Conservatives and climate change

[Trakar]

How much koolaid did you drink so you can pretend that will cut expenditures? All we'll have is another Homeland-Security-like fiasco which theoretically was to subsume several existing agencies and instead became just another, extra, budget item.

That's because Homeland Security was created by an administration seeking to expand federal powers and grow the size of government, not in an attempt to consolidate and improve efficiency through the elimination of duplicated effort.

 

[mhaze]

well lest test this prediciton of yours. lets see if they kick me out of ther faith group as you would call it.

I'm not sure of the proceedings and methods.

It may be that if you fully confess and are repentant, my son, you will be assigned ten Hail Manns and ten Our Father Gores and be safe and secure within the sheeple.

 

[Trakar]

oh i totally disagree with Keale then, i think if the theory of AGW would be falsified, it wold be one of the best discoveries ever. so much we wouldn't have to care about. The next day i would propably buy me a car.

Presumably this all goes back to this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7933706&postcount=936

I don't see this as a valid interpretation of Keale's statements.

 

[AlBell]

That's because Homeland Security was created by an administration seeking to expand federal powers and grow the size of government, not in an attempt to consolidate and improve efficiency through the elimination of duplicated effort.

Have somemore koolaid too.

 

[jj]

I'm not sure of the proceedings and methods.

It may be that if you fully confess and are repentant, my son, you will be assigned ten Hail Manns and ten Our Father Gores and be safe and secure within the sheeple.

You know, this kind of veiled personal attack has no place in scientific or political discourse.

The evidence on global warming is utterly conclusive, and the evidence that AGW has to exist to some extent is just as conclusive. Otherwise, fundamental behaviors of gasses one can test on a large tabletop with a few glass bottles and an IR thermometer would have to not work.

Now, insisting that something so easily tested and confirmed does not exist is simply a religious belief in and of itself. Continued denial in the face of evidence is simply unethical.

Certainly in terms of carbon uptake there is much to learn, but the quantity of CO2, CH4, etc, in the atmosphere is a measurement, and not subject to debate, and it IS rising. The effects of same on IR propagation are easily demonstrated with a "heatlamp" and a big jar full of the gas in question (but seriously, don't do it at home unless you have the necessary understanding of safety, which most people don't!!!).

So there is no, zero, zip doubt. Calling something that is so easily tested and confirmed a religion is purely, simply, and absolutely unethical and dishonest.

It's that simple, arguing otherwise is not science, and not ethical for anyone who claims to have examined evidence. (either you haven't examined the evidence, or you are denying it, either way, the result exhibits a lack of ethics).

 

[Trakar]

Have somemore koolaid too.

You find that a strongly partisan and inaccurate statement? Seriously?

 

[Furcifer]

It is a one way street. Threatening individuals right now for their position is not anywhere the same as suggesting that populations will suffer in the future because of public policy. Guys like Ben Santer have had their lives severely damaged by deniers. Bankruptcy, divorce, smeared professional reputation, etc. You cannot find an analogous situation on the other side of the fence.

You can find extremists on either side in just about every aspect of human existence, except Global Warming. That's hilarious.

This borders on paranoia stemming from a prosecution complex. I've spent too much time in the 9/11 CT forum to not spot this and point it out for what it is.

 

[Furcifer]

no, i posted a very specific example, of a scientists that does deny the A of AGW.

No, you just listed a name, you never substantiated your claim.

But you may have found 1 nut on the entire planet. Well done. It's meaningless. I can find a lot more people claiming the Earth is flat. I don't concern myself with flat earthers and I certainly don't worry myself about them and claim they're influencing policy or scientists studying geography. Wouldn't I look the fool claiming flat earthers were anything but a few misguided fringe nutters?

 

[mhaze]

Presumably this all goes back to this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7933706&postcount=936

I don't see this as a valid interpretation of Keale's statements.

There is only one meaning to a phrase "falsifying AGW", and that would be a falsification of whatever theories comprised the AGW hypothesis.

You know, this kind of veiled personal attack has no place in scientific or political discourse.

The evidence on global warming is utterly conclusive, and the evidence that AGW has to exist to some extent is just as conclusive. Otherwise, fundamental behaviors of gasses one can test on a large tabletop with a few glass bottles and an IR thermometer would have to not work.

Now, insisting that something so easily tested and confirmed does not exist is simply a religious belief in and of itself. Continued denial in the face of evidence is simply unethical.

Certainly in terms of carbon uptake there is much to learn, but the quantity of CO2, CH4, etc, in the atmosphere is a measurement, and not subject to debate, and it IS rising. The effects of same on IR propagation are easily demonstrated with a "heatlamp" and a big jar full of the gas in question (but seriously, don't do it at home unless you have the necessary understanding of safety, which most people don't!!!).

So there is no, zero, zip doubt. Calling something that is so easily tested and confirmed a religion is purely, simply, and absolutely unethical and dishonest.

It's that simple, arguing otherwise is not science, and not ethical for anyone who claims to have examined evidence. (either you haven't examined the evidence, or you are denying it, either way, the result exhibits a lack of ethics).

So you also reject and Deny Keale's assertion?

Note...he said it, not I...

....Calling something that is so easily tested and confirmed a religion is purely, simply, and absolutely unethical and dishonest.....

I think we are more looking at the religious aspects built on top your hallowed truthies, than the hallowed truthies themselves. Far be it for me, one humble and poor in spirit, to argue that someone did not once rise from the dead. Or that your truthies do not contain a shred of science. Or that a particle cannot exceed the speed of light. Or that the Piltdown Man is not certain proof of evolution. A religion is built on faith and belief, and that is what we examine here. And the beliefs are about the certain righteousness of subjecting the world to your faith.

You are not exactly a bunch of nice guys. Of that we are quite sure. But Saving the World is a serious task, and it requires knitted brows, whispered warnings and hysterical ranting. It requires creating a sense of Alarm and Urgency. We can't have some thing of such importance be joked about.

Yeah, actually we can and will. You guys are the butt of jokes across the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXFpymugbk

 

[Furcifer]

here Soon is denieng exactly that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEXe4y1d8Q

this time you maybe want to watch it first? so you not end up once again denieng the denial.

He says he's been studying the effects of CO2 on hurricane intensity for 20 years and clearly there no effect in the real world, it's based on models.

So he has an alternate theory based on empirical evidence and that's "denial". How sad that you think that.

 

[johnny karate]

Why should his opinion be valued as equal to the opinion of professional politicians who have years of experience spending our money and sending it to their friends? Clearly their ideas on raking in the cash on the AGW bandwagon and should take precedence over someone who Denies that they should do whatever they want to do.

And that global warming scam, hey look. If you get your head straight and play ball with the right people, you can get some of that money, too.

Yes, because there are certainly better ways to spend other people's money:

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.

Science-deniers with totalitarian fantasies about government-funded nuclear energy who complain about the ill-gotten gains of those AGW fat cats are a hoot.

 

[Furcifer]

The issue isn't how muhc you care about Watts it's you choosing to defend his anti-science

Nonsense. He's "denied" the temperature record may be accurate because of station location. He then wrote a peer reviewed scientific paper, following the scientific method, to determine if that was true or not. It's not "anti-science", it's science.

But the evidence showed just the opposite, he is was and is denying science.

lol, so every paper that contradicts your pet theory is "anti-science". If anyone contradicts your pet theory in the peer review process they're "anti-science". That's hilarious.

The facts are simple, however, he said he would accept the results of the BEST group right until it became apparent it would reject the claimed Watt's had been making.

Disagreeing with methodology is not "anti-science".

Please be specific, what science did Watts "deny" and "why". From what I remember the work was used to adjust the temperature record because there were some inaccuracies. If memory serves it proved to be warmer, not cooler. If it disproved his hypothesis it's hardly "anti-science".

 

[Furcifer]

No, it's not. How about you deal with my actual claim instead of a strawman?

The claim is nonsense. It's nothing more than name calling and a misnomer.

So you are asking me to reiterate every retarded accusations made by science deniers these past few years? Nope, ain't going to happen. We both know what I'm talking about. Don't play dumb.

lol, yes I require you to substantiate your claim with evidence.

still waiting...

I really thought you were coming around to the side of science. Guess I was wrong. How disappointing to see you fall back into your denialist ways.

As a skeptic that's what we do, we "deny" unsubstantiated claims. I have no problem being labelled a "denier" when I'm denying pseudoscience.

 

[SezMe]

You can find extremists on either side in just about every aspect of human existence, except Global Warming. That's hilarious.

This borders on paranoia stemming from a prosecution complex. I've spent too much time in the 9/11 CT forum to not spot this and point it out for what it is.

Ok, then you can provide examples of a scientist intimidating a denier by, for example, filing lawsuits against them, publishing blatantly false op-eds against them, etc.

 

[jj]

You are not exactly a bunch of nice guys. Of that we are quite sure. But Saving the World is a serious task, and it requires knitted brows, whispered warnings and hysterical ranting. It requires creating a sense of Alarm and Urgency. We can't have some thing of such importance be joked about.

Your lack of any evidence whatsoever, and your insistance on continuing to assert claims contrary to the simple, testable, verifiable facts of the matter strikes to the heart of your false claims.

You have cited no evidence and offer nothing but personal insult, as captured above.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not lying. Your denial is eviden to anyone reading this thread.

I haven't "denied" anything so I find that hard to believe. Then again you seem to have a vivid imagination so anything is possible.

He denies different things at different times, depending on what the argument is. Suffice to say, he's denied the "A" part of AGW, he's denied the "GW" part of AGW, he's denied the history of climate science and so on and so forth. Once again, I'm not going to trudge through What'sUpHisButt.org just to get quotes and win an argument against you, a science denier, but we both know what I'm talking about.

Still nothing, just empty claims. Please quote Anthony Watts and show what science he's "denied". Questioning the science or methodology isn't "denial".

Orly?

When Monckton contribute to Watt's anti-science blog, is he still fringe?

Evidence? I'd like to see what "anti-science" he's posted. I know the guy is a bit crazy, but that's all I know. I've never read anything he's written I've seen him once on a YouTube video.

Nope. Never said they did. I didn't realize you were dumb enough to ask me to list every single science denier in the world.

No, just some specific examples and what science they "deny" and why.

At the moment you sound like a Conspiracy Theorist talking about "them" and "they". It's all in your head, making mountains out of mole hills so you can validate your alarmism.

 

[mhaze]

Your lack of any evidence whatsoever, and your insistance on continuing to assert claims contrary to the simple, testable, verifiable facts of the matter strikes to the heart of your false claims.

You have cited no evidence and offer nothing but personal insult, as captured above.

I have no idea what you are talking about. To the True Believers of Warming, it should be no insult to call them such. And it greatly clarifies the matter. There are Warmers, and there are Deniers. What is a Denier? One who is not a True Believer. When you duck and dodge into sciency areas, this ignores, does not contradict, and is consistent with the religion.

It's really quite simple, you see. The behavior of people as evidenced in this thread has many of the characteristics of a religion. It has beliefs, faith, and demons who are the enemies of the faith.

You know what they say, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXFpymugbk

 

[jj]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, then, you didn't read the article I wrote.

Please, in the future, read and understand some of the actual science before you engage in personal insult.

 

[uke2se]

The claim is nonsense. It's nothing more than name calling and a misnomer.

No, it's not. Even if it was, why did you feel the need to lie about what I actually said?

lol, yes I require you to substantiate your claim with evidence.

still waiting...

It has been substantiated with evidence many times, even in this thread. Your response to the evidence: utter denial.

As a skeptic that's what we do, we "deny" unsubstantiated claims.

You're not a skeptic though.

I have no problem being labelled a "denier" when I'm denying pseudoscience.

But you aren't. You are denying actual science and embracing pseudoscience.

 

[johnny karate]

The behavior of people as evidenced in this thread has many of the characteristics of a religion. It has beliefs, faith, and demons who are the enemies of the faith.

Yes, I quite agree with this statement, but not in the manner in which it was intended:

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God.