GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[billc]

We don't reject science...we reject an agenda driven use of science to corrupt the actual facts of what is happening...to promote the pet belief system of environmental extremists and opportunists...

Other changes in the data had been made prior to 2008, as well; these changes also had the effect of magnifying alleged warming. Shockingly, one-quarter of the global warming that GISS alleges has taken place during the 20th century is due to these falsifications–let’s be polite and call them revisions–to the data.

 

[billc]

In another thread outside of the study there was an article that tried to alarm people about sea ice melting...you had to look to find out that the alleged melting sea ice wasn't where they led you to believe it was but hundreds of miles closer to warmer temperatures...and yet we are supposed to give up so much to these guys...

 

[billc]

Add on to the corrupt scientists...the fact that warming still isn't understood...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/an-ocean-of-doubt.php

The extended pause in global warming over the last decade and a half has caused the climate campaign to become increasingly frantic to search for an explanation that keeps the narrative alive. One possible explanation is that the missing heat is being absorbed in the ocean rather than the atmosphere, though why the climate models didn’t predict this with greater accuracy is a question the climate modelers need to explain. There are some data to back up the ocean warming hypothesis, but the skeptics say there aren’t enough data points and the data don’t go back far enough to validate the hypothesis, so keep your eyes on this one.

One of the major gaps in the ocean story concerns not merely temperature but the absorption of carbon dioxide in the ocean, especially by plankton. And plankton growth is heavily influenced by the amount of iron in the ocean, which is why there has been a lot of theorizing, and a couple of experiments, about whether seeding the ocean with iron would increase CO2 absorption, with the calcified carbon sinking more or less harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean. We do know from paleoclimatology that the role of iron levels in the ocean played a role in ancient ice ages.

And again to the lack of complete understanding...

LONDON – British scientists say estimates of the amount of iron dissolving into seawater around some of the world’s coasts may be drastically wrong.
They say there is no standard, one-size-fits-all way to measure how much iron enters the water in different parts of the globe. Instead, they say, the amounts may vary by up to ten thousand times between one area and another, with profound implications for the impact of the iron on the oceanic carbon cycle.

 

[elder999]

We don't reject science...we reject an agenda driven use of science to corrupt the actual facts of what is happening...to promote the pet belief system of environmental extremists and opportunists...

Translation: "We" reject anything that interferes with or regulates big business. :lfao:

 

[billc]

And more misinformation that goes into man made global warming...

http://www.climatedepot.com/

New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is ‘seriously compromised’ — Published in Climate of the Past'More bad news for Michael Mann: A new paper published in Climate of the Pastfinds that 'modern sample bias' has "seriously compromised" tree-ring temperature reconstructions, producing an "artificial positive signal [e.g. 'hockey stick'] in the final chronology." Needless to say, Mann's hockey sticks are also seriously compromised by statistical techniques that produce hockey sticks from random numbers, use of upside-down data, the trick to hide the decline, the most important tree in the world, use of bristlecone pines which were condemned by the NAS for use as temperature proxies, and a complete lack of validation sk

 

[billc]

And I believe that though the websites that look at the silliness of man made global warming are not peer reviewed...they do post information that is...

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/...arctic-was-warmer-during-medieval-period.html

What do boreholes, varves, birds, diatoms, tree-rings, sediments, pollen and ice have common?Each has been used in a unique peer reviewed study confirming that the Arctic polar regions during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) were warmer than the modern era.​

 

[billc]

Besides...ice ages are more dangerous...and may actually be next...

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/...ge-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/

The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”
So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

 

[arnisador]

Why is it that the whole ClimateGate scandal is ignored by the supporters of man made global warming...

Because it's a a GOP talking point without actual basis in fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

• The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
• Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
• E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations.

There was smoke. Upon investigation, there was no fire. But the GOP won't stop misrepresenting it because everyone remembers the initial charge but most don't know how it turned out. You're perpetuating a known untruth to further your agenda.

it goes on and on and yet we are supposed to believe that 90% of scientists believe in man made global warming...

Yes. Surveys show this--surveys done, for example, by professional bodies of their own members. Bear in mind that the case of the CRU was one of many, many groups looking at the matter.

Scientific literature based on broken computer models, faulty temperature measuring, and made up data by scientists...and the fact is with all of this CO2 pumping into the atmosphere...global warming has stopped for the last 15 years...

In the land of creationism, the young earth, and other science-denying creeds held by the GOP, I suppose this gets traction. But it's still nonsense.

 

[arnisador]

As to computer models...

I don't think you understand the difference between what a software engineer does and what a computational scientist does.

 

[arnisador]

We don't reject science...we reject an agenda driven use of science to corrupt the actual facts of what is happening...

Is this about global warming? It's also the stance of a majority of GOP members on evolution. Yes, you reject science. You're not qualified to discuss these studies that you've only read about on insanerightwingconspiracytheories.com. You might as well voice your professional opinion on cardiac catheritization. To accept science is to look to the scientific consensus in a given area. Here, that consensus is abundantly clear and very strong.

 

[arnisador]

And I believe that though the websites that look at the silliness of man made global warming are not peer reviewed...they do post information that is...

Not by scientists, obviously--just other conspiracy theorists.

Does anyone have any idea how hard it would be to get virtually all scientists to agree to lie about something?

 

[Big Don]

Republicans or religious fanatics? Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party

That is how some people choose to couch their bigotry.

 

[Big Don]

Some things need to be done even though they're not profitable. But the bigger issue here is short-term profit vs. long-term profit. Companies and Congress are notoiously short-sighted.

Al Gore and others have made quite a bit of money pimping global warming while flying around in polluting private jets...

 

[grumpywolfman]

Not by scientists, obviously--just other conspiracy theorists.

Does anyone have any idea how hard it would be to get virtually all scientists to agree to lie about something?

Not that hard really, Hitler figured that you just need to start early - control their education.

For example: http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/03/22/atheist-wants-creationist-teacher-fired/

 

[granfire]

Not that hard really, Hitler figured that you just need to start early - control their education.

For example: http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/03/22/atheist-wants-creationist-teacher-fired/

I am not an atheist, but I'd want him gone as well.

Y'all can't keep your stereotypes straight.
Science is that, Believes (AKA Faith) is marked by the not knowing. Both do not coexist. That does not mean a scientist cannot be faithful, but it's on a different plane.

But I understand that your believes won't let you accept my point of view on the matter.

 

[ballen0351]

I am not an atheist, but I'd want him gone as well.

why?
Was he only teaching creationism or was he teaching evolution and also giving the other popular belief.

I can't tell from the story but I also didn't read t that closely since I didn't care but I'm not sure he needs to be fired

 

[granfire]

why?
Was he only teaching creationism or was he teaching evolution and also giving the other popular belief.

I can't tell from the story but I also didn't read t that closely since I didn't care but I'm not sure he needs to be fired

Creationism is only popular in certain circles....usually those who make their world few on the premise of faith vs the known.
Yeah, he can teach it. But not in science, as science. It belongs more into the realm of philosophies along with the beast with two backs, a metaphor which probably goes back to the teachings of one Greek philosopher or another, explaining the need for togetherness of human by their 'creation' from one whole, thus searching for their counter part....

I don't mind the subject 'Bible as Literature' but we have moved from making the Good Book the base of schooling.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm gonna cut right thru the BS and get straight to the point, and most likely Billc will act hurt and offended again.

Nobody puts this kind of time and effort into what amounts to a monumental display of enthusiastic ignorance, without getting paid to do it. So Billc is either employed in some fashion by the Fossil Fuels industry, or else he is a large stake stockholder and he's hoping to get rich off the profits.

So Billc: which is it? Who's paying you to post this endless row of Bovine Defecation?

Bill? I'm still waiting for an answer here. Who's payrolling you for this nonsense?

 

[arnisador]

why?
Was he only teaching creationism or was he teaching evolution and also giving the other popular belief.

Beliefs can be popular but not be scientific. For example: "A study conducted in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology, found that about 20%, or one in five, of American adults believe that the Sun orbits the Earth." That's reasonably popular, but I wouldn't want it taught in schools.

A Chicago-area atheist is on a crusade to have a high school science teacher fired for teaching creationism in his classroom.[...]He confirmed to district officials that he was teaching creationist beliefs at the high school. Creationism is the belief that God created the heavens and the Earth.

 

[Flying Crane]

Beliefs can be popular but not be scientific. For example: "A study conducted in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology, found that about 20%, or one in five, of American adults believe that the Sun orbits the Earth." That's reasonably popular, but I wouldn't want it taught in schools.

good gawd, do we actually have to explain this kind of thing here???