Why is climate science political?

[Big Fitz]

Oh, rdean

Not really. You can't have a meaningful discussion about science with people who believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy. Remember Michelle Bachmann saying vaccines cause autism? Boy, did she tear into doctors. And we know what right wingers think of scientists, even while insisting that more than 6% of scientists are Republican. Most right wingers don't even know much about the Bible either. They just "don't know" and "don't want to know".

There's an easy way to end the debate. Present the irrefutable proof. there is no argument about gravity.

End the argument about AGW. You know all of the scientists personally. Present the best case.

Except in the mechanics of how it works, not what it does.

 

[skookerasbil]

...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!

Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.

 

[westwall]

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.

I've never heard of a PhD "researcher". What is her actual degree in? Mine is geology and my wife is a PhD Industrial Organizational Psychologist. She is an expert at measurement and surveys. What is your wife an expert in?

 

[bripat9643]

...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!

Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.

They are intentionally naive like the kid who smacks his little sister on the head and then says he doesn't know why she's crying.

 

[Saigon]

I've never heard of a PhD "researcher". What is her actual degree in? Mine is geology and my wife is a PhD Industrial Organizational Psychologist. She is an expert at measurement and surveys. What is your wife an expert in?

You have never heard of people doing paid research?

Goodness...

 

[Saigon]

...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!

Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.

They are intentionally naive like the kid who smacks his little sister on the head and then says he doesn't know why she's crying.

10 points for bluster - 0 for substance.

Then feel free to step up and explain WHY conservative parties around the world disagree with you.

Again - it is ONKY in the US and Australia that the issue is politicised - that we know. The question is WHY it is politicsed in the US.

 

[Saigon]

...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!

Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.

This thread is about RIGHT WING positions on climate change, genius.

 

[Saigon]

Not really. You can't have a meaningful discussion about science with people who believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy. Remember Michelle Bachmann saying vaccines cause autism? Boy, did she tear into doctors. And we know what right wingers think of scientists, even while insisting that more than 6% of scientists are Republican. Most right wingers don't even know much about the Bible either. They just "don't know" and "don't want to know".

Very good points....that is how it looks to me too.

And the right wing reactions on this thread seem to be mainly about 'I don't want to know'.

Not one poster yet has explained why most conservative parties accept human involvement in climate change.

 

[Flopper]

It was inevitable that climate scientists would be attacked since their research indicated that we need to make major changes that effect every nation and particular the US because we're the largest economy in the world.

It's interesting that an Internet cottage industry of global warming deniers and defenders has developed, each twisting the facts as needed to make their point. What they pass off as real science is actually political science.

It's interesting that you choose to damn one side for doing what both sides habitually do.

It wasn't meant that way, but if the shoe fits....

 

[westwall]

I've never heard of a PhD "researcher". What is her actual degree in? Mine is geology and my wife is a PhD Industrial Organizational Psychologist. She is an expert at measurement and surveys. What is your wife an expert in?

You have never heard of people doing paid research?

Goodness...

No, there's no such thing as a PhD in "research", you claimed she was a PhD researcher.

Either she has a PhD in some science, or you're a fibber.

So which is it?

 

[westwall]

...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!

Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.

This thread is about RIGHT WING positions on climate change, genius.

I'm a lefty. I am also however a real scientist, and I was once a true believer for many years. 'Till I actually looked at the lack of science that the whole fraud was based on. then I really started studying it and now I'm very angry at the lies that have been fed to the people.

Guess what...the people are getting made too. They don't like being lied to.

 

[westwall]

Not really. You can't have a meaningful discussion about science with people who believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy. Remember Michelle Bachmann saying vaccines cause autism? Boy, did she tear into doctors. And we know what right wingers think of scientists, even while insisting that more than 6% of scientists are Republican. Most right wingers don't even know much about the Bible either. They just "don't know" and "don't want to know".

Very good points....that is how it looks to me too.

And the right wing reactions on this thread seem to be mainly about 'I don't want to know'.

Not one poster yet has explained why most conservative parties accept human involvement in climate change.

I tell you what. You present some empirical data that supports your contention. No computer models, just cold hard data. Oh, it can't have been touched by Hansen or his ilk either. They have been caught red handed altering the historical temperature record to perpetuate their fiction.

That's called academic fraud BTW. How do you explain the constant academic fraud being perpetrated by the AGW supporters?

 

[Saigon]

How do you explain the constant academic fraud being perpetrated by the AGW supporters?

There is no "constant" fraud. It's just a myth.

I use one site which lists 800+ academic papers on climate-related topics.

Of those, I am not aware of a single one which has ever been accused of anything.

Across the entire history of climate science (from respected sources), I think I have heard of three cases of what one might call poor science.

 

[ThinkCritically]

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

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data.

These two sentences are in contradiction to one another.....Science is a political issue if you believe that government should act upon scientific data.....

 

[Saigon]

No, there's no such thing as a PhD in "research", you claimed she was a PhD researcher.

Either she has a PhD in some science, or you're a fibber.

So which is it?

Dear God, that really is some desperate, desperate stuff, Westwall!!

My wife is a paid researcher. She is writing her PhD. When she has completed her PhD, she will continue to be a paid reseacher.

I will accept an apology.

 

[ThinkCritically]

We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct? How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon? I'm not denying the existence of carbon emissions, and the harm that they cause, but seriously how do we know if the current climate pattern isn't just the naturally occurring climate change that the earth undergoes.

 

[Saigon]

We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct? How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?

I think it may be another 10 years before anyone can give you a 100% response to that question.

But what people tend to forget is that with challenges like understanding HIV, or linking smoking to cancer, it is an evolving field. More info appears regularly, and as it does, our understanding deepens and changes.

I've never understood people saying that some of the claims made 20 years ago about climate being inaccurate proves the field is a conspiracy - to me the fact that scientists are willing to admit error and critique each other shows the field is healthy and honest.

But to answer your question in short - the reason is the level of CO2 in the atmopshere. We know that mankind produces large amounts of CO2, and we know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is dramatically higher now than it was 50 years ago. We know that CO2 produced by nature seems to have been in balance, and most scientists conclude that rising levels of CO2 being released by man has, to coin a phrase, overloaded the system.

There are a dozen websites which can explain this better than I can: try the UK Met service.

Climate - Met Office

 

[westwall]

No, there's no such thing as a PhD in "research", you claimed she was a PhD researcher.

Either she has a PhD in some science, or you're a fibber.

So which is it?

Dear God, that really is some desperate, desperate stuff, Westwall!!

My wife is a paid researcher. She is writing her PhD. When she has completed her PhD, she will continue to be a paid reseacher.

I will accept an apology.

Ahhhh, you're a fibber! You expect me to apologise to you when you told an untrue statement? That's rich. BTW you don't "write your PhD" You might want to become more acquainted with the world of academia before you make a fool of yourself again.

And for the record ALL GRAD STUDENTS are paid researchers, they just aren't paid much.

Now run along fibber. You still havn't said what FIELD she is studying. Landscape engineering?

 

[westwall]

We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct? How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?

I think it may be another 10 years before anyone can give you a 100% response to that question.

But what people tend to forget is that with challenges like understanding HIV, or linking smoking to cancer, it is an evolving field. More info appears regularly, and as it does, our understanding deepens and changes.

I've never understood people saying that some of the claims made 20 years ago about climate being inaccurate proves the field is a conspiracy - to me the fact that scientists are willing to admit error and critique each other shows the field is healthy and honest.

But to answer your question in short - the reason is the level of CO2 in the atmopshere. We know that mankind produces large amounts of CO2, and we know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is dramatically higher now than it was 50 years ago. We know that CO2 produced by nature seems to have been in balance, and most scientists conclude that rising levels of CO2 being released by man has, to coin a phrase, overloaded the system.

There are a dozen websites which can explain this better than I can: try the UK Met service.

Climate - Met Office

The MET office hasn't had a successful prediction in years. Why on Earth would anyone listen to them? BTW dear person, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. It's a central axiom of science. It's a shame that is all AGW "science" is based on.

 

[ThinkCritically]

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. It's a central axiom of science. It's a shame that is all AGW "science" is based on.

That was my next point.