More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
.

I'm not sold on either position, although like I said it doesn't take much reading to figure out what most scientists think (with valid criticisms from the other side). The problem is with the ideologues on the fringe on either side: those who believe with religious fervor that the other side is wrong.

And what I hate the most is how this debate has been politicized (with folks like Rush Limbaugh on the one hand, and Al Gore on the other equally responsible). It saddens me that it is "conservative" to view a scientific issue one way, and "liberal" to view it another.

It should not be that way.
Well bugger me I never thought I would say it, but I agree with you.:stunned:
The problem is the politics. Not so much the reasoned science. Of course most of the scientific researchers depend on the public purse for their income and therefore tend to push the party line of the Government of the day.
Something about not biting the hand that feeds you. When that happens the science tends to get blurred and manipulated.
 
'doesn't change the fact that there is a large amount of good data and that the vast majority of scientists involved in this debate on BOTH sides try to be objective as they can'

Simply not the case. There is no good data; that is empirically derived from observation. All the Global average datasets are produced from selected stations in the GHCN which is itself highly contaminated. Sea surface temp data (70% of earth surface) is even worse, being all but useless until the advent of the Argo bouy network starting in the '80's . The 'data' that the science rests on is derived from computer models, none of which have ever been validated successfuly against observation . The one thing that is plain to see in the Climategate emails is that this uncertainty is acknowledged by many in the science - but only to each other and absolutely never in public, as this would diminish the progress of their 'cause'.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
You are making a value judgment based on your belief as to the strength of the data. Others think the global temperature monitoring stations, sea temp figures, satellite data and historical records are sufficient. You don't.

Are you a climate scientist?

I think it is pretty evident why some climate scientists are reluctant to discuss doubt in public. It's because the political machine on "one side" (there are two, and both are problematic) jump on ANY doubt or any shard of contrary data to claim it is all a hoax.

I wish the small group of scientists involved in these e-mails had been more open and less, well, childish, about discussing these issues, but it doesn't change the fact that most scientists and almost all climate scientists think we have enough solid data to conclude the earth is warming, and that warming is being caused in part by humans.

I still have my personal reservations about it, and again some of their behavior is disappointing, but what scares me more is the "it's all a con!" stuff from the other side.
 
It is a small group of scientists, but they are the ones who lead the science, select papers for publication, review each others work and hold the editorship of the various chapters of the IPCC AR4/5. Frankly they are a cabal and wield influence out of all proportion to their number.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Which is probably true of ANY scientific speciality.

What makes climate science any different?

Have you read Kuhn's "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions?"
 
Jim, I think many of us believe that we should do as much as we can to be "conservative" with our use of energy. Whether we believe Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi is another matter. Newt was expressing more of my first point.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Before this issue got politicized, lots of conservatives and liberals supported it.

Then Al Gore made his documentary, which turned this into a "cause of the left," which in turn made the Mush Limberjaws of the world take up the opposing viewpoint as a "cause of the right," which made this a huge silly political mess rather than a scientific question.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Dom,

Don't forget that both Rick Perry and Newt supported Al Gore, before it became purly "political". Were they wrong then, or wrong now?
 
And, "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated." Isn't political at all.

How Limbaugh gets blamed for this is amusing. He finds an actual news item that gets buried by the MSM and publicizes it. He didn't make it up, but because he isn't a left wing sycophant, he somehow is to blame for a reality the comrades don't want to hear.

P.S. it sure didn't take "Jimmie Craik Corn and I Don't Care" very long to stop his self imposed moment in the dunce's corner. Hahahahahahahahaha
 
Put even another way, a lot of people used to support this baloney because they were manipulated by lies, distortions, and the political agenda of the Vast Global Left Wing Conspiracy.

Truth, logic, and reality always seem to get in the way of these nut job gangsters.
 
It is a small group of scientists, but they are the ones who lead the science, select papers for publication, review each others work and hold the editorship of the various chapters of the IPCC AR4/5. Frankly they are a cabal and wield influence out of all proportion to their number.
Colin's statement can't be improved upon.
 
Before this issue got politicized, lots of conservatives and liberals supported it.

Then Al Gore made his documentary, which turned this into a "cause of the left," which in turn made the Mush Limberjaws of the world take up the opposing viewpoint as a "cause of the right," which made this a huge silly political mess rather than a scientific question.
Bull. This has always been generated by the left. Like any conspiracy with this many people involved, the truth filters out eventually. The truth is filtering out, its a hoax.

All you've got now is "But what if we are right?"
 
Here is someone who believes it, when Newt was out of politics with no axe to grind, he supported both Nancy and Al Gore.
Newt is a weak legged flip flop puppet that has a closet full of crap...
But in a pinch vs Obama he would get my vote......it sickens me just thinking about it...
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Craig,

You said you are backing the other "weak legged flip flop puppet" Mr Perry, who also backed Al Gore.

Have you changed your mind?
 
Jim I'm underwhelmed with all the running republicans....and yes I was hoping that Perry was going to be the one...but his deer in the headlights appearance and the lack of ability to debate has hurt his chances...you must remember modern times dictate that words and how you say them mean more than the actions you take.
an empty suit can be elected as long as he or she looks and speaks nice..
Now back to reality...I still believe whomever runs against Obama will most likely beat him. Tattoo this economy on obama's back and game over..
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Craig,

CBS News (article excerpts)
(CBS) President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush’s final approval rating at 22 percent.
Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.
Vice President Dick Cheney also leaves office amid negative perceptions, as his approval rating stands at just 13 percent

Dick Cheney could not beat anyone!


Additionally, none of the Republican candidates can beat Obama period!
 
Top