Why is climate science political?

[Saigon]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Because republicans are idiots

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

(Highlighted by me)

See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.

The green movement is not scientific. It is a political movement to global ecofascism where an oligarchy of like minded Malthusian Luddites control what lives people can have in some arrogant vainglorious attempt of believing Man is all-powerful over the Earth and must 'save' it from us as well as 'save' ourselves from ourselves.

You will also notice that regardless of the outcome of the weather, it's AGW. Hot cold wet dry hail wind fire and frogs. It's all man's fault. This is not science. This is religion.

And why do the scientists persist? Three reasons: Money, Fear, Arrogance. Like a fire, take away any one of those elements and the movement dies because the science is not there.

Cue insane rebuttals in
3...
2...
1...

 

[Truthmatters]

big fat hunks of money is the only reason

 

[Oddball]

Why is climate science political?

Because the IPCC is political.

Because "peer review" is political.

Because all of its "researchers" require continued funding from the political class.

Because all of its "solutions" are political.

 

[Mad Scientist]

big fat hunks of money is the only reason

Money AND Control.

 

[saveliberty]

I want to echo that its not science. There should be a provable hypothesis that leads to some type of predictable model. The results should mirror the observable climate. The Earth has generated periods of climate change before man was even here. No smoking gun with man as the trigger.

We have debunked about every thought brought here by the Faithers.

 

[IanC]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

many policies were drafted back in the 1990's and early 2000's when there was a much stronger circumstantial case for global warming and disasterous results. now that the evidence and time frames are not in favour of CAGW many countries are not going through with expensive mitigation commitments but they find it hard to back away from the actual rhetoric that they signed. anytime someone decides to be careful with their money they are called conservative, anytime someone is willing to spend other people's money on a harebrained scheme with no possibility of success they are called a liberal.

 

[tigerbob]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Why is it political? Because it's about money. On the one hand you've got the green lobby, supported by green energy. On the other you've got the fossil fuels lobby. The fossil fuels lobby want their businesses to continue to thrive, and can provide some data to call climate change theory into disrepute. The green lobby have some data that may suggest human involvement in climate change, and the green energy industry wants that data to indicate that only curtailing the use of fossil fuels can save us from disaster.

As in all cases, follow the money.

 

[Saigon]

Why is climate science political?

Because the IPCC is political.

Because "peer review" is political.

Because all of its "researchers" require continued funding from the political class.

Because all of its "solutions" are political.

And you just kinda decided all this, right?

There is absolutely no evidence at all of any of this....I just laugh when I here people say research is political, I really do. (My wife is a PhD researcher)

I suspect at any moment we'll here the Illuminati are behind climate change research.

 

[Saigon]

disasterous results. now that the evidence and time frames are not in favour of CAGW many countries are not going through with expensive mitigation commitments but they find it hard to back away from the actual rhetoric that they signed. .

I look forward to seeing proof of this.

 

[California Girl]

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.

 

[Saigon]

See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.

The green movement is not scientific. It is a political movement to global ecofascism where an oligarchy of like minded Malthusian Luddites control what lives people can have in some arrogant vainglorious attempt of believing Man is all-powerful over the Earth and must 'save' it from us as well as 'save' ourselves from ourselves.
.

Right....the green movement is not scientific, and yet the National Academies of 30 odd countries, and at least another 30 major scientific bodies all people humans play a role in the climate.

I don't know about you guys, but if I was going to say that the National Academy of Physicists and the Royal Academy of Sciences were wrong - I'd want a lot of science on my side.

Instead what I see are strings of accusations with very little science.

It reminds me a bit of Holocaudt Denial (no offense intended, it's only an analogy) in that it is easy to say the Holocaust never happened - but difficult to explain where the 6 million Jews went.

 

[Saigon]

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.

Try reading the thread again - most conservative parties in the world are not in your camp.

 

[Oddball]

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.

Try reading the thread again - most conservative parties in the world are not in your camp.

Conservative *political* parties.....DUUUH!

 

[Saigon]

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.

Try reading the thread again - most conservative parties in the world are not in your camp.

Conservative *political* parties.....DUUUH!

I am fairly sure that the UK Conservative Party is:

a) conservative

b) political

What's your point?

 

[Oddball]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]George Carlin on The Environment (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freedombecki]

See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.

The green movement is not scientific. It is a political movement to global ecofascism where an oligarchy of like minded Malthusian Luddites control what lives people can have in some arrogant vainglorious attempt of believing Man is all-powerful over the Earth and must 'save' it from us as well as 'save' ourselves from ourselves.
.

Right....the green movement is not scientific, and yet the National Academies of 30 odd countries, and at least another 30 major scientific bodies all people humans play a role in the climate.

I don't know about you guys, but if I was going to say that the National Academy of Physicists and the Royal Academy of Sciences were wrong - I'd want a lot of science on my side.

Instead what I see are strings of accusations with very little science.

It reminds me a bit of Holocaudt Denial (no offense intended, it's only an analogy) in that it is easy to say the Holocaust never happened - but difficult to explain where the 6 million Jews went.

From the notes of Michael Coffman, PhD:

"Exposing the Global Wamring Lie" - 2009
This is extremely serious. Raw data is never deleted in sci*ence because it would pre*vent research results from ever being ver*i*fied and dupli*cated using the orig*inal data. This is at the core of the sci*en*tific method. This entire affair tends to dis*credit every research study that used the CRU sum*ma*rized data. It may mean that there is no longer any orig*inal empir*ical sci*en*tific data that even sug*gests that man is respon*sible for the twen*tieth cen*tury warming. Even the com*puter models used to prove man-caused global warming are made invalid because they all use CRU data in their models.

Errors of Omission for money, how convenient, and how political.

 

[Douger]

It should be in the Religious section.

 

[rdean]

Republicans see ALL science as "political". What do you expect from people who believe "education is for snobs"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A]Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube[/ame]