Why Do Mark Levin And Other Conservatives Lie About Rachel Carson & Her 1963 Book, Silent Spring?

[SSDD]

I understand the causality issue. However, it is CLEAR that GHG cause rising temperatures. It is also clear that humans have been pumping ever greater amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution even as the population of the planet has risen seven-fold WHILE we (the collectively we) have also been engaging in massive deforestation. It's no quantum jump in logic to see where these events COULD lead us, and it just so happens that we are there.

How is it clear if CO2 keeps rising and temperatures aren't. Back in 2011 climate science told us that the "pause" would have to go on for 17 years before the CO2 driven AGW hypothesis could be seriously questioned....well guess what...it has been 17 years and more...The hypothesis fails yet again but the political hacks who support the hypothesis aren't interested in science...the whole AGW hoax was never about science...it was about politics...and political power.

 

[SSDD]

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.

What is it that GH gases do again?

In high enough concentrations they act as a blanket to prevent heat from escaping to space. That's why the Earth is not a snowball.

That's also why Venus is almost as hot as a blast furnace.

Venus is as hot as a blast furnace because it's atmospheric pressure is 19+ times greater than it is here...If our atmosphere were as dense as venus, we would be just as hot....By the way, our probes have shown us that if you travel down into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is the same as the pressure here on earth..and compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation, the temperature there is the same as here even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2...explain that in the context of the AGW/Greenhouse effect hypothesis.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD joins the kooks who thinks a compressed gas generates heat forever.

According to that kook physics, my fire extinguisher, which is filled with compressed gas, will be constantly generating heat. Therefore, I can hook it up to a Stirling Engine and get work out of the system ... forever. Yes, SSDD's lunatic physics postulates the existence of perpetual motion machines.

 

[jc456]

Stuff it, liar. You haven't looked at a single one of those "publications". You literally have zero idea of what they actually said, or if they even exist at all. You cribbed a list from a website, and you're not honest enough to tell us that source.

Conservative revisionist history seems to work...but primarily within the conservative 'community' which seems predisposed to latch on to any argument, regardless of how lame or silly, that furthers their agenda and allows them to continue embracing their ideology. A good example of that is all the conservative 'explanations' for what caused the 2008 financial meltdown as if poor people had the power to topple the economy. (That one was pretty funny)

But thankfully, because policymakers, and the scientists and professionals on whom they rely for accurate information, are not so easily snookered by passionate nonsense, it's almost a certainty that future public policy will reflect the view of mainstream scientists and not the views of conservative revisionists. But like I said, there's also no doubt in my mind that conservatives can slow down, but not stop, progress on a wide range of public policy debates.

Revisionist history seems to be the mantra of the climatologists. They have been caught going back over 50 years to falsify temperature data to support their failed theory. Before you start calling reasonable people "deniers" you better be looking in the mirror silly person, because it is YOUR "SCIENTISTS" who are denying the science.

Let me know when one of your 'esteemed' climate deniers manages to get a peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports his (or her) contentions about climate change published in a reputable scientific journal.

I'll do that once you provide the experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperatures to increase.

 

[jc456]

nobody cares s0n........

Nobody cares about the science. Apparently, that offends some people. Americans haven't cared about global warming for some years now.


And anyway......... More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Again, you fail to understand the argument. Causation, still not proven. All kinds of mention how the warmer temps caused more CO2 released from the oceans, yet funny enough none the other way. Yes, they questioned whether that was possible, but never, I repeat, never proven. So laddi dah.

I understand the causality issue. However, it is CLEAR that GHG cause rising temperatures. It is also clear that humans have been pumping ever greater amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution even as the population of the planet has risen seven-fold WHILE we (the collectively we) have also been engaging in massive deforestation. It's no quantum jump in logic to see where these events COULD lead us, and it just so happens that we are there.

And yet you have no proof.

 

[Mustang]

Nonsense. The onus is on YOU and the DENIERS to point to a verified illegitimate one. I'm not just talking about an accusation because anyone can accuse someone of something. But accusations of a breach of scientific ethics brings on reviews and investigations which are then published. Scientists are sticklers for that kind of thing since, unlike pundits and talk radio hosts, scientists' careers hinge on their professional reputations.

One 2-second search...

Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Review
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic.../title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

What is this? Guilt by tenuous tangential association? Using that kind of logic, I could postulate that because examples of conservative Republican officeholders who have engaged in illegal acts and have cheated on their wives, that means that ALL conservative Republicans elected to office are immoral liars and thieves.

While you chew on that, I did some rudimentary research on what constitutes Internet-based 'open access journals,' some of which are a fee-for-publication service which means people must pay to get something published. That kind of system is quite likely to be abused by the unscrupulous on both ends as people who wish to make money may publish anything and people who wish to establish a reputation for being 'published authors' will gladly pay a fee for those bragging rights.

However, the problems are not unknown since it's generally common knowledge that 'open access' can be abused. Below is a quote about the ongoing debate.

"Active debate over the economics and reliability of various ways of providing open access continues among researchers, academics, librarians, university administrators, funding agencies, government officials, commercial publishers, editorial staff and society publishers."

Open access - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But if you think a few abuses in relatively obscure on-line open access journals can be used to summarily dismiss years of scientific research by thousands of scientists whose results have been thoroughly peer-reviewed and published in mainstream scientific journals for years without a hint of scandal, you're mistaken.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD joins the kooks who thinks a compressed gas generates heat forever.

According to that kook physics, my fire extinguisher, which is filled with compressed gas, will be constantly generating heat. Therefore, I can hook it up to a Stirling Engine and get work out of the system ... forever. Yes, SSDD's lunatic physics postulates the existence of perpetual motion machines.

Smart just isn't part of your makeup hairball.

Perhaps you should read Maxwell...he said that while equilibrium might be possible in static columns of air, such equilibrium could never happen in an atmosphere....and certainly not in an atmosphere as chaotic as Venus.

”This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.

[/B]

 

[HenryBHough]

Always amusing to read the screeds of those who feel overpopulation is going to kill the planet. Yet who refuse to off themselves to alleviate the problem.

Lack of faith in their own "beliefs"?

 

[westwall]

Put your thinking cap on and explain to us WHAT will make it halt at 10 billion and WHAT will make it slide back down to 6 billion?

The fact that people are already having fewer children without government mandates. In the 1960's the birth rate was 2.3, now it is 1.6 and falling...even in the third world. See, just carry on and the population will continue to drop naturally. You no longer need feel the overwhelming desire to murder people.

 

[SSDD]

Put your thinking cap on and explain to us WHAT will make it halt at 10 billion and WHAT will make it slide back down to 6 billion?

The fact that people are already having fewer children without government mandates. In the 1960's the birth rate was 2.3, now it is 1.6 and falling...even in the third world. See, just carry on and the population will continue to drop naturally. You no longer need feel the overwhelming desire to murder people.

He doesn't want to murder indiscriminately...he just wants those who disagree with him...and brown people murdered.

 

[Crick]

SSDD joins the kooks who thinks a compressed gas generates heat forever.

According to that kook physics, my fire extinguisher, which is filled with compressed gas, will be constantly generating heat. Therefore, I can hook it up to a Stirling Engine and get work out of the system ... forever. Yes, SSDD's lunatic physics postulates the existence of perpetual motion machines.

I don't think he's joined anyone in that belief. I think he's the sole member of that club.

 

[Crick]

SSDD joins the kooks who thinks a compressed gas generates heat forever.

According to that kook physics, my fire extinguisher, which is filled with compressed gas, will be constantly generating heat. Therefore, I can hook it up to a Stirling Engine and get work out of the system ... forever. Yes, SSDD's lunatic physics postulates the existence of perpetual motion machines.

Smart just isn't part of your makeup hairball.

Perhaps you should read Maxwell...he said that while equilibrium might be possible in static columns of air, such equilibrium could never happen in an atmosphere....and certainly not in an atmosphere as chaotic as Venus.

”This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.

Where does the energy required to MAINTAIN that temperature come from you ass? Do you think Venus doesn't radiate?

 

[Crick]

Always amusing to read the screeds of those who feel overpopulation is going to kill the planet. Yet who refuse to off themselves to alleviate the problem.

Lack of faith in their own "beliefs"?

That would be ineffective . As SSDD is so fond of reminding us: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

 

[SSDD]

[

Where does the energy required to MAINTAIN that temperature come from you ass? Do you think Venus doesn't radiate?

Pressure is work moron...look to the gas giants which have very high internal temperatures due to pressure with no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres....pressure is what maintains those temperatures...and it happens because the column of gasses is not static. They can never reach an equilibrium temperature.

 

[SSDD]

Always amusing to read the screeds of those who feel overpopulation is going to kill the planet. Yet who refuse to off themselves to alleviate the problem.

Lack of faith in their own "beliefs"?

That would be ineffective . As SSDD is so fond of reminding us: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

Just reminding us of your position...does it bother to see your words in print? Get used to it...when you suggest that it would be more effective to off those who disagree with you, the words should not disappear into obscurity. And pretending that hypothetically means that it really doesn't mean anything won't work either because hypothetically, humans are causing climate change with their CO2 and you certainly believe wholeheartedly in that hypothesis.

 

[jc456]

Always amusing to read the screeds of those who feel overpopulation is going to kill the planet. Yet who refuse to off themselves to alleviate the problem.

Lack of faith in their own "beliefs"?

That would be ineffective . As SSDD is so fond of reminding us: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

so dude you never answered my question, again...Are you of the belief that everyone must believe you or else?

 

[mamooth]

Some people will tell you there's no such thing as a stupid question. jc disproves that.

As for Westwall and SSDD, it sucks for them, how the planet considers their death-cult's beliefs to be rather genocidal. But the scorn they get from all decent human beings is well-deserved. They willingly dug that Stalinist hole that they're stuck down in now.

 

[Mustang]

Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.

My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.

At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.

A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Again, you fail to understand the argument. Causation, still not proven. All kinds of mention how the warmer temps caused more CO2 released from the oceans, yet funny enough none the other way. Yes, they questioned whether that was possible, but never, I repeat, never proven. So laddi dah.

I understand the causality issue. However, it is CLEAR that GHG cause rising temperatures. It is also clear that humans have been pumping ever greater amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution even as the population of the planet has risen seven-fold WHILE we (the collectively we) have also been engaging in massive deforestation. It's no quantum jump in logic to see where these events COULD lead us, and it just so happens that we are there.

And yet you have no proof.

Nothing of what I said above is in dispute.

 

[jc456]

Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.

The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Again, you fail to understand the argument. Causation, still not proven. All kinds of mention how the warmer temps caused more CO2 released from the oceans, yet funny enough none the other way. Yes, they questioned whether that was possible, but never, I repeat, never proven. So laddi dah.

I understand the causality issue. However, it is CLEAR that GHG cause rising temperatures. It is also clear that humans have been pumping ever greater amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution even as the population of the planet has risen seven-fold WHILE we (the collectively we) have also been engaging in massive deforestation. It's no quantum jump in logic to see where these events COULD lead us, and it just so happens that we are there.

And yet you have no proof.

Nothing of what I said above is in dispute.

sure, it all is. WiNNiNg...

 

[jc456]

Some people will tell you there's no such thing as a stupid question. jc disproves that.

As for Westwall and SSDD, it sucks for them, how the planet considers their death-cult's beliefs to be rather genocidal. But the scorn they get from all decent human beings is well-deserved. They willingly dug that Stalinist hole that they're stuck down in now.

And then there are those stoopid people who resemble you and your friends on here. Fido!!