Why is climate science political?

[bobgnote]

So where did you learn to put zeroes in the place of "o," from sucking somebody off?

You aren't winning, retard. You and people like you are the reason somebody imported Mexicans. It dawned on somebody, might as well let 'em run around, up here, so we'll have somebody intelligent, or at least, somebody can cook more than a baked potato.

You aren't winning. You are a retard. If somebody wins, it won't be a retard, who tries to suck his way, to a victory, which does not exist.

 

[skookerasbil]

So where did you learn to put zeroes in the place of "o," from sucking somebody off?

You aren't winning, retard. You and people like you are the reason somebody imported Mexicans. It dawned on somebody, might as well let 'em run around, up here, so we'll have somebody intelligent, or at least, somebody can cook more than a baked potato.

You aren't winning. You are a retard. If somebody wins, it won't be a retard, who tries to suck his way, to a victory, which does not exist.

People with real responsibilites in life care about who is winning.

When Cap and Trade passes both houses of Congress and gets signed by a president, give me a yell s0n!!!


Until then, I'll keep on enjoying not losing!!!



ps s0n.......Id say its just about time your side call in...................

G I G A N T O R



Because all your science BS isnt adding up to dick.

 

[bobgnote]

There kind of is a side thing going on, isn't there.

There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots. The fucktards want to fuck up, on a side, since if a fucktard has some kind of excuse to fuck up a lot, he can get his fucking idiot to drive a load of DDDs, who can all provide for him, in fucktard's golden years, which will brown out.

 

[skookerasbil]

There kind of is a side thing going on, isn't there.

There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots. The fucktards want to fuck up, on a side, since if a fucktard has some kind of excuse to fuck up a lot, he can get his fucking idiot to drive a load of DDDs, who can all provide for him, in fucktard's golden years, which will brown out.

good luck s0n.............

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There kind of is a side thing going on, isn't there.

There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots. The fucktards want to fuck up, on a side, since if a fucktard has some kind of excuse to fuck up a lot, he can get his fucking idiot to drive a load of DDDs, who can all provide for him, in fucktard's golden years, which will brown out.

There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots.

Can you believe it?
Those fucktards and idiots want us to spend tens of trillions to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080.

 

[bobgnote]

Hey, suckassbil:

:eusa_retarded:

:why_is_eusa_retarded:

:don't_smile_at_that!:

Where's any links or rationale, which lead to any backup, of your stupid allegations, Turdsterqueer?

 

[flacaltenn]

I was thinking about this OP today as I cleaned up the toxic disaster on the floor of my garage caused by an incompetent repair to my Bimmer..

You can't hold science accountable for the hysteria and abuse by the media and the govt of the scientific process.

Govt does this all the time.. From knee-jerk reactions to caffeinated energy drinks to DEMANDING gasoline content of celluoustic ethanol WHEN NONE EXISTS! Advice on Breast exams based on political motivations couched in references to misquoted "studies" that are randomly pulled.

The media faithfully follows the REACTION to the science and never does the background to determine whether it's BAD science or JUNK science. For those of you who THINK that's a meaningless distinction..

What is junk science? | JunkScience.com


CAUTION: Being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science.

The scientific method calls for trial-and-error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. (See Junk Science Judo, pp. 43-44)

Wrong science becomes junk science only when its obvious or easily-determined flaws are ignored and it is then used to advance some special interest.

So it's FUTILE to try and stop this or even have scientists worry about their effect on the hysteria.

BUT --- We CAN demand that the media and govt NOT INTERFERE with the process. That we CAN point out that we don't VOTE on good science or call a huddle and declare that the "debate is over".. When THAT happens -- we need to fight back...

 

[bobgnote]

Is it junk science, which makes you call your car, a "Bimmer?"

If it's a BEAMER, whoever repaired it must be somebody you know, and he likely knows YOU.

Think about it.

 

[percysunshine]

Is it junk science, which makes you call your car, a "Bimmer?"

If it's a BEAMER, whoever repaired it must be somebody you know, and he likely knows YOU.

Think about it.

They are 'beemers'.

Beams are things used to build skyskrapers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is it junk science, which makes you call your car, a "Bimmer?"

If it's a BEAMER, whoever repaired it must be somebody you know, and he likely knows YOU.

Think about it.

They are 'beemers'.

Beams are things used to build skyskrapers.

Yup Percy -- that is correct. beemer - bimmer seems to be a Coastal vs FlyOver diff..
Important stuff..

 

[code1211]

I was thinking about this OP today as I cleaned up the toxic disaster on the floor of my garage caused by an incompetent repair to my Bimmer..

You can't hold science accountable for the hysteria and abuse by the media and the govt of the scientific process.

Govt does this all the time.. From knee-jerk reactions to caffeinated energy drinks to DEMANDING gasoline content of celluoustic ethanol WHEN NONE EXISTS! Advice on Breast exams based on political motivations couched in references to misquoted "studies" that are randomly pulled.

The media faithfully follows the REACTION to the science and never does the background to determine whether it's BAD science or JUNK science. For those of you who THINK that's a meaningless distinction..

What is junk science? | JunkScience.com


CAUTION: Being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science.

The scientific method calls for trial-and-error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. (See Junk Science Judo, pp. 43-44)

Wrong science becomes junk science only when its obvious or easily-determined flaws are ignored and it is then used to advance some special interest.

So it's FUTILE to try and stop this or even have scientists worry about their effect on the hysteria.

BUT --- We CAN demand that the media and govt NOT INTERFERE with the process. That we CAN point out that we don't VOTE on good science or call a huddle and declare that the "debate is over".. When THAT happens -- we need to fight back...

That is the truth. When the stenographers who masquerade as reporters take dictation from those they revere, they willingly suspend their disbelief and report it as if they were listening to the ramblings of a burning bush.

When a Conservative says something that needs context to expose the lie, it is happily provided. With Liberals, that context is happily omitted since the bias of the stenographer and the Liberal are identical.

One of the networks should try reporting the news and adding the context just to see if the viewers appreciate it.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, some context.

Joseph Fourier noted in about 1820 that by the albedo of the Earth, the planet should be much colder, and stated that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing heat and retaining it.

Tyndall, in 1859, did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the the most common GHGs.

In 1896, Svante Arrhenious did the first quantative analysis, and noting the feedback of water vapor from increased CO2. His estimate of the effects of a doubling of CO2 was quite accurate, considering the science of the time.

Since that time there has been many studies on the differant affects of GHGs in the atmosphere. All have shown that it increases the heat retained in the oceans and atmosphere.

In fact, enough studies that there is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, nor one major University anywhere in the world that denies the reality of AGW.

The largest organizetion of physicists in the world, the American Institute of Physics has this site with the history of the study of the greenhouse effect.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[skookerasbil]

OK, some context.

Joseph Fourier noted in about 1820 that by the albedo of the Earth, the planet should be much colder, and stated that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing heat and retaining it.

Tyndall, in 1859, did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the the most common GHGs.

In 1896, Svante Arrhenious did the first quantative analysis, and noting the feedback of water vapor from increased CO2. His estimate of the effects of a doubling of CO2 was quite accurate, considering the science of the time.

Since that time there has been many studies on the differant affects of GHGs in the atmosphere. All have shown that it increases the heat retained in the oceans and atmosphere.

In fact, enough studies that there is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, nor one major University anywhere in the world that denies the reality of AGW.

The largest organizetion of physicists in the world, the American Institute of Physics has this site with the history of the study of the greenhouse effect.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OK.....but so what?


Everybody and his brother know that the doomsday scenario's are contrived and subsequently pushed by the special interests.......as FlaCalTenn astutely points out, "the money chasers".

Read about what happened in Canada back in 2010..........



Special interest group plans to 'dupe' public about green energy costs: Tories


The Canadian Press
Nov 09, 2010

TORONTO - A special interest group is planning to launch a campaign to ``dupe'' the public about the true cost of the government's push for green energy, Opposition Leader Tim Hudak charged Tuesday.

A confidential document obtained by the Tories advises a group of unnamed green energy developers on how to promote the governing Liberals' policy and expedite lucrative government contracts for renewable energy.

Special interest group plans to 'dupe' public about green energy costs: Tories - 680News





Only the radical environmentalists think this is an anomoly. The money chasers have these people wrapped around their finger. Thankfully for the rest of us ( a huge majority, by the way), people are not ready to roll back their standard of living to the dark ages based upon an unprovable scientific theory based upon highly erratic computer models.


For the rest of us...............its called WINNING

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is climate science political?

It’s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they’d somehow be compelled to ‘do without’ to address the effects of climate change. They’re fearful America will become a ‘third-world country,’ that everyone would be forced to live in a shack with no AC and no car.

Needless to say this is idiocy.

But the idiocy continues:

Conservatives incorrectly believe that ‘new regulations’ supposedly designed to address climate change would adversely effect business profits, causing unemployment to rise, and sending more jobs overseas.

In their willful ignorance conservatives fail to understand that business can profit from accommodating climate change, creating jobs and increasing profits.

And last but not least:

Conservatives needlessly fear that entering into treaty agreements with other nations to address climate change is the first step to a ‘one world government,’ and the loss of American sovereignty. Indeed, it’s the cornerstone of neo-con paranoia and jingoistic bombast.

But the essence of conservative opposition to climate change science remains their fear, ignorance, and greed. Consequently, they ignore the facts of science, and the reasonable understanding that pumping excessive amounts of toxic waste into the biosphere is a bad idea, whether it causes climate change or not.

 

[code1211]

Why is climate science political?

It’s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they’d somehow be compelled to ‘do without’ to address the effects of climate change. They’re fearful America will become a ‘third-world country,’ that everyone would be forced to live in a shack with no AC and no car.

Needless to say this is idiocy.

But the idiocy continues:

Conservatives incorrectly believe that ‘new regulations’ supposedly designed to address climate change would adversely effect business profits, causing unemployment to rise, and sending more jobs overseas.

In their willful ignorance conservatives fail to understand that business can profit from accommodating climate change, creating jobs and increasing profits.

And last but not least:

Conservatives needlessly fear that entering into treaty agreements with other nations to address climate change is the first step to a ‘one world government,’ and the loss of American sovereignty. Indeed, it’s the cornerstone of neo-con paranoia and jingoistic bombast.

But the essence of conservative opposition to climate change science remains their fear, ignorance, and greed. Consequently, they ignore the facts of science, and the reasonable understanding that pumping excessive amounts of toxic waste into the biosphere is a bad idea, whether it causes climate change or not.

This is the perfect example of why climate science is political.

Here, we read a politician who avoids any comment on the science and addresses only the political components of the topic.

You would do well to address the science and show the proof that justifies the political responses. Until you prove what the cause of the temperature rise has been, you will have difficulty prescribing the solution that will reverses the effects you fear.

In any event, the temperature seems to have stalled for about a decade, so the measures you exhort us to adopt may be unneeded.

I have no carbon credits. Would you like to buy a clue?

 

[dblack]

Why is climate science political?

It’s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they’d somehow be compelled to ‘do without’ to address the effects of climate change. They’re fearful America will become a ‘third-world country,’ that everyone would be forced to live in a shack with no AC and no car.

Needless to say this is idiocy.

But the idiocy continues:

Conservatives incorrectly believe that ‘new regulations’ supposedly designed to address climate change would adversely effect business profits, causing unemployment to rise, and sending more jobs overseas.

In their willful ignorance conservatives fail to understand that business can profit from accommodating climate change, creating jobs and increasing profits.

And last but not least:

Conservatives needlessly fear that entering into treaty agreements with other nations to address climate change is the first step to a ‘one world government,’ and the loss of American sovereignty. Indeed, it’s the cornerstone of neo-con paranoia and jingoistic bombast.

But the essence of conservative opposition to climate change science remains their fear, ignorance, and greed. Consequently, they ignore the facts of science, and the reasonable understanding that pumping excessive amounts of toxic waste into the biosphere is a bad idea, whether it causes climate change or not.

So, it's political "because conservatives ..."

Got it.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Big Fitz]

Why is climate science political?

It’s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they’d somehow be compelled to ‘do without’ to address the effects of climate change. They’re fearful America will become a ‘third-world country,’ that everyone would be forced to live in a shack with no AC and no car.

Needless to say this is idiocy.

But the idiocy continues:

Conservatives incorrectly believe that ‘new regulations’ supposedly designed to address climate change would adversely effect business profits, causing unemployment to rise, and sending more jobs overseas.

In their willful ignorance conservatives fail to understand that business can profit from accommodating climate change, creating jobs and increasing profits.

And last but not least:

Conservatives needlessly fear that entering into treaty agreements with other nations to address climate change is the first step to a ‘one world government,’ and the loss of American sovereignty. Indeed, it’s the cornerstone of neo-con paranoia and jingoistic bombast.

But the essence of conservative opposition to climate change science remains their fear, ignorance, and greed. Consequently, they ignore the facts of science, and the reasonable understanding that pumping excessive amounts of toxic waste into the biosphere is a bad idea, whether it causes climate change or not.

How about:

"It is political because liberals fear individual freedom"

or

"It is political because mankind is unproven to be the primary driver of climate change"

or

"It is political beause of religious zealotry for the planet."

or

"It is political because of hatred for capitalism and the laws of economics."

Needless to say, these are all idiotic but true reasons why none the less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is climate science political?

It’s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they’d somehow be compelled to ‘do without’ to address the effects of climate change. They’re fearful America will become a ‘third-world country,’ that everyone would be forced to live in a shack with no AC and no car.

Needless to say this is idiocy.

But the idiocy continues:

Conservatives incorrectly believe that ‘new regulations’ supposedly designed to address climate change would adversely effect business profits, causing unemployment to rise, and sending more jobs overseas.

In their willful ignorance conservatives fail to understand that business can profit from accommodating climate change, creating jobs and increasing profits.

And last but not least:

Conservatives needlessly fear that entering into treaty agreements with other nations to address climate change is the first step to a ‘one world government,’ and the loss of American sovereignty. Indeed, it’s the cornerstone of neo-con paranoia and jingoistic bombast.

But the essence of conservative opposition to climate change science remains their fear, ignorance, and greed. Consequently, they ignore the facts of science, and the reasonable understanding that pumping excessive amounts of toxic waste into the biosphere is a bad idea, whether it causes climate change or not.

It’s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they’d somehow be compelled to ‘do without’ to address the effects of climate change.

I'd happily sacrifice all you have to prevent "climate change".
Where do I sign?

 

[Trakar]

Looks to me more like "spinning in place" and turning junk metal into even more worthless junk.