"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[Biscuit]

That is an assertion un-supported by anything in the blogger's post.

Unsupported? Do you not know how to scroll down? The author provides data and sources for all the information.

 

[lomiller]

If you want a dialogue, then cite your single best piece of evidence for whatever your point is. I don't have the space or the time to write an entire book in this small space. Meanwhile, for your edification, check out

Dr. Roy Spencer

"The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation."

From:
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

October 20, 2008 (updated December 29, 2008)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

If Spencer is correct and climate sensitivity is much lower than all currently lines of research show then ice ages, or exiting ice ages becomes impossible.

It’s important to note that while Spencer is someone who legitimacy could be called acclimate scientist, what he publishes in peer reviewed journals falls far short of the grandiose claims he posts on his blog. He’s also on the record as saying his knowledge of science has lead him to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is correct. IOW he’s pretty much a cheerleader for bad science.

 

[lomiller]

Unsupported? Do you not know how to scroll down? The author provides data and sources for all the information.

Yeah “unsupported” a pretty bizarre claim here. The IR emitted by the earth as seen from space is a measurable quantity; Robert apparently just doesn’t like what the measurements have to say.

Not that it’s up to anyone else to prove anything. You don’t need anything beyond simple conservation of energy to know that blocking IR from leaving the atmosphere will cause the planet to warm, and we already know that CO2 does this. Furthermore when you do the math the amount of IR absorbed by greenhouse gasses explains not only current warming but a good chunk of the earth’s climate history. (Along with albedo and Solar intensity which becomes important on very long time scales) We even know that the earth is ~33 deg above it’s black body temperature, something that is only possible if you have greenhouse gasses blocking outbound IR.

Of course science is never absolute, but at this point it’s clearly up to the contrarians to come up with a plausible theory of their own and support it with facts and observations. This is where pseudoscience really makes its presence felt, those who support pseudoscience always fail to bring their own alterative explanations to the table or their alternatives fail miserably when analyzed.

This is where Republicans have gone, they can no longer tell the difference between science and selling doubt and in fact actively promote denial as “science”. Global warming aside this points to a bleak future for US education and then the US as a nation. You can’t do science properly if you don’t even know what science is, and abandoning science to the rest of the world will eventually kill competitiveness.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Is there some corollary of Godwin's Law that predicts how long it takes a general science topic to turn into a global warming debate?

Tedious.

 

[varwoche]

Is there some corollary of Godwin's Law that predicts how long it takes a general science topic to turn into a global warming debate?

Tedious.

Except it's not a general science topic. While it may be tedious, A/GW denial is indeed the most glaring anti-science position adopted by (most) republicans.

 

[Robert Prey]

That's a discussion more suited for the science section. Here I'm just trying to make a meta point which doesn't require you to delve into the list of studies I linked to; all you need to do is cursorily examine the list and determine that one or more are actual studies conducted by actual scientists.

And then, armed with your new-found knowledge, you won't make patently idiotic statements that there is no evidence supporting AGW. (As if you hadn't already been provided evidence before I chimed in. )

An unsupported assertion is not evidence. Does CO2 cause global warming or does global warming cause an increase of CO2?

 

[Robert Prey]

Except it's not a general science topic. While it may be tedious, A/GW denial is indeed the most glaring anti-science position adopted by (most) republicans.

And the difference between "anti-science" and anti-pseudo science is what your political persuasion might be? Excellent reasoning.

 

[elbe]

And the difference between "anti-science" and anti-pseudo science is what your political persuasion might be? Excellent reasoning.

Did you know there are republicans who accept AGW?

 

[Robert Prey]

If Spencer is correct and climate sensitivity is much lower than all currently lines of research show then ice ages, or exiting ice ages becomes impossible.

It’s important to note that while Spencer is someone who legitimacy could be called acclimate scientist, what he publishes in peer reviewed journals falls far short of the grandiose claims he posts on his blog. He’s also on the record as saying his knowledge of science has lead him to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is correct. IOW he’s pretty much a cheerleader for bad science.

And so your obvious counter-claim of un-intelligent design is intelligent?

 

[Robert Prey]

Yeah “unsupported” a pretty bizarre claim here. The IR emitted by the earth as seen from space is a measurable quantity; Robert apparently just doesn’t like what the measurements have to say.

Not that it’s up to anyone else to prove anything. You don’t need anything beyond simple conservation of energy to know that blocking IR from leaving the atmosphere will cause the planet to warm, and we already know that CO2 does this.

Open your mind:

"Also note that warming can be caused either by (1) increasing the rate of energy gained, OR (2) decreasing the rate of energy lost. It is the second process that is involved in the theory of manmade global warming: Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations slightly reduce the rate at which infrared heat is lost by the Earth to outer space, leading to an energy imbalance. Warming then results, which stops after energy balance is once again restored as a warmer Earth radiates infrared energy at a greater rate to outer space.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/a-global-warming-cookbook-what-causes-temperature-to-change/

 

[12AX7]

Sorry, but like most people, I do not dwell on the fact that eventually the human species may become extinct. What I do dwell on is where I will get the next dollar in order to survive the Obama depression (food, clothing shelter and gas and retirement ) which your cacamamy save the planet ideas will only exacerbate.

And here, after all the blahblah has been boiled away, is the core of Robert Prey's issues (and of those of his ilk).

He blames Obama for everything. Any topic that doesn't revolve around hating/bashing Obama only makes his woe in life that much worse, and Heaven forbid (pun intended) it should be a science topic that goes against his religion. Science and reason are for chumps and liberals with an agenda.

Remember, Robert's a guy who thinks starving people (particularly children) in America can eat well daily in grocery stores on sample hand-outs. You gotta wonder about the reasoning and mental capabilities of someone like that.

Robert exemplifies the conservative/"Christian"/Republican base folks. Good job in your representation, Robert!

<insert Willy Wonka voice> "Good day, Sir!"

 

[lomiller]

And so your obvious counter-claim of un-intelligent design is intelligent?

Nope I’m saying that some who thinks Intelligent Design is science probably doesn’t have a good command of how science works. In Spencer’s case his views on ID and the disparity between what he publishes and what he claims when he isn’t subject to peer review seems to support his ideologically skewed view of science.

 

[lomiller]

Open your mind:

“there is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out.”

"Also note that warming can be caused either by (1) increasing the rate of energy gained, OR (2) decreasing the rate of energy lost.

The earth is warming even though it’s getting less energy from the Sun.

Satellite observation shows the incoming energy has declined over the last 50 years. Ground based observation has shown an even larger decline in incoming energy due to the global dimming effect of human produced aerosols.

Warming then results, which stops after energy balance is once again restored as a warmer Earth radiates infrared energy at a greater rate to outer space.

Correct, as the earth surface warms the Stefan–Boltzmann law dictates that it emits more IR. Eventually the increased IR from the Earth’s surface will balance out the effect of CO2 blocking outgoing IR. This is why the earth warms a finite amount in response to a given amount of greenhouse gas.

 

[Corsair 115]

The recent disclosure of hacked e-mails from global warming biased "scientists" show further evidence that the entire movement is in fact an attempt to extract wealth from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive -- 19th century spread the wealth "Marxism"

I must assume you are unaware of the six separate, independent investigations into the CRU/UEA stolen e-mails affair, all of which found no evidence that data had been falsely manipulated to show warming. These six investigations include ones done by the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Feel free to explain why the British Parliament, and the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Science Foundation, are deliberate agents of "an attempt to extract wealth from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive".


Incidentally, your reply in post #214 does not even come close to supporting your claims. I'll repeat it again for the fifth time:

The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.

Please provide specific evidence which demonstrates the IPCC are just "political hacks." Don't forget to include your definition of what constitutes a political hack. Please provide specific evidence which demonstrates the entire concept of global warming and the evidence gathered pointing to it (which I presume is what you meant by "the whole movement"; if it's not, then please supply your definition) is driven by political concerns. Demonstrate, for example, how the climate change data provided by NASA or NOAA is "rooted in 19th century Marxism".

You've made specific claims, as bolded in your quote. It is therefore incumbent upon you to provide the specific evidence you are using to come to your conclusions. To date you have failed to do so.

 

[Robrob]

Sorry, but like most people, I do not dwell on the fact that eventually the human species may become extinct. What I do dwell on is where I will get the next dollar in order to survive the Obama depression (food, clothing shelter and gas and retirement ) which your cacamamy save the planet ideas will only exacerbate.

You do realize the current recession began in 2007?

The recent disclosure of hacked e-mails from global warming biased "scientists" show further evidence that the entire movement is in fact an attempt to extract wealth from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive -- 19th century spread the wealth "Marxism"

A claim so well debunked one has to wonder why you post it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I must assume you are unaware of the six separate, independent investigations into the CRU/UEA stolen e-mails affair, all of which found no evidence that data had been falsely manipulated to show warming.

This is not a thread on global warming.

 

[Robert Prey]

And here, after all the blahblah has been boiled away, is the core of Robert Prey's issues (and of those of his ilk).

He blames Obama for everything. Any topic that doesn't revolve around hating/bashing Obama only makes his woe in life that much worse, and Heaven forbid (pun intended) it should be a science topic that goes against his religion. Science and reason are for chumps and liberals with an agenda.

Remember, Robert's a guy who thinks starving people (particularly children) in America can eat well daily in grocery stores on sample hand-outs. You gotta wonder about the reasoning and mental capabilities of someone like that.

Robert exemplifies the conservative/"Christian"/Republican base folks. Good job in your representation, Robert!

<insert Willy Wonka voice> "Good day, Sir!"

And whom do you represent? The Great Unwashed Whiners of Obama Occupy Land????

 

[Upchurch]

This is not a thread on global warming.

Not explicitly, but it is one of the sciences Republicans are fighting a war on. As such, it is certainly on topic.

 

[Robert Prey]

I must assume you are unaware of the six separate, independent investigations into the CRU/UEA stolen e-mails affair, all of which found no evidence that data had been falsely manipulated to show warming. These six investigations include ones done by the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Whitewash or Greenwash????

"...The Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons found that lapse particularly troubling. The Committee’s report on the University of East Anglia CRU noted: “We are concerned that the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review did not fully investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails. We find it unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the Vice-Chancellor that the e-mails still exist.” As Richard Nixon found out to his ultimate chagrin, sometimes it’s not the offence itself that gets you, but the cover up.

But the Climate-gate scandal is only one of the imbroglios emerging over the past few years to eviscerate the credibility of the environmental movement.

Last year we discovered that by UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was peddling error-ridden documents that were factually ridiculous. The IPCC made hysterical predictions about the disappearance of the Himalayan Glaciers and adduced wildly inflated claims about the energy potential of wave power.

Talk about shock and awe! The environmentalist movement has been waging the mother of all scare campaigns in an effort to muscle through a revolutionary agenda that would end modern life as we know it.

This Green penchant for hyperbole should really come as no surprise.


http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2900-climategate-inquiries-whitewash-or-greenwash.html

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Not explicitly, but it is one of the sciences Republicans are fighting a war on. As such, it is certainly on topic.

No, it's just boring.

Lots of places to debate it with people who wish to.

This thread had some interest to me, being a science minded Republican.

No longer.