nominal increase without jumping to the conclusion man is causing it.

We're looking at 0.8 degree Celsius since about 1880-ish. Since 1975, for example, two-thirds of warming has occurred at or around 0.15-.20 degrees celsius per decade.

A global change of one degree is important because it takes massive quantities of heat to warm land, oceans, the atmosphere, etc. All is took was a one to two degree change to sent the planet into the Little Ice Age. A five degree drop resulted in the vast majority of North America under a copious amounts of ice 20,000 years ago.

One degree in 100 years. That's what we have, whether or not man is causing it. In the past 18 years, we've not had warming, it has been getting cooler. If it continues on the current trend, we won't be having a 1 degree increase for the century. There are dozens of factors other than the greenhouse ceiling. There is the Sun and sunspot activity. There are volcanic eruptions. Solar flares. Not to mention all the assorted cyclical climate patterns we have on Earth.

The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick.

Actually, they didn't. In the 1960s and 70s, I vividly recall being warned we were heading into the next ice age. In the 80s, the "crisis" was the ozone layer, because they observed a hole in it at the poles. As it turned out, man wasn't blowing a hole in the ozone layer, it just naturally doesn't form at the poles and the "hole" is normal. Of course this was after the 'chicken little' policies of the day had cost capitalists billions of dollars reformulating products and updating production.

It's undoubtedly true there were some predictions about an ice age in the 1970s, but those warnings compared to today are night and day. There was tiny amount of scientific speculation based on glacial cycles and some of slight cooling that occurred as result of air pollution blocking sunlight. We didn't have copious amounts of data or papers being published back them. We had no UN commissions, no institutions, etc. You could have found more of a consensus on a sighting of Lindbergh baby.

Today, there's a scientific consensus, supported by national academies and the major scientific institutions around the world, including the CIA and US military, which all get behind the assembled data that temperature is increasing, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary, and it will only get worse until we decrease emissions. I really don't understand why this causes cognitive dissonance among certain ideological segments of our population. It's not even a big deal, it can be dealt with.

Hogwash. You're now citing "UN commissions" as if they are some kind of scientific authority. These are diplomats, not scientists. Same with the CIA or military. No one is "getting behind" global warming anymore. It's dead. It's cognitive dissonance to continue insisting man is causing some catastrophic overheating. It's just not happening.

It's silly to even think man is capable of emitting too much CO2. If you took all the human-made emissions from all of history, and all human-made emissions man of the future will create for the next 100k years, you will have approximately the equivalent to ONE major volcanic eruption. Now, we have a major volcanic eruption about once every decade. This has been happening forever. With a single volcanic eruption, there is more CO2 dispersed than man has produced since the Industrial Revolution.

personally think the problem is fundamentalist wackos. Whenever you abandon God and adopt a religious faith in science, there are problems society can't deal with. Like people believing everything science theorizes as absolute truth and gospel. Because this becomes their convicted faith, they can't seem to understand that science is often times wrong about things. When science replaces God, science becomes infallible and perfect.

Science doesn't require faith or belief, quite the contrary. Since deals with and studies natural phenomena in the observable universe, so it cannot confirm or deny the existence of God if that makes sense. I think about half of scientists claim a religious affiliation of some sort.

People tend to get confused when a scientist says he/she believes in X or Y hypothesis or theory. What they mean is that he/she accepts X or Y idea, that he/she thinks said scientific idea is the most accurate bases on the evidence. Scientific ideas are accepted and rejected based on the assembled evidence for them or again them. Belief, faith, dogma, etc. aren't part of the scientific method in any capacity.

Oh you need to talk with Joe then, he just told me that Evolution disproves the God of Abraham. And you need to check your own self as well, here you are presenting science to support your INSISTENCE there is man made global warming. So if science doesn't require faith and belief, why do you have so much faith and belief in this science? Can't it be wrong?

If we are going to say that science isn't a belief, dogma, faith, etc. We must admit that science does not 'conclude things as fact.' Because as soon as science has done this, there is no more science, there is only faith and belief in your conclusion. You see, it is MAN who concludes things as fact.' This is based on faith and belief in the science. But the science never concludes.

The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.

I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.

Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.

There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.


Here:


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hey Sparky, can you find one (1) single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz has been emasculated and Rand is using the far right. Rubio may have a future. The far right has stepped all over its yet again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Cruz has been emasculated and Rand is using the far right. Rubio may have a future. The far right has stepped all over its yet again.

snicker... yeah Cruz and Rand are done for ROFL


but I do like Rubio.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not what I said. Their power has been curtailed dramatically, as has that of most of the TPM. Rightly so.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not what I said. Their power has been curtailed dramatically, as has that of most of the TPM. Rightly so.

Their "power"? WTF are you talking about? The TP is a loose group of Americans that were formed to discuss stuff.. They have no power, they did not seek power. Cruz and Rand are merely congressmen. Power... ROFL

 

[JakeStarkey]

RMK is PC's damaged friend mentally.

Try that again, sonny.

 

[RKMBrown]

RMK is PC's damaged friend mentally.

Try that again, sonny.

Who's RMK and who's PC? Try what again?

Can anyone translate what this retard is saying to English?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you deny TPM has political muscle.

Good. Then, the interp is that your input does not matter.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you deny TPM has political muscle.

Good. Then, the interp is that your input does not matter.

What Tea Party? Are you mentally handicapped? What political muscle? Who's running the TP? WTF are you talking about? Saying the tea party has political muscle is like saying the elderly have political muscle or the drug users have political muscle or foot ball fans have political muscle... it's just a group of people. In the case of the TP it's a very loose group of people with no clear mission any more.

 

[Boss]

the DeStarkifiction of the Republican continues unabated.

Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul are rising stars while Christ, Rove and Starkey move further to their Axis of Weasels home base in the DNC

When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?
I actually thought the OP was going to be about the Establishment totally abandoning Conservatism.

You know, if the elites would show half as much passion for fighting Harry Reid and Democrats as they show fighting the Tea Party, there would be no need for a Tea Party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope. Never said any such thing.

I thought you were going to answer truthfully?

{The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish. }

Those WERE your words, right? So clearly you DID claim that to question is "foolish."

Please make your next question a little less schizo. Thanks.

My question to you. Have you ever posted a comment that you later learned was untrue....and never retracted the comment?

I post a great deal of things, on occasion posts can be wrong. Generally I will acknowledge a mistake, but it depends on the time lapse. Also, questions of opinion are not factual errors, so if you claimed that Obama IZ TOO god, I said he was not, and you're waiting for me to admit I was wrong - well, keep waiting.

My turn: Do you honestly believe that government rulers are better suited to determine the price one should pay for goods and services than the invisible hand is?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. Never said any such thing.

I thought you were going to answer truthfully?

{The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish. }

Those WERE your words, right? So clearly you DID claim that to question is "foolish."

Please make your next question a little less schizo. Thanks.

My question to you. Have you ever posted a comment that you later learned was untrue....and never retracted the comment?

I post a great deal of things, on occasion posts can be wrong. Generally I will acknowledge a mistake, but it depends on the time lapse. Also, questions of opinion are not factual errors, so if you claimed that Obama IZ TOO god, I said he was not, and you're waiting for me to admit I was wrong - well, keep waiting.

My turn: Do you honestly believe that government rulers are better suited to determine the price one should pay for goods and services than the invisible hand is?

Nope. Never said that either. You are asking very strange questions. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.

Your question. Have you ever knowingly repeated an untruth in order to make a political point?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, TPM and the folks associated with the philosophy are not worth crap.

We have been telling you that.

 

[Boss]

Nope. Never said that either. You are asking very strange questions. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.

Your question. Have you ever knowingly repeated an untruth in order to make a political point?

Well we know for certain that you have, in fact, it would be hard to find a thread where you didn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An opinion of course is a factual error if the opiner knows it to be so.

Normally such an act is used for an illicit purpose.

 

[Boss]

OK, TPM and the folks associated with the philosophy are not worth crap.

We have been telling you that.

Who has been telling who that? First of all, it's NOT a "philosophy." It could be loosely defined as a core set of constitutional conservative principles, but even with that, the movement has millions of individual supporters with various ideas and philosophies about that. It's not like Republican or Democrat where you have an official stated platform.

Now, are ALL of these people "not worth crap" or just some of them? On what basis are they crap... because they won't tow the party line and get behind Boehner and McConnell? Because they support Ted Cruz and like Sarah Palin? Or do they have to be "crap" because you are so wonderful and they don't see things your way?

 

[Boss]

An opinion of course is a factual error if the opiner knows it to be so.

Normally such an act is used for an illicit purpose.

I don't think you know what a "factual error" means. That's when you state something as a fact that is erroneous. An opinion is never a fact. The opinion may be based on erroneous facts or factual errors, but an opinion is just an opinion.

Opinions can be right or wrong, but they can also be both or neither. Now if someone has an opinion that is based on factual error, the question becomes, do they know that to be so? If they know their opinion is based on erroneous information, they are liars.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss, a factual error expressed deliberately as an opinion is what you are doing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. Never said that either. You are asking very strange questions. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.

Your question. Have you ever knowingly repeated an untruth in order to make a political point?

Well we know for certain that you have, in fact, it would be hard to find a thread where you didn't.

Cool. Find one, then. Or fuck off.

 

[Boss]

Boss, a factual error expressed deliberately as an opinion is what you are doing.

There is no such thing, idiot. I just explained it to you. I am presenting an opinion, just like everyone else. It's not a fact, it's my opinion. If something about my opinion is based on an erroneous fact, that is YOUR job to make the case. There, there is a huge gaping leap to demonstrate I am deliberately presenting false information (lying). You've done none of this, you've just made up a new definition for an opinion, like some kind of moronic goofball.