What passes for Republican Science

[Trakar]

Al Gore says so, that's better than anything scientists can do.

That's why Al Gore stopped flying around in a fleet of private jets and stopped owning multiple energy draining mansions and stopped having his luggage driven around by limos, because he's a man of integrity who believes every word he says.

Al Gore is an asswipe and patient zero for this malady on science.

In "Earth in the Balance" Al Gore blamed water vapor for he warming

True story

Please cite this specific reference.

 

[Si modo]

You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.

Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.

It is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports most specifically in:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

(the older 2007 report some issues have been revised over the last 5 years)
Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - AR4 WGI

(and this special report concerning current and near future impacts which just became publically available this month)
IPCC

Of course, the basic science understandings and processes are available in the upper level primary science (chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.,) textbooks and references published over the last 50-100 years.

I'll address the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

Could you please quote where the science concludes that they have identified anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming? Thanks.

As to the IPCC, that is a political and advocacy group.

 

[Trakar]

Now here we have a real asshole spewing.

You fucking cultists are something else.

{“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”}

Mann threatening journals who dare publish science - in contrast to the cult.

Just whom has Mann harrassed? He has done real science.

Mann is among a cadre who crush real science for the moronic cult you and he follow.

Because his conclusions don't please you, does not mean you have the right to harrass him.

He's a pile of shit, he suppresses science and oppresses scientific inquiry, as is the way of your cult.

unevidenced and uncompelling conspiracy theories do not equate to a valid counter-point except among the delusional.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now here we have a real asshole spewing.

You fucking cultists are something else.

{“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”}

Mann threatening journals who dare publish science - in contrast to the cult.

Just whom has Mann harrassed? He has done real science.

Mann is among a cadre who crush real science for the moronic cult you and he follow.

Because his conclusions don't please you, does not mean you have the right to harrass him.

He's a pile of shit, he suppresses science and oppresses scientific inquiry, as is the way of your cult.

And the warmer cultist says::

unevidenced and uncompelling conspiracy theories do not equate to a valid counter-point except among the delusional.

No comment on the EVIDENCE eh? You really have to be a special type of liar to avoid something this obvious..
Mann can just throw hissy fits and push his weight around as much as he likes.. But THAT'S not intimidation or harrassment. But a dead rat and YELLOW Hummer -- that's a different story...

 

[rdean]

Republican Science!​

 

[Uncensored2008]

unevidenced and uncompelling conspiracy theories do not equate to a valid counter-point except among the delusional.

These are facts, written by Mann (and Jones, et al.) That you despise fact and evidence is why you follow the AGW cult. Real science is based on facts and evidence, but your cult represses anything that exposes the fallacy of your faith. (Now you can scream "the email was stolen," as if that alters the facts.)

Michael Mann is a two-bit charlatan. He milks the suckers by feeding them what they want to hear. Open fraud (the hockey stick chart) is his MO, but as long as it feeds into statist goals of reduced liberty and more authoritarian control, what the hell, right?

Science cannot coexist with the AGW cult. As long as dogma, rather than a search for facts is the foundation of the community, science will remain in "the little dark age" that it currently is in.

 

[Si modo]

Republican Science!

Science is science and only morons assign a party to it.

Congrats.

 

[flacaltenn]

{“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”}

Reminded me that EVERYTHING EVERYONE needs to know about this thread topic was provided by the Grand vonStorch.. He is one of the most objective and HONEST players in this whole shameful saga...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487042381045746014439

By HANS VON STORCH
"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist
wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On
this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a
climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for
such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability,
replicability and independent review.

We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what
constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal
institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take,
for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders
Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference
in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I
would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too
many moving targets, because it is already a very, very
complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this
process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed
targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on
uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating
knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The
merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on
its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of
my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my
results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to
democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights
and explanations.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing
colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of
science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I
hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the
decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now
that the activity described by these words was by no means
innocent.

And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these
words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical
temperature results in question, but also the warming documented
by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must
have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the
journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to
science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with
no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a
bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU
scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes,
skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.

Hans -- the PEER REVIEWER himself of one of Climate Research's most prestigious magazines is a heretic to the Church of Global Warming and doesn't much care for skeptic's CONSPIRACY theories.

But he is saying EXACTLY what the skeptics on this thread have been trying to tell y'all about the deception, harrassment, and politicalization of the process of AGW science.. This is the most DAMNING response to being professionally flamed in recent science history..

It's really is -- the best summary of why us skeptics are NOT the "deluded" team..

 

[daveman]

One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

 

[flacaltenn]

One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

If anything can attract the daveman it's a dead rat and speeding YELLOW Hummer.

 

[daveman]

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot

Columnist says that global warming skeptics 'should have their houses burnt down' | Mail Online

Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof

» Greenpeace To Global Warming Skeptics: “We Know Where You Live” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Climate change deniers will be seen as racists one day, says Al Gore | Mail Online

 

[daveman]

One climate modeler describes finding "a dead rat on his doorstep" with "a yellow Hummer speeding away

If anything can attract the daveman it's a dead rat and speeding YELLOW Hummer.

 

[flacaltenn]

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot

Columnist says that global warming skeptics 'should have their houses burnt down' | Mail Online

Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof

» Greenpeace To Global Warming Skeptics: “We Know Where You Live” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Climate change deniers will be seen as racists one day, says Al Gore | Mail Online

Game -- Set --- Match

From the daily mail link...

Mr Gore recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

'Secondly, back to this phrase "win the conversation,"' he continued.

'There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with - you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally - but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural.

'Then there came a time when people would say, "Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that."

Don't talk that way to me.. Don't talk back to me. In fact, Don't talk.

What a boob.

From the Daily Mail article..

'We know who the active denialists are... Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued,' Mr Zwick wrote in Forbes on Friday.
'Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.'

Much better than a dead rat and speeding YELLOW Hummer...

 

[Trakar]

Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.

It is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports most specifically in:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

(the older 2007 report some issues have been revised over the last 5 years)
Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - AR4 WGI

(and this special report concerning current and near future impacts which just became publically available this month)
IPCC

Of course, the basic science understandings and processes are available in the upper level primary science (chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.,) textbooks and references published over the last 50-100 years.

I'll address the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

Could you please quote where the science concludes that they have identified anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming? Thanks.

As to the IPCC, that is a political and advocacy group.

I did not say to take the IPCC's word on anything (which, btw, is not a political advocacy group, it is a multinational intergovernmental scientific and diplomatic panel tasked to study and assess the published science regarding climate change issues and report their findings back to the governments involved); I said the science "is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports."

With regards to the Copenhagen Diagnosis and CO2's impact on climate warming the science is in the references - This first is probably the closest to the specific information you are requesting but the most complete response would require and involve a synthesis of many if not all of the references, which is what the Copenhagen Diagnosis report was intended to be,...but I will give you what you ask for, the science:

"The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions" - H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld
Vol 459| 11 June 2009| doi:10.1038/nature08047
(note CCR = Climate-Carbon Response)

...The CCR is a simple, yet robust representation of the global temperature
response to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and as such is directly relevant to current policy negotiations surrounding international climate mitigation efforts. The EuropeanUnion has proposed restricting global warming to less than 2 uC above pre-industrial temperatures
16; however, large uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity 17 prevents confident estimates of the CO2 stabilization level required to avoid 2 uC warming, and climate sensitivity alone provides no policy-useful information about the allowable CO2 emissions for a given stabilization level. The CCR represents a synthesis of previous efforts to quantify the temperature response to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by aggregating the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon sinks and climate–carbon feedbacks into a single well-constrained metric of climate change that is related directly to
cumulative carbon emissions.
...Our observational estimate of CCR was derived using estimates of CO2-attributable
warming and cumulative CO2 emissions for each decade of the twentieth century relative to 1900–09. We estimated CO2-attributable warming using an estimate of greenhouse-gas-attributable warming12, scaled by the ratio of CO2 to total greenhouse-gas forcing21, where greenhouse-gas forcing was first scaled by an estimate of the mean efficacy of long-lived greenhouse gases22. We calculated uncertainties in greenhouse-gas-attributable warming, accounting for internal variability and inter-model uncertainty12, and assumed normally and Student-t distributed uncertainties for radiative forcings and greenhouse-gas efficacy, respectively22. We calculated cumulative carbon emissions from fossil fuels and land-use change13,14,23, and assumed a one-sigma systematic uncertainty on land-use emissions of 60.5 PgC per year24. Our central estimates for CO2- attributable warming and cumulative emissions at 1990–99 relative to 1900–09 were 0.492 uC and 0.338 Tt C, respectively. We calculated a probability density function for CCR based on the probability distributions of the constituent terms, which we used to estimate the mean and the 5th and 95th percentiles.

Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of the paper at Journal home : Nature.

There are more and many that, as stated, give a more complete answer in synthesis, but I've way over extended my "play time" for today. I'll see if you have further questions or requests put them up here or send me a personal message and I'll be glad to see what I can do for you as my time allows.

 

[Si modo]

It is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports most specifically in:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

(the older 2007 report some issues have been revised over the last 5 years)
Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - AR4 WGI

(and this special report concerning current and near future impacts which just became publically available this month)
IPCC

Of course, the basic science understandings and processes are available in the upper level primary science (chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.,) textbooks and references published over the last 50-100 years.

I'll address the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

Could you please quote where the science concludes that they have identified anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming? Thanks.

As to the IPCC, that is a political and advocacy group.

I did not say to take the IPCC's word on anything (which, btw, is not a political advocacy group, it is a multinational intergovernmental scientific and diplomatic panel tasked to study and assess the published science regarding climate change issues and report their findings back to the governments involved); I said the science "is clearly demonstrated in the mainstream published science references cited in the various IPCC reports."

With regards to the Copenhagen Diagnosis and CO2's impact on climate warming the science is in the references - This first is probably the closest to the specific information you are requesting but the most complete response would require and involve a synthesis of many if not all of the references, which is what the Copenhagen Diagnosis report was intended to be,...but I will give you what you ask for, the science:

"The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions" - H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld
Vol 459| 11 June 2009| doi:10.1038/nature08047
(note CCR = Climate-Carbon Response)

...The CCR is a simple, yet robust representation of the global temperature
response to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and as such is directly relevant to current policy negotiations surrounding international climate mitigation efforts. The EuropeanUnion has proposed restricting global warming to less than 2 uC above pre-industrial temperatures
16; however, large uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity 17 prevents confident estimates of the CO2 stabilization level required to avoid 2 uC warming, and climate sensitivity alone provides no policy-useful information about the allowable CO2 emissions for a given stabilization level. The CCR represents a synthesis of previous efforts to quantify the temperature response to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by aggregating the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon sinks and climate–carbon feedbacks into a single well-constrained metric of climate change that is related directly to
cumulative carbon emissions.
...Our observational estimate of CCR was derived using estimates of CO2-attributable
warming and cumulative CO2 emissions for each decade of the twentieth century relative to 1900–09. We estimated CO2-attributable warming using an estimate of greenhouse-gas-attributable warming12, scaled by the ratio of CO2 to total greenhouse-gas forcing21, where greenhouse-gas forcing was first scaled by an estimate of the mean efficacy of long-lived greenhouse gases22. We calculated uncertainties in greenhouse-gas-attributable warming, accounting for internal variability and inter-model uncertainty12, and assumed normally and Student-t distributed uncertainties for radiative forcings and greenhouse-gas efficacy, respectively22. We calculated cumulative carbon emissions from fossil fuels and land-use change13,14,23, and assumed a one-sigma systematic uncertainty on land-use emissions of 60.5 PgC per year24. Our central estimates for CO2- attributable warming and cumulative emissions at 1990–99 relative to 1900–09 were 0.492 uC and 0.338 Tt C, respectively. We calculated a probability density function for CCR based on the probability distributions of the constituent terms, which we used to estimate the mean and the 5th and 95th percentiles.

Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of the paper at Journal home : Nature.

There are more and many that, as stated, give a more complete answer in synthesis, but I've way over extended my "play time" for today. I'll see if you have further questions or requests put them up here or send me a personal message and I'll be glad to see what I can do for you as my time allows.

The IPCC is definitely an advocacy group. It has done no science, rather it is involved in policy. Period.

Secondly, I am finding it odd that someone would use synthesis as it pertains to synthesizing references or some "answer in synthesis".

Thirdly, that is a model. Models are great for testing theories as to mechanism and the significance of that work is great for insight into mechanism, but models actually have to be tested with actual data and observations. As Matthews' model grossly overestimates actual warming, it doesn't really hold much water with many as something that is a good or even satisfactory estimate of the magnitude of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on warming, but is valued for mechanistic insight.

Furthermore, with respect to models before 12/2009, the input data is now known to be highly questionable, and thus, new models need to be developed.

And, finally, as we are now 2012 and most scientists readily admit, in their scientific papers, that the science still has some way to go to be able to predict accurately the magnitude of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on any warning, it is surprising that in 2009 you believe the state of the science was in such a position.

It's not. Just for example, a recent paper:

In conclusion, we remain convinced that the identifi-
cation of the warming discrepancy and the examination
of its possible causes contribute valuably to understand-
ing the consequences of the increases in atmospheric
greenhouse gases over the past 200 yr.​

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/ReplyKnuttiJClim12Why.pdf (March 2012)

Still - today - the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the magnitude of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on any warming.

If you are interested in more information about the difference between science and advocacy, the gross overestimate of Matthew's model. other issues with his model, other issues with other models, and/or the actual state of the science, feel free to PM me and I'll be glad to see what I can do for you as my time permits.

 

[daveman]

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot

Columnist says that global warming skeptics 'should have their houses burnt down' | Mail Online

Global-warming skeptics are sick and must be treated, says prof

» Greenpeace To Global Warming Skeptics: “We Know Where You Live” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Climate change deniers will be seen as racists one day, says Al Gore | Mail Online

Game -- Set --- Match

From the daily mail link...

Mr Gore recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

'Secondly, back to this phrase "win the conversation,"' he continued.

'There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with - you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally - but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural.

'Then there came a time when people would say, "Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that."

Don't talk that way to me.. Don't talk back to me. In fact, Don't talk.

What a boob.

From the Daily Mail article..

'We know who the active denialists are... Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued,' Mr Zwick wrote in Forbes on Friday.
'Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.'

Much better than a dead rat and speeding YELLOW Hummer...

Typical, isn't it? If you can't convince people your ideas are correct -- force them by threat of violence and actual violence.

They have no choice but to force people. Because the science simply doesn't support their conclusions.

 

[rdean]

Republican Science!

Science is science and only morons assign a party to it.

Congrats.

magic isn't science. Never has been. Except to the right wing.​

 

[skookerasbil]

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."

you fucking dummy.............nobody cares about climate change science in 2012. IN fact, the environmental k00ks are down in Brazil this week changing the game plan once again. Why? Because they are losing big.

Yup........wont be seeing "climate change" in future years..........its now gonna be "sustainable development".

Everything "green" is going to shit. The public has figured out that all this green shit is about some money chasers and fucked up weather predictions that never happened. It will remain fringe until innovation brings a change in technologies for renewables. Solar and wind are a joke.



Dean never did get that POLITICS is about perception.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What passes for Republican Science?

Sitting on the sidelines.....watching others pass-us-by.....'cause it's haaaarrrrd.

June 29, 2012

China; Space Mission's Success

"China's Shenzhou 9 spacecraft returned to Earth on Friday, ending a mission that put the country's first woman in space and completed a manned docking test critical to its goal of building a space station by 2020."

 

[Dr.Drock]

What passes for Republican Science?

Sitting on the sidelines.....watching others pass-us-by.....'cause it's haaaarrrrd.

June 29, 2012

China; Space Mission's Success

"China's Shenzhou 9 spacecraft returned to Earth on Friday, ending a mission that put the country's first woman in space and completed a manned docking test critical to its goal of building a space station by 2020."

Out of curiosity I look at one of Shaman's post and he's pouting about China "passing" our space program and he probably just got done in another thread telling everyone why Obama is a genius for slashing NASA.