Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers?

Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:30 PM
 
What I find funny about those sorts of polls other than the fact that you shave off tens of percentage points they are still bothersome, is that I can't understand why it wouldn't seem completely obvious to the person taking the poll what the poll will be used for. I mean, picture the conversation:

"Hi, this is Research 2000. Are you a Republican"

"Yes sir, a proud Republican"

"Okay then, do you think Obama is a racist?"

"Do you think he is a socialist?"


I mean, this poll is designed to either paint Republicans as unreasonable, or to demonstrate fear towards Obama. Why wouldn't this occur to the person taking the poll? Isn't this sort of like asking "do you pick your nose?" - i.e. the sort of answers you keep to yourself?

Weird.
( Last edited by besson3c; Feb 2, 2010 at 06:39 PM. )
     
dedalus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:31 PM
 
‘theory’, lol
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
HA! LOL!

I'd like to know when the first time you've done this was, because everything you post is opinion stated as fact.

In fact, Greg has posted hundreds of scientifically backed facts and sources in the GW thread while you simply continue with the very trait you assign to every liberal.
Greg thinks he's been posting facts.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Greg thinks he's been posting facts.

Weren't you also the guy to go on about "opinion stated as fact"? Without more substantive argument from you this is basically just opinion.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:56 PM
 
It's a fact trap!

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I can sort of understand people that dispute Global Warming on the grounds of some competing theory, but what kills me is people who disbelieve it based on their gut feelings, or people that seem like they are looking for reasons to disbelieve it where every week we hear a new explanation.
I dunno, I guess the faked and tampered with data makes the conclusions suspect. They are trying to spin it and minimize the damage. More crap is discovered every day, like where were the Chinese weather stations - they won't say. The school report used as a basis to claim the glaciers were vanishing? I guess garbage in gospel out.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 07:01 PM
 
It's true. Republicans have facts. All Democrats have are lies.

Example.

FACT: No terrorist attack under Pres. Bush.

Both Giuliani and Perino have mentioned this fact.

Perino: No Terrorist Attacks In America Under Bush (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_416033.html


Of course Democrats would lie through their teeth with examples like 9/11. 9/11 was under Pres. Clinton.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I dunno, I guess the faked and tampered with data makes the conclusions suspect. They are trying to spin it and minimize the damage. More crap is discovered every day, like where were the Chinese weather stations - they won't say. The school report used as a basis to claim the glaciers were vanishing? I guess garbage in gospel out.
Ever hear of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

As sek says, there are sometimes problems with how the data is aggregated, and of course individual studies that are suspect, but the overwhelming truth is that there is a global scientific consensus on the basic premise of global warming and man contributing to it.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
That wasn't an example of "chicken little." That was averted because of a surge of investment in developing-country agriculture in the late 1950s and 1960s, sparked in part because of these dire predictions. You just cited an example of why we should listen to scientists and provide them with a lot of money.
I'm not talking about starving in third world countries predicted in the late 40's. I'm talking about predictions of world-wide famine due to over-population made in the late 60's.

The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I haven't made up my mind one way or another, but when it comes to who I'll side with it's going to be thousands of scientists over a few conservatives on a Macintosh web board that 'know the real deal.'
Wow. Good thing there are at least that many who don't think that there's enough scientific evidence of an oncoming man-made global warming catastrophe!

[quote]
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Here's my take on it. Climate change is a fact.
Virtually no one denies that. The question isn't whether climate change happens. The argument is always framed that way however in order to make the opposition to OTHER things appear to be unreasonable.

The question is whether man contributes significantly to this change and if so is there anything that can be done. It's this to which there is considerable reasonable differences of scientific opinion.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:37 PM
 
Can we perhaps cease from turning this thread into another GW debate thread? There are 20394820394 others for that, and I'm growing tired of the charts and graphs orgies and the usual stuff that goes along with this debate.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:46 PM
 
The biggest thing that turns many people (and not just Republicans as this typically overly-simplistic thread would imply) off about the whole Global warming thing, is not that it's not a good idea to most people to conserve energy and keep the environment as clean as possible. It's that, as with a lot of things, the political pundits on the matter have taken what most everyone can agree is are good ideas -conserve energy, make things more efficient, keep things clean- and turned it into this idiotic "OH SHIT WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!! EEEK! IF WE DON'T DO WHAT X Y AND Z POLITICAL HACK DEMANDS RIGHT THIS INSTANT, WE'RE ALL GOING TO FREEZE.. NO WAIT, BURN UP... NO FREEZE... NO, JUST... CHANGE!!!!!!! IT'S DOOMSDAY!! THE END OF THE WORLD!! AAARRGGHHHHBLAHGAHBHGHGAHHHGHAHAGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"

So normal people roll their eyes and go, "Okay, you're ****ing crazy. No, I'm not giving up my house, the exact car I love to drive, light bulbs, AC, modern appliances, internal combustion engines, food I like, etc. etc. etc because some bunch of screwballs are convinced the world is going to end if I don't do what they say."

The disconnect grows even wider when the same people realize that those shouting doomsday the loudest often don't themselves do what they say either.

So basically if the rabid political hacks would step aside and let more rational people control the environmental debate, more headway might be made. Sure there are a lot of people doing what eGore does- using way more electricity and resources than they could probably get by on- but that's just the problem. Many simply aren't going to listen to blatant hypocrites and doomsday-bible- thumping political hacks to tell them otherwise, any more than most of us are swayed by street-corner hacks preaching at us about whatever 'sins' they're insisting are going to lead to some immanent 'doomsday'.

How about some Climate Change we can believe in?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:52 PM
 
Which makes CRASH and I in total agreement.

What is the world coming to?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The question is whether man contributes significantly to this change and if so is there anything that can be done. It's this to which there is considerable reasonable differences of scientific opinion.
I almost feel this side of the debate needs to be removed from the larger picture of energy dependence and funding alternative energies. As far as I'm concerned, we should be taking care of both regardless of our 'factual' impact on climate change.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 11:35 PM
 
Crash: makes sense, but do you really think that it is all of the rabid zealots that make the nay-sayers disbelieve the science? If so, I would bet that some people in here would disagree with this notion, and more often then not they seem to be Republicans.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2010, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Greg thinks he's been posting facts.
Yes, instead I've been posting studies by liberal scientists who are all tampering with their research in order to support some world-government agenda.

We get it.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not talking about starving in third world countries predicted in the late 40's. I'm talking about predictions of world-wide famine due to over-population made in the late 60's.

The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A distinction without difference. "The Population Bomb" was written in the late 1960s at an odd sort of inflection point, without taking into account the exponential effects that 1950s and 1960s agricultural investments would have in the 1970s and beyond (some of which were only obvious in hindsight). I'm not sure that "The Population Bomb" had the same kind of widespread acceptance as the earlier concerns, either.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I almost feel this side of the debate needs to be removed from the larger picture of energy dependence and funding alternative energies. As far as I'm concerned, we should be taking care of both regardless of our 'factual' impact on climate change.
I agree.

I've always said that there are reasons to not pollute and to reduce our dependence that has nothing to due with potentially fudged science.

The problem is that if there isn't an oncoming catastrophe to deal with, the amount of sacrifice people are willing to deal with will be a lot less, and the goals of those who are at the extreme position in this debate won't ever get exactly what they want. Therefore, we get the scenario Crash set up for us.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
A distinction without difference.
I'd say a prediction made some 25 years after the policies you mentioned where already put into place and starting to work is quite a great distinction.

"The Population Bomb" was written in the late 1960s at an odd sort of inflection point, without taking into account the exponential effects that 1950s and 1960s agricultural investments would have in the 1970s and beyond (some of which were only obvious in hindsight). I'm not sure that "The Population Bomb" had the same kind of widespread acceptance as the earlier concerns, either.
We were told in the late sixties/early seventies that increased world population would cause sure global catastrophe. The policies you mentioned which you claimed staved it off started 25 years before these predictions were even made and were having an effect at the time the predictions were made. We were told despite the efforts that were made, that evidence existed that surely pointed to drastic calamities unless we stopped reproducing and using our natural resources.

It was all bunk. It was just another left-wing "chicken little" scheme backed by flawed science to get us to adopt policies preferred by "progressives" which achieved goals they had regardless of whether or not a global catastrophe was going to really occur.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'd say a prediction made some 25 years after the policies you mentioned where already put into place and starting to work is quite a great distinction.



We were told in the late sixties/early seventies that increased world population would cause sure global catastrophe. The policies you mentioned which you claimed staved it off started 25 years before these predictions were even made and were having an effect at the time the predictions were made. We were told despite the efforts that were made, that evidence existed that surely pointed to drastic calamities unless we stopped reproducing and using our natural resources.

It was all bunk. It was just another left-wing "chicken little" scheme backed by flawed science to get us to adopt policies preferred by "progressives" which achieved goals they had regardless of whether or not a global catastrophe was going to really occur.
I don't think anything you wrote here contradicts anything I wrote above (except maybe it would have been clearer if I said "second-order effects" rather than "exponential"), so...yay? +1? Argument for the sake of argument and all of that?

Anyway, wouldn't we have all died from a nuclear war before we got a chance to starve first?
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Feb 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Yes, instead I've been posting studies by liberal scientists who are all tampering with their research in order to support some world-government agenda.

We get it.
You forgot to add in the garbage in - garbage out concept of science. When you have CLEAN DATA, not the tampered with, fixed and improved BS data then you get back to us. Assuming your conclusions won't change with correct data seems like pop science.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You forgot to add in the garbage in - garbage out concept of science. When you have CLEAN DATA, not the tampered with, fixed and improved BS data then you get back to us. Assuming your conclusions won't change with correct data seems like pop science.
You did forget to mention this ShortcutToMoncton. Have you done any research on this at all!?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2010, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You forgot to add in the garbage in - garbage out concept of science. When you have CLEAN DATA, not the tampered with, fixed and improved BS data then you get back to us.
The irony is strong with this one.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Ever hear of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

As sek says, there are sometimes problems with how the data is aggregated, and of course individual studies that are suspect, but the overwhelming truth is that there is a global scientific consensus on the basic premise of global warming and man contributing to it.
So we should trust those we've caught fudging science data? The problem is far deeper than that. The questionable morals of these pop scientists and what lies haven't we discovered is the other shoe. It has the appearance of making up data to match the assumptions (not even gonna give them credit for any theories). I sure don't trust the science. The longer the data gets examined the more problems keep appearing.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
You did forget to mention this ShortcutToMoncton. Have you done any research on this at all!?
Good question. Have these 'scientists' done any either?
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 11:37 AM
 
...
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
You did forget to mention this ShortcutToMoncton. Have you done any research on this at all!?
Heh.

Well it's really an argument started under false pretences, because there's almost no such thing as "clean data." Things never work out cleanly. Just ask a first-year biology student who has to do the most simple and basic experiment in the lab; you almost never get the "right answer" that you're supposed to get. I think those on this board doing scientific work would probably say that working with "imperfect data" is simply a fact of life. So those starting from the point that "clean data" must be required are really being quite disingenuous of course.

The corollary is that I would be absolutely stunned if you ever met a scientist of any type who would say that their data set is good enough. I would think that this would hardly be any more true than in the area of "earth and atmospheric science" (or whatever you want to call the overall field of climate science... by now it seems to be made up of every type of scientific discipline.) Everyone knows that we need more data.

Has there been "bad data"? Of course. What's interesting however is that off the top of my head I can't think of any such problem that has been discovered that has gone against the prevailing theory of AGW. I mean, there've been posts here recently crowing about the inaccurate statements made in IPCC reports regarding the Himalayan glaciers... and that's correct, those statements weren't right. But it's not like that really changed anything; those glaciers are still in rough shape.

So the question I have for people like BadKosh is:

How much data is "enough?"

For me, this is where it gets interesting.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
How much data is "enough?"
It's enough when it shows the opposite outcome. Keep collecting and keep your mouth shut until that happens.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So we should trust those we've caught fudging science data? The problem is far deeper than that. The questionable morals of these pop scientists and what lies haven't we discovered is the other shoe. It has the appearance of making up data to match the assumptions (not even gonna give them credit for any theories). I sure don't trust the science. The longer the data gets examined the more problems keep appearing.

The grand conspiracy hat just doesn't work for me, sorry.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post

So the question I have for people like BadKosh is:

How much data is "enough?"

For me, this is where it gets interesting.

greg
Just to summarize because I don't think you have been paying attention.


American Thinker: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 04:40 PM
 
Don't headlines like that and the recent article headlines on that site just want to make you dive in and read an opinion piece like that and treat it as factual?
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Don't headlines like that and the recent article headlines on that site just want to make you dive in and read an opinion piece like that and treat it as factual?
To be fair, they did get the date wrong, 2035 instead of 2350, which looks to be a transcription error. And the reason it was found, is that all the work they cited was available to be looked over.

Regardless, I'm amazed at the amount of hay that is made over small editing errors. If one brick is bad in your building, the argument goes, you tear down the whole building, instead of replacing that one brick.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
Just to summarize because I don't think you have been paying attention.


American Thinker: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks

Soooo... is that you deliberately not answering my question?


greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 05:13 PM
 
With a title like that you know the article is going to be unbiased.

The world will not end in 50 years due to climate change.

The majority of climate scientists are doing their job to the best of their ability, which is better than people who aren't scientists.

Both extremes are hilarious to me.

"I think Al Gore (who is a f**king politician btw) was wrong with his assessment of our climate impact, therefore all climate scientists are crooks."

Genius
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 06:52 PM
 
So Greg, have YOU gathered data and done your own unbiased research, or are you just parroting those who altered the data to fit their hypotheses?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 07:19 PM
 
So now you're claiming that everyone has to go out and do their own data-collecting and research on scientific matters? That thousands and thousands of research scientists across the globe are all "altering the data to fit their hypotheses"?


You know that's ludicrous, right?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So Greg, have YOU gathered data and done your own unbiased research, or are you just parroting those who altered the data to fit their hypotheses?
You have your own data in an excel spreadsheet or something?

Also, I like how the two statements on either side of the 'or' aren't even related.

Do you like hamburgers, or is today Tuesday? Well?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So Greg, have YOU gathered data and done your own unbiased research, or are you just parroting those who altered the data to fit their hypotheses?
Did you design and build that computer you're posting nonsense on?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's easy:

Republicans tend to have faith in God
Democrats tend to to have faith in substitute religions (Global Warming, Socialism, Fairness, World Peace etc...)

-t
So, Global Warming, Socialism, Fairness and World Peace are false gods?
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 08:59 PM
 
In the 80s and 90s, when socialism's stature as a legitimate political and intellectual force was in serious crisis, leading socialist thinkers postulated that the only way socialism could be resurrected was through the prospect of environmental crisis.

It is no coincidence that socialist policies of heavy taxation, redistributive spending, and sweeping industry regulation have since resurfaced under the auspice of a coming "global warming catastrophe." The "data" that is used to support this naturally comes from very dubious research.

That is why Republicans are skeptical.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, Global Warming, Socialism, Fairness and World Peace are false gods?
The gods that failed us.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, Global Warming, Socialism, Fairness and World Peace are false gods?
Probably better described as false religions. Belief without evidence is faith, and all religions require some amount of it. None of those things mentioned exist in pure form, either, so they represent ideals -- another characteristic of a religious movement.

Rodney King could be the Pope of Fairness: Can't we all just get along?

WRT Global warming, there's just way too much money and quality of life involved for many people, and for me, personally, the whole "world vs. US" is a tip-off that something is rotten in Denmark (or maybe Copenhagen). As I've said before, when India and China are actually willing to sign on to something that impacts THEIR economies and standards of living proportionately, I'll start considering AGW to be viable.

Until then, it looks to me, a trained scientist and intellectual (shudder), to be a big scam for lowering the US standard of living and giving that wealth to others.

And I think that if you tallied up everyone who thinks it's a scam you'd find lots of conservatives, but not necessarily lots of Republicans. Unlike the zombies on the other side, conservatives can actually disagree about some things and still fit under the tent.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
So now you're claiming that everyone has to go out and do their own data-collecting and research on scientific matters? That thousands and thousands of research scientists across the globe are all "altering the data to fit their hypotheses"?
Thousands and thousands of research scientists aren't claiming catastrophic AGW, they don't have to collectively fudge their data. You have a select few authors and politicians citing catastrophic AGW in one sentence of a policy summary statement and we have documented evidence of altering the data supplied to them. It follows logically since their concern is more for global politics than it has ever been for global climate.


You know that's ludicrous, right?
Yes, of course it would be ludicrous to launch sweeping initiatives with large economic implications because of a few zealots who alter data to support a political agenda.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
In the 80s and 90s, when socialism's stature as a legitimate political and intellectual force was in serious crisis, leading socialist thinkers postulated that the only way socialism could be resurrected was through the prospect of environmental crisis.
Obama's former Czar Van Jones has said this himself.

It is no coincidence that socialist policies of heavy taxation, redistributive spending, and sweeping industry regulation have since resurfaced under the auspice of a coming "global warming catastrophe." The "data" that is used to support this naturally comes from very dubious research.

That is why Republicans are skeptical.
Exactly. That's why everyone should be skeptical. When the science has to be fudged, then it's clear that the agenda is what is most important.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 02:16 PM
 
OK, I'm late to the party, but here goes...

Is it not slightly odd that the "cure" for "climate change" is to run with traditionally "leftist" philosophy and ban everything that "the left" has always hated?

For example, the left has always hated expensive cars, because they're status symbols. So to cure climate change, expensive cars (which generally require more fuel) get a "guzzler" tax or a higher yearly tax rate. It doesn't matter to the left that the Ferrari might be sitting in the garage for most of the year and only do 500 miles while the crapmobiles which don't attract the higher taxes do 50,000 per year and thus contribute much more pollution.
Now, if it was really about combating climate change the tax would be on fuel, not price of car or size of engine. But it's not about that - it's about introducing Marxian philosophy by stealth. Period.

Green is the new red.

Which is why more Dems than GOPpers tend to be warmists. Plus, Dems are morons who'll fall for anything as long as there's a nice logo and someone says the word "change" a few zillion times.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
"I think Al Gore (who is a f**king politician btw) was wrong with his assessment of our climate impact, therefore all climate scientists are crooks."
But then, asking the IPCC if climate change exists is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. What would they called themselves if climate change was proven to not exist? And would they work at McDonalds or Burger King?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 04:00 PM
 
Geez guys...

There is healthy skepticism, but there is also downright paranoia.

I really do think that you guys are literally afraid and/or paranoid of the socialist boogieman, and not just because of climate change. Do you have any idea how far we are away from being a socialist country? What you guys are doing is like putting an SUV on one set of balancing scales, and then absolutely positively freaking out about somebody throwing a grape on the other side. How can our free markets be so incredibly awesome and powerful yet so simultaneously fragile?

Of course, the very notion that I would question your level of passion/fear/paranoia/consternation probably makes me a socialist, huh?

Boo!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post

I like how the two statements on either side of the 'or' aren't even related.
The question was if Greg was just parroting the left propaganda or whether he had identical evidence/data, un-tampered with. Greg has linked to many others work and explained his side of the issue, but the information he has presented is also questionable. I'm sure he didn't have access to the raw data. How could he be sure?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The question was if Greg was just parroting the left propaganda or whether he had identical evidence/data, un-tampered with. Greg has linked to many others work and explained his side of the issue, but the information he has presented is also questionable. I'm sure he didn't have access to the raw data. How could he be sure?
"The information he has presented is also questionable"?

How is it questionable? On what basis do you make that statement?

You seem to be saying that because someone else collected the information, and because that someone was a scientist, then the information is "questionable."

I'm sorry, but if this is what you're saying then this is the most stupid argument I've ever heard.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I'm sorry, but if this is what you're saying then this is the most stupid argument I've ever heard.

greg
Which is a new high for him, or new low...whichever is worse.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,