Why is climate science political?

[westwall]

I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy. I didn't feel the need to get that specific.

Generous - and also very, very clearly wrong.

I really struggle to believe that anyone with a tertiary education wouldn't know Philosophy was a subject all of its own - especially when I gave you the names of the philosophers.

Because you never stated it. My wifes father is a PhD philosopher from Loyolla. So I am well acqauinted with the field.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

We don't use the word candidate with exactly that meaning here, because the Finnish translation means something slightly different in academia...we usually just use PhD student or Doctoral student.

My sentence wasn't very clear, but I'd figured if anyone cared enough, they could ask, rather than dream up a conspiracy of lies!

 

[Saigon]

I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy. I didn't feel the need to get that specific.

Generous - and also very, very clearly wrong.

I really struggle to believe that anyone with a tertiary education wouldn't know Philosophy was a subject all of its own - especially when I gave you the names of the philosophers.

Because you never stated it. My wifes father is a PhD philosopher from Loyolla. So I am well acqauinted with the field.

I NAMED the Philosophers!!!

 

[California Girl]

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.

Try reading the thread again - most conservative parties in the world are not in your camp.

'Conservative' in the US is not a political party. And, frankly, I couldn't give a rats ass what political parties think... they're a bunch of corrupt, amoral assclowns... left or right. If you are too stupid to think for yourself and need to have your opinions provided by a political party, you have my sympathy.

 

[Saigon]

'Conservative' in the US is not a political party. And, frankly, I couldn't give a rats ass what political parties think... they're a bunch of corrupt, amoral assclowns... left or right. If you are too stupid to think for yourself and need to have your opinions provided by a political party, you have my sympathy.

So you don't vote for a political party?

Interesting.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

We don't use the word candidate with exactly that meaning here, because the Finnish translation means something slightly different in academia...we usually just use PhD student or Doctoral student.

My sentence wasn't very clear, but I'd figured if anyone cared enough, they could ask, rather than dream up a conspiracy of lies!

Fair enough. I did ask for clarification and you never answered the question (go aback and look at the thread and you'll see what I mean) it was you who changed the entire meaning of your statement. Not me. Go back and look.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Fair enough - I'm only kidding around with you here anyway. I knew what I meant when I posted it, anyway, and there was nothing dishonest intended.

If I was going to lie I'd have said she was a Professor of Geophysics or something!

 

[peach174]

Do any of your scientists in Finland take into account that all of our planets in our solar system is undergoing a climate change?
Do they include that with Earth's climate change?

 

[tigerbob]

Philosophy....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY]Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Philospher's Song - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Artevelde -

All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.

This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements.

If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?

"that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change"

Excellent! How large a role?
And if they think we should spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.1 degrees by 2080, then I part ways with them.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wow, you wouldn't see Mussolini coming, would you? Not inquisitive at all as to WHY these groups have money to pay for this 'science' and support them.

Corporatism is very seductive and stealthy.

Agreed....it's not exactly difficult stuff this, is it?

I think we know why coal and oil pour so much money into climate change research.

I think we also know why wind and solar do.

I also know the first groups spend ten times what the second group do.

Which would seem to make scepticism a right wing conspiracy.

ROFL... logical fallacy right there.

You're attributing only negative characteristics to the side of the discussion you oppose while ignoring your position's gleeful use of the same tactics you imply to condemn.

You still going to deny that AGW is driven by money and power or are you going to start equivocating now that you debunked your own position for us? Maybe your wife would be better at debating this issue and not make the same logical mistakes you are.

Also, where's my data on how Human generated CO2 is more important than all the rest, even though it cannot be truely detected because it is less than the margin of error?

 

[Oddball]

Artevelde -

All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.

This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements.

If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?

"that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change"

Excellent! How large a role?
And if they think we should spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.1 degrees by 2080, then I part ways with them.

Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Because activist lie about the dramatic effects of client science to push their agenda. That does not make them left wing, just liars.

The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist

 

[peach174]

Do any of your scientists in Finland take into account that all of our planets in our solar system is undergoing a climate change?
Do they include that with Earth's climate change?

I'm not talking about the false things out there in the internet about the rest of the planets warming. Those things are not true.
What I'm talking about the change in storms and other things happening on the planets.

1.1.6 A series of Martian atmosphere transformations increasing its biosphere quality. In particularly, a cloudy growth in the equator area and an unusual growth of ozone concentration.

Update Note: In September 1997 the Mars Surveyor Satellite encountered an atmospheric density double that projected by NASA upon entering a Mars orbit. This greater density bent one of the solar array arms beyond the full and open stop. This combination of events has delayed the beginning of the scheduled photo mission for one year.

1.1.7 A first stage atmosphere generation on the Moon, where a growing natrium atmosphere is detected that reaches 9,000 km in height.

1.1.8 Significant physical, chemical and optical changes observed on Venus; an inversion of dark and light spots detected for the first time, and a sharp decrease of sulfur-containing gases in its atmosphere.

The following processes are taking place on the distant planets of our Solar System. But they are, essentially speaking, operationally driving the whole System.

Here are examples of these events:

1.1.1 A growth of dark spots on Pluto.

1.1.2 Reporting of auroras on Saturn.

1.1.3 Reporting of Uranus and Neptune polar shifts (They are magnetically conjugate planets), and the abrupt large-scale growth of Uranus' magnetosphere intensity.

1.1.4 A change in light intensity and light spot dynamics on Neptune.

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares s0n? We sceptics only care that the green side is losing big......... and the fact is, the stupids in other countries have always trusted their governments implicitly, happily embracing socialism. Thankfully we are alot more suspicious over here. Going green requires all sorts of getting on all fours for the government..............plus, people over here prefer to keep more of their own money instead of trusting the government to spend it ( see Solyndra ). A majority of Americans are also OK with there being a wealthy class ( approximately 65%) and are not enamoured with these Plato/Hobbes notions of utopian societies. Europeans have always been romanticized by that bullshit..........lmao........bunch of dolts. The whole continent slides deeper into the shitter on a daily basis!!


All the philosophy doesnt matter though...........nobody cares what conservatives elsewhere support or dont support. But its more than conservatives..........the public let Cap and Trade die on the vine and yawned through the whole thing. Reducing carbon emmissions isnt even on the radar in DC, and state RGGI's have lost in epic fashion over the past 2 to 3 years.
New Hampshire is a perfect example........as told by a green aliance member............

Jim Cavan, of the 94-member Green Alliance business group, said: "[The bill] is more of a product of the toxic political times and furthering the knee-jerk reaction to watch our wallets."


Here is a typical green dickhead being cavalier about people watching their wallets...........and Americans despise that sentiment. Americans hate people on the left telling them how to run their lives.


Nope.........bottom line is, its policital because people dont want to pay double for their electricity. And thank goodness for that............


Fuckk the k00ks.

 

[skookerasbil]

Laugh my balls off............look at the recommendations by the IEA related to global warming..............

Heres a smidgen from the conference in late April.....................

Due to the terrible urgency of the global warming crisis, Jones said, the 32 developed OECD member countries of the IEA must literally develop every known conceivable form and type of energy, now defined as clean. Even imaginary forms, everything. The list was so massive that some members of the audience dozed off, shaked themselves awake, and shook their heads at hearing the list was still being read out. The litany went on and on. It seemed endless, but it did end - only to be followed by the Second Option, also read out by Jones. This is using no energy at all, economizing it, conserving it, negawatts instead of megawatts, car sharing, taking a shower (not even a bath) with a friend or two friends, which footballers do, taking buses and trains, which footballers and prime ministers don't, insulating homes, installing smart meters, turning lights and heating off in offices at nights and weekends despite this being a challenge to civilization, building smart grids and super grids, changing the regular flashlight for a Donald Duck LED flashlight Made in China, doing without flashlights, buying a bicycle, not buying a third iPhone. And lots more: Jones surpassed himself on that score, he said that his experts had told him that energy saving was vastly easier and cheaper than developing any kind of new energy, clean or otherwise.


http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34645.html


These assholes might just as well be standing stark naked in the middle of Siberia yelling, "FIRE!!". The k00ks think there should be no linkage between the science and the politics.



Oooooooooooooooooooooooops

 

[skookerasbil]

So there Siagon...............how about we send all of our neighbors over to your house and the houses of all the other nutjobs on this forum and you can all take group showers!!!

Oh.......and no baths for you assholes!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Just a word to people who might be coming into this forum trying to make some sense of this global warming debate.

Make no mistake.............many of the true believing environmentalists are obsessed with this global warming stuff. As in serious OCD stuff borne of some serious damage. These are the people who have bought into the scam hook, line and stinker..........people who find meaning in life via attaching who they are to a "cause". Sociologists have come to term this "The Politics of Reason". They are the followers...........the same kind of people who you will find have spent their lives chasing some kind of cause. They are miserable without this dynamic in their lives.


But they again, are the followers. Then there are the groups with a clear agenda...........and those with the agenda know there are hordes of the hopelessly duped out there waiting to be taken advantage of. Essentially, these people who set he green agenda are simply marketing a scam..........a scam many in the public have no clue about..


Read about The Green Agenda.............some very compelling links here.................


http://www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/The-Green-Agenda2.pdf

 

[Saigon]

Artevelde -

All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.

This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements.

If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?

"that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change"

Excellent! How large a role?
And if they think we should spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.1 degrees by 2080, then I part ways with them.

Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.

What kind of answer do you expect to a quesion like that?

Is the answer 15%, 1/2 or just 42?

No one can give you a precise figure, and no one precise figure would remain true when we are looking at systems which are in perpetual flux anyway.

Think of a better question - one which would meet your own standards - and you might get better answers.

 

[Saigon]

Again, here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

There are 50 major organisatins here - would anyone like to post a list of scientific bodies who DO NOT accept human involvement in climate change?