Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

[blastoff]

Do any of you lefty nitwits ever ponder how the ice ages of history came (got colder) and went (got warmer)? Who/what could have caused such phenomena?

Do you understand this is different?

Your corporations have a reason to deny it. What's nasa's?

Even china knows you're dumb.

Have someone explain the question to you.

 

[August West]

Got it. And you`re not bending over for your rightwing masters?

Ummm, NO! We actually pay attention, look at the REAL science, read all about the falsified data reporting Liberals call 'science', and understand that the whole idea of 'Carbon Credits' proposed by millionaire Liberals like Al Gore was / is just a money-making SCAM to make them even richer!

Carbon credits? Yeah, sorta like a money-making scam regarding BREATHING: I sm going to tell you how many breaths you can take every day. If you take more than that I will fine you. To get around that, you can BUY 'Oxygen Credits' from me which will allow you to take more breaths if you need to. "Why do I have all the 'Oxygen Credits' and why do I have to pay YOU and not someone else?" Because I made all this Shi'ite up, not someone else!

Global Warming: Remember when it USED to be 'Global Warming'...until the Hockey Stick model scandal and all the debunked science? Instead of a global WARMING it was proved there was a global cooling going on during their hockey stick model as well, so Liberals scrambled to change the name of their scam to 'CLIMATE CHANGE', cause it's really easy to prove the climate changes. Suddenly it was 'Global Warming / Climate Change' whether it was hot or cold, raining or not, etc...

Hey, I will sell you this special bridge that will help eliminate 'Climate Change'....want it?

The so called "hockey stick" scandal is one that never was. Michael Mann has been vindicated over and over. It`s been 5 years now. Try to keep up.'Hockey stick' climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time

 

[easyt65]

Yea, the ones fighting pollution are the evil ones. Lol. U ******* dope.

There is a WORLD of difference between people fighting pollution and power-hungry, lying, deceiving nut jobs who create a scam, falsify data to back it up, and when they can't prove it call for all the skeptics to be jailed...which is 'Global Warming' / 'Climate Change'!

 

[easyt65]

The so called "hockey stick" scandal is one that never was. Michael Mann has been vindicated over and over. It`s been 5 years now. Try to keep up.'Hockey stick' climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time

- 'Tracking Global Warming Fraud':
Tracking Climate Fraud

- 'The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever'
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

- 'Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions'
Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

- 'Climatic Research Unit email controversy'
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- 'Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming'
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iHYg8PKQxTnchpkemtVqGA&bvm=bv.103627116,d.eXY

- 'Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive'
Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - NBC News

- 'NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000'
NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

- 'Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government'
Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

- 'Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

- Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa.html

 

[Old Rocks]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

So you majored in science when you were in college?

You know things like physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, anthropology, etc...

Or did you just major at learning to run your mouth off about how stupid you think other people are?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Chuckle yourself to death, you silly ass. Yes, like physics, chemistry, calculus, biology, and, best of all, Geology. And I first heard of the concepts behind global warming and GHG's in the mid-60's. And today I am seeing those predictions from the early pioneers in the field fulfilled. And watching idiots like you lie about what those predictions were.

 

[Old Rocks]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. No such problem with the crystal-worshipping eco-naut leftists.. You know the ones against genetic engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology. The silly leftists that have a religious belief that the GOVT is the sole repositoryf scientific authority and competence. The ones that believe that wind/solar are actually "alternatives" to 24/7/365 power. Spare me the drama...

Resorting to posting pure bullshit now, Flacaltenn? You damned well know better than any of your statements.

 

[August West]

Jeezus! Eagle posts a link about a EPA employee going to jail for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan. That sure blows that global warming theory out of the water. WTF?

 

[EverCurious]

There have been at least five major ice ages in earth's past, the earth has also had at least four major "warming" periods in it's past. Not one of these "climate changes" in Earth's history were caused by humans. While the specific causes of ice ages and later warming are not fully understood, there are a number of factors that are believed to contribute to them; changes in the earth's orbit around the sun, the motion of tectonic plates that alter ocean currents, (also the relative location of the plates and even mountain height/location on the surface which can effect wind currents,) variations in solar output, the orbital interplay between Earth and the Moon, meteorites, volcanism, and yes green house gas amounts in the atmosphere.

There is evidence that prior to an ice age green house gases go up (in absence of humans btw) and that they lower as an ice age recedes. It's also agreed that human activity is putting more green house gas out than was measured before the industrial age (kind of a duh there.) However, much past that is nothing more than a guess, even if one injects science into the mix, we cannot actually predict that /any/ of the "global warming" theories are true or not; at most we can say /if/ they are true then X.

While it's true that the planet it warming, that is expected as we're still coming out of an ice age (the pleistocine ice age); in general they say the ice age life cycle (if there is such a thing) is between 10k and 28k years of "change" on either end of an over all "pattern" or "cycle" of like 110-200k years (between ice ages and interglacial periods.) So really, we should be expecting "climate change" for the next at least 2k years if not 12k. the problem is of course that all of this "cycle" stuff is based on the variations that were present at the time of those individual periods (that is to say, where exactly the continents were located, where the earth was in it's orbital cycle, the suns output, any volcanism, etc, etc.) To use those indicators in what is now a completely different make up isn't exactly scientifically sound either; at best, it's a guess...


I mean if we get down to brass tacks, the truth is we don't know shit about shit and we're just making a bunch of guesses about everything. That is not to say that we should or should not try to clean up our acts, its merely to say that we have very little hard and reliable evidence to go off of, just a bunch of guesses piled on guesses. I personally don't have a problem with "green energy" as a concept, but I think it needs to be approached in a long term and reasonable sense; rather than an it's the end of the world if we don't change this right the **** now kind of hysteria.

 

[easyt65]

I first heard of the concepts behind global warming and GHG's in the mid-60's. And today I am seeing those predictions from the early pioneers in the field fulfilled. And watching idiots like you lie about what those predictions were.

..and there is so VERY MUCH evidence supporting the FACT that a great deal of the science and reporting on of Global Warming and Climate Change is FALSE, BEING FAKED, and that there are those who may be making it sound apocalyptically worse just so they can perpetrate such self-enriching scams like 'Carbon Credit Sales'!

It may be true, which I believe it is to an extent, but all the liars, data falsifiers, and scam artists are causing the 'doubters' to turn away from it and be skeptics. Science speaks for itself, but in the midst of so much science being exposed as falsified for extremists to suggest that 'doubters' be jailed is a sign to me that people who are so emotional about this issue can not definitively prove it and therefore want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL / BELIEF on others to the point of jailing them.

People also see the complete hypocrisy and B$ in the whole thing. For example, Gore held a conference on the issue...it was attended by a LOT of 'big' people, all of who flew in on their own private carbon-belching, energy using private jets, then went home to their massive energy-consuming mansions, and continued living their lives as they always do while demanding WE pay the price of the fight on THEIR issue. China, one of the world's leading violators, sits across from the table from Obama, swears to cut down on emissions, then flies back home confident that Obama will hamstring business even more with energy/carbon emission regulations while they keep doing the same things so their businesses / economies continue to thrive and grow. With all that going on, it's hard to get everyone on-board with the whole Global Warming / Climate Change thing....

 

[mamooth]

Do any of you lefty nitwits ever ponder how the ice ages of history came (got colder) and went (got warmer)? Who/what could have caused such phenomena?

We do often ponder how addled the deniers are. But then, that's expected. If a person possesses common sense and the ability to reason, they don't get sucked in by the denier cult scam. Hence, the ones who do get scammed are the dimmest of the dim.

Just look at this thread. The stupid denier reasoning here is "climate changed was natural in the past, so humans can't change climate now!"

That's exactly like saying "forest fires were natural in the past, so humans can't cause forest fires now!". A bright second grader can see the error in the logic. Most deniers can't.

In every field of science and logic, deniers fail hilariously. They're well-rounded that way. And, like anyone afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome, they refuse to admit to their bonehead errors, and will instead always choose to double down with their belligerent ignorance act.

Remember, deniers, the world doesn't laugh at you because of some vast secret global socialist plot. The world laughs at you because you're conspiracy cultists who live in an alternate reality, and who stink at science and logic.

 

[easyt65]

We do often ponder how addled the deniers are. But then, that's expected. If a person possesses common sense and the ability to reason, they don't get sucked in by the denier cult scam. Hence, the ones who do get scammed are the dimmest of the dim.

Just look at this thread. The stupid denier reasoning here is "climate changed was natural in the past, so humans can't change climate now!"

And only those faced with so much evidence, which I will bet you have not even made 1 attempt to look at any of the links I provided that prove people from lauded scientists to NASA has been busted falsifying climate data, can declare anyone who does not believe what they believe is ignorant.

The search for knowledge is what separates those who get scammed and those who do not. Intelligent people do not demand others spoon-feed 'knowledge' them and will not blindly accept something they are told is the truth.... The very fact that you have not looked at or read any one of those articles / links I provided you proves that you ARE one who rejects the search for personal knowledge, that you ARE willing to believe whatever you are told.

You were told Climate change is real and there is science to back it up. You were told such prestigious organizations like NASA has proved it...but refused to / failed to read for yourself how NASA was busted falsifying data. Nope, what you have been told goes along with your personal belief, right or wrong....and that's good enough for you. That doesn't make you someone easily scammed....that makes you a 'sheep'.

 

[Nosmo King]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

So you majored in science when you were in college?

You know things like physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, anthropology, etc...

Or did you just major at learning to run your mouth off about how stupid you think other people are?

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's you reply? The sum total of what you have to say is this? You could not divine, conceive or concoct a cogent reply?

Should your opinion then matter?

 

[Nosmo King]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. No such problem with the crystal-worshipping eco-naut leftists.. You know the ones against genetic engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology. The silly leftists that have a religious belief that the GOVT is the sole repositoryf scientific authority and competence. The ones that believe that wind/solar are actually "alternatives" to 24/7/365 power. Spare me the drama...

Rather than write a cogent response defending your Consercative opposition to science, you chose to write what you think are cute little cuts. What a pity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those estimates are for watts produced, silly ass.

If they were for watts produced, why did you say they were estimates?

Do you have the actual production figures, or are we supposed to trust your "source"?

He knows how ridiculous and unpredictable wind power production actually is. And yet he wants ACRES of batteries to support a small neighborhood for wind/solar. ALSO not included in these fudged 4cent numbers..

And NO GoldiRocks -- those are projections of "cost" based on the installed capacity -- NOT the actual output..

Related actual numbers ~ Wind power capacity at Fire Island set to double by October of 2015

* Specifically see the Wind Costs section (damn thing won't let me copy and past)

Bottom line summary; the cost of electricity from the wind farm is $97 per megawatt hour vs $60-65 per megawatt hour on gas turbines. As per Chugach's accounting records; "the use of wind power saved 474 million cubic feet of gas last year, for a fuel savings of about $2.4million. BUT Chugach spent $4.6 million on wind power.

Eventually, experts predict gas costs will exceed the cost of turning wind into electricity, and if that happens, the wind power contract will be a good deal for Chugach and its customers.

Until then, customers will pay a surcharge..." [to cover the costs of wind power, a $1.22/m average on their bills]

Wouldn't be convinced without a full accounting. Does that include production subsidies? What development costs are being amortized? But NONE of that really matters. Have you ever seen a Daily production chart for a wind farm? A WELL-SITED offshore Danish Wind farm for example?

THAT -- is not "an alternative" to anything. It's barely a supplement. Because you have to eat the WASTE of idling a full service plant while the wind blows for 20 minutes.. You can't turn huge generation on/off like a light switch.. Can't make contracts to deliver it -- because you can't schedule it. You cannot EXPAND capacity of the GRID relying on wind. You just can really rely on it at all.

BTW --- in the chart above, the 400,000 mark is the Installled capacity figure for that wind farm.. The number that eco-fraud toss about to brag about how much of this shit is installed or "doubled" -- Like you just did..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Uh.....uh, because they're stupid white people who's brain consist of concrete and gator spit. Uh, because they're bought and paid for with special interest money...uh, because they're from a country that can see Russia from its porch, hell I dunno!!

Spoken like a 3rd grader. Nicely done.

 

[flacaltenn]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. No such problem with the crystal-worshipping eco-naut leftists.. You know the ones against genetic engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology. The silly leftists that have a religious belief that the GOVT is the sole repositoryf scientific authority and competence. The ones that believe that wind/solar are actually "alternatives" to 24/7/365 power. Spare me the drama...

Rather than write a cogent response defending your Consercative opposition to science, you chose to write what you think are cute little cuts. What a pity.

I'm not a Conservative and I'm a scientist -- so spare me even more drama. I'm equally nauseated by Repubs and Dems.

This thread is about Climate Science. A segment of science so tainted by socio-political hype and propaganda that even if I WANTED to supported the fully Monte appocalyptic view of catastrophic GW -- I couldn't live with the purposeful manipulation and misrepresentations being fed to the public. And I've presented more facts and reason in my posts here than you are capable of. As I said, skeptics have already prevailed in this debate. And that political smell you sense is the desperation of the whacked activists trying regain traction on the issue..

 

[flacaltenn]

Do any of you lefty nitwits ever ponder how the ice ages of history came (got colder) and went (got warmer)? Who/what could have caused such phenomena?

Do you understand this is different?

Your corporations have a reason to deny it. What's nasa's?

Even china knows you're dumb.

Not clear that "this is different"... One of the largest misrepresentations to be force-fed to the public is those various hockey stick studies. Which by themselves is just a science yawn. BUT claims were made that they PROVED the current 0.6degC warming blip in your lifetime was UNPRECEDENTED in the past 2000 or 10,000 years.

Problem is ---- those studies reporting to compare past GLOBAL climates used less than 100 measurements taken from tree rings, ice cores and mudbug shells that NEVER could detect a 60 or 80 years blip in the temperature curve. The hockey sticks were the equivalent of taking the last 100 years of the DOW -- running a 10 or 15 yr average over the data --- and then wondering what the REAL market peaks and valleys were. To make their sponsors happy, they then cut off the proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, mudbugs) at about the beginning of the industrial age and SPLICED the modern instrumented temperature record onto the right side of the graph. Giving the IMPRESSION that the climate never varied as it does today..

A lot of smoke and mirrors. A lot of money available for research FAVORABLE to the government/UN cause of man-made climate change and the usual circus of political scuffling and pandering. The science is NOT settled. Never was. It's changing as we speak..

 

[easyt65]

I'm not a Conservative and I'm a scientist --

..and I am a world renowned meteorologist.... nothing personally, seriously, but on a board where people spew all kinds of things, please forgive me if I do not simply accept your declaration of who you are. Again, nothing personal...

 

[flacaltenn]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. No such problem with the crystal-worshipping eco-naut leftists.. You know the ones against genetic engineering, nuclear power, nanotechnology. The silly leftists that have a religious belief that the GOVT is the sole repositoryf scientific authority and competence. The ones that believe that wind/solar are actually "alternatives" to 24/7/365 power. Spare me the drama...

Resorting to posting pure bullshit now, Flacaltenn? You damned well know better than any of your statements.

What bullshit? Leftist opposition to nuclear power, genetic engineering, nanotech? Or a fully religious reverence for the illusion of scientific competence and credibility in an ever growing govt bureaucracy?

Go look the the Leftist theory of "The Precautionary Principle".. With that kind of anti-reason anti-science approach --- you wouldn't have ASPIRIN in your med chest today..

 

[easyt65]

Do you understand this is different?

Your corporations have a reason to deny it. What's nasa's?

Even china knows you're dumb.

Do you understand that it does not matter what NASA's reasons are, that they WERE caught falsifying data?!

If I wanted to speculate why NASA would falsify date I would start with the fact that Obama has all but shut NASA's spec flight / exploration down and has them begging for flights on Putin's Russian rockets...and how Obama could dangle the financial carrot in front of them if they just 'play ball' and produce some Pro-Global Warming falsified 'evidence'.

Not possible? Yeah...just like the Intel community would never falsify reports about how 'well' the Obama administration has been doing against ISIS...except it was recently reported that is exactly what they have been doing as early as 2012...about the time Obama declared the War on Terror to be over and that Al Qaeida was on the run.