Global Warming/Climate Change

GTWT · March 5, 2014

Why, oh, why is the CDC lying about safe sex? I mean, come on - gay, bi, straight, drugged, sober - just put a condom on...there are no "high risk" groups. That's so 80s and 90s "homophobia."

Just like the global freezing/warming hysteria...we're all at risk! Government! Government! Throw more taxpayer money at it to stop it like you've stopped poverty!

I rest my case.

UNT90 · March 5, 2014

Your 'volumes' included links to non-peer-reviewed literature - web-based publications from science-denial sites - very little from legitimate literature.

If you really think that trumps the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society you need to learn a bit more about science.

I'm sorry to come off as snarky but it's frustrating to read so much ignorance such as 'a 1970's prediction of an ice age' or 'the last decade has been cooler that other decades in the last 150 years'. If you want to be treated with respect then do better than simply regurgitating the silly arguments of Rush Limbaugh or Anthony Watts.

You never answered me. Who funds these organizations?

Is it the US government? The sane US government that said through John Kerry that global warning is an absolute?

If the entity providing your funding demands an outcome, what do you think that outcome will be?

You made a big deal about some scientists being funded by the oil companies. You know what the oil companies aren't doing? Publicly and loudly stomping their feet and yelling that climate change absolutely doesn't exist. Much unlike John Kerry. And government funding FAR outnumbers oil company funding in this research field.

But yet you have no problem with the government paying so much and demanding an outcome.

Agenda much?

KingDL1 · March 5, 2014

The Heartland Institute? Really?

I said it was just a blog, hell it could be written on a fart in the wind, does that make it false?

OK, there nothing in this world that could change your mind anyway, I get it. There is no argument here. You are sold and you don't question any of the findings that support man made global warming. Further no one should question this global warming science regardless of problems. Clearly they have no agenda, they just want to save the earth.

Me, I like to question and the more I question the less I like any of this global warming science. I am fine if we don't agree, it is what makes life interesting.

GTWT · March 5, 2014

You never answered me. Who funds these organizations?
Is it the US government? The sane US government that said through John Kerry that global warning is an absolute?
If the entity providing your funding demands an outcome, what do you think that outcome will be?
You made a big deal about some scientists being funded by the oil companies. You know what the oil companies aren't doing? Publicly and loudly stomping their feet and yelling that climate change absolutely doesn't exist. Much unlike John Kerry. And government funding FAR outnumbers oil company funding in this research field.
But yet you have no problem with the government paying so much and demanding an outcome.
Agenda much?

I get it UNT90. You don't like the government. That's your problem. Some scientists do work for government agencies, some scientists do have NSF grants. The way science works is that you pose hypotheses, you test those hypotheses, then you submit your results & wait for feedback from your peers. Who funded your research ought not, and usually doesn't, matter. Sometimes it does of course. Some scientists are dishonest, some are motivated by money, and some are ideologues BUT the vast majority are committed to finding the truth and then publishing the truth.

You project your motivation - the holy dollar bill - on everyone. You can't understand that there are people who value other things. Sorry UNT90 but that's just sad.

GTWT · March 5, 2014

I said it was just a blog, hell it could be written on a fart in the wind, does that make it false?

OK, there nothing in this world that could change your mind anyway, I get it. There is no argument here. You are sold and you don't question any of the findings that support man made global warming. Further no one should question this global warming science regardless of problems. Clearly they have no agenda, they just want to save the earth.

Me, I like to question and the more I question the less I like any of this global warming science. I am fine if we don't agree, it is what makes life interesting.

It's not just a blog KingDl. The New American is the rag of the John Birch Society.

KingDL1 · March 5, 2014

It's not just a blog KingDl. The New American is the rag of the John Birch Society.

Thank you for your opinion, rag I got it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

Is Forbes a rag also?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 5, 2014

I said it was just a blog, hell it could be written on a fart in the wind, does that make it false?

OK, there nothing in this world that could change your mind anyway, I get it. There is no argument here. You are sold and you don't question any of the findings that support man made global warming. Further no one should question this global warming science regardless of problems. Clearly they have no agenda, they just want to save the earth.

Me, I like to question and the more I question the less I like any of this global warming science. I am fine if we don't agree, it is what makes life interesting.

You're not understanding this thread very well, King:

If it's a blog with information that GTWT agrees with, it's logical and true. Any other blog is part of The John Birch Society.

Now you can approach the thread with the right frame of mind - there are no extremists on the left. Just keep that in mind and the thread will flow better.

CaribbeanGreen · March 5, 2014

You're not understanding this thread very well, King:
If it's a blog with information that GTWT agrees with, it's logical and true. Any other blog is part of The John Birch Society.
Now you can approach the thread with the right frame of mind - there are no extremists on the left. Just keep that in mind and the thread will flow better.

Wait, wasn't he just making a singular point here? I mean, he's completely right. They don't hide that fact at the New American.

In addition to political topics, The New American also publishes articles about economics (from a free-enterprise perspective of course!), culture, and history. It is published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.

UNT90 · March 5, 2014

I get it UNT90. You don't like the government. That's your problem. Some scientists do work for government agencies, some scientists do have NSF grants. The way science works is that you pose hypotheses, you test those hypotheses, then you submit your results & wait for feedback from your peers. Who funded your research ought not, and usually doesn't, matter. Sometimes it does of course. Some scientists are dishonest, some are motivated by money, and some are ideologues BUT the vast majority are committed to finding the truth and then publishing the truth.

You project your motivation - the holy dollar bill - on everyone. You can't understand that there are people who value other things. Sorry UNT90 but that's just sad.

Lol. Ya, that's me. Money motivated. Thanks for the morning laugh.

So you have no problem with the federal government screaming that global warming is an absolute and then funding global warning research?

Yet you have a problem with anyone accepting funding from oil companies that have made no proclamation one way or the other.

Just wanted to repeat yet again so all could see your hypocrisy.

Look at the vitriolic ways the global warming "scientists" attack any research that contradicts their own beliefs. Is that science? Is that how scientist react to alternative information?

Or is that someone afraid of losing their government grant?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 5, 2014

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

Just a blog so it cannot be true, still a fun read.

How will that ever work? There's no money to be made off of global warming not happening! Haven't you read? It has to be happening. And, it has to be the fault of man and oil companies. Just like the global cooling 40 years ago. Mankind and their dastardly oil companies!

Warming or cooling! Warming or cooling! It has to be one or the other: there is no random in the weather! EVAR!

Settle down and take your global warming...or, cooling...or, whichever it is we're selling this generation!

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 5, 2014

Wait, wasn't he just making a singular point here? I mean, he's completely right. They don't hide that fact at the New American.

In addition to political topics, The New American also publishes articles about economics (from a free-enterprise perspective of course!), culture, and history. It is published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.

Of course. But, John Birch is something he likes to throw around. If we would all just accept that whatever GTWT disagrees with is right wing John Birchers, everything in the world will be clearer to us.

UNT90 · March 5, 2014

Some scientists are dishonest, some are motivated by money, and some are ideologues BUT the vast majority are committed to finding the truth and then publishing the truth.

.

But only those scientist you disagree with, right? Only those scientist that question the new human religion of global warming, right?

I mean, it only makes sense, right?

Edited March 5, 2014 by UNT90

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 5, 2014

But only those scientist you disagree with, right? Only those scientist that question the new human religion of global warming, right?
I mean, it only makes sense, right?

Those aren't really scientists - they are infiltrators from The John Birch Society. Get your facts straight.

yyz28 · March 5, 2014

Your 'volumes' included links to non-peer-reviewed literature - web-based publications from science-denial sites - very little from legitimate literature.

If you really think that trumps the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society you need to learn a bit more about science.

I'm sorry to come off as snarky but it's frustrating to read so much ignorance such as 'a 1970's prediction of an ice age' or 'the last decade has been cooler that other decades in the last 150 years'. If you want to be treated with respect then do better than simply regurgitating the silly arguments of Rush Limbaugh or Anthony Watts.

You just can't stop can you? You can't actually answer the arguments made, you can only attempt to attack the creditability of the person offering the argument. Throwing up excuse after excuse as to why you won't even give the arguments an effort.

...so back again you go to calling on the "ignorance" of the claim about the climate over the past 10 years (which absolutely DOES show cooling, I've posted the data from the NAS earlier in this thread showing that fact, and explaining why many in the scientific community call into question the validity of the NOAA data) and both I and TFLF (quite brilliantly, I might add) dismantled this BS that nobody in the 70's were panicking about global cooling. It wasn't just the NY times, as shown by the funding being spent on studying it as well as briefs by the CIA preparing for the result of massive cooling. Articles posted today trying to discredit what was in fact an issue of large-scale concern is sort of like the "Captain Hindsight" episode of South Park.

Everyone's seeing the pattern here right? Anything the opposition posts isn't peer reviewed or from "legitimate literature" (as measured by what, I wonder).

...I wonder if the small outcroppings of dissenting written word during the infancy of our revolution and ultimate founding were looked upon by imperialists as not peer-reviewed or "legitimate". Sometimes, to get information out when you're speaking of a position not held by the "legitimate majority" you have to get the data out there as you can. I notice that you have yet to go into the science of anything i posted and respond to it on a scientific basis. All, so far, you have done is call it illegitimate and attempt to discredit it and the authors instead of telling us WHY.

Frankly, I don't think you are ignorant. I'm not going to drop to the pathetic level of name calling. I think you are looking at the science that supports your point of view and, yes, politics, and running with it. That is fine. ...but be honest in what you are doing. You haven't really looked at what those of us who disagree with you have posted, and you certainly haven't argued any of it away. You've tried to cast me as Rush Limbaugh, but haven't taken the science and conclusions within the items that have been posted in debate on at all. You only have moved to try and discredit the source, not the data. Again, this is the sign of a weak argument.

mattmartin817 · March 5, 2014

Is TFLF a satire? Look at his new avatar, this has to be a bit. Is this part of the whole Andrew scheme?

"And when you do have the married sex it should be missionary only with minimal eye contact"-TFLF

ChristopherRyanWilkes · March 5, 2014

"And when you do have the married sex it should be missionary only with minimal eye contact"-TFLF

Fully clothed, for pro-creation purposes only.

GTWT · March 5, 2014

Xyy, Lonnie, 90,

Please post something, anything, in the scientific literature that supports your position. Not Newsweek, not the New York Times, not New American but Nature or Science or Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Until you do I'll hold the opinion that you are all representative of right-wing ideologues - short-sighted, simple-minded, and ignorant. I say that with all due respect.

MeanGreenTexan · March 5, 2014

Xyy, Lonnie, 90,

Please post something, anything, in the scientific literature that supports your position. Not Newsweek, not the New York Times, not New American but Nature or Science or Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Until you do I'll hold the opinion that you are all representative of right-wing ideologues - short-sighted, simple-minded, and ignorant. I say that with all due respect.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 5, 2014

No. We've posted articles quoting the scientists and their research. That's enough. You go dig through the stuff.

If I read in a reliable news report that, say, Dan McCarney has signed a new contract, I don't have to go read the contract itself to believe it. I didn't personally see the 1969 World Series, but I've read that the New York Mets won it from people who were there and wrote about it.

NY Times, Newsweek, all of them, cite the scientists, along with either the work they produced or the universities or orgnaziations they worked for. We don't have to go find the entire study just for you. We already know what your opinion is. We just happen not to believe it. You should be able to be a big boy and live with it.

GTWT · March 5, 2014

The point, Lonnie, is that there is damn little in the scientific literature that casts doubt on anthropogenic climate change. The articles you cite are written by journalists - often with a bias - not by scientists. Journalists who are trained to present both sides to a issue, even if one side is pseudoscience.

If there is any truth to the idea that the earth's climate isn't changing, or the idea that the change is due to something other than man's release of fossil carbon, then you should be able to find support for those ideas in the scientific literature. Obviously you can't.

One explanation is that 90 is right and nearly all scientists are faking data and fudging interpretations to keep their government funding. Or maybe, just maybe, the physicists are right about CO2 being a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere, the atmospheric scientists are right about the level of CO2 increasing as a result of humans burning coal, oil, and natural gas, and the climatologists are right about about the effect all of this will have on the climate our children will have to live in.

I'm tired of hearing the same silly garbage. If you want to believe that a scientific consensus agreed with global cooling in the 70s, then have at it. If 90 wants to believe that all scientists are money-grubbing liars, then he's welcome to. It's sad but there's obviously nothing in science that will trump your ideology.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 5, 2014

Yes, the journalists at the New York Times, TIME, and Newsweek have so often been shills for conservative political efforts. How could they be trusted to interview scientists and report on their studies without injecting their well known right wing bias? :rolleyes:

The next thing you'll be telling in is that MSNBC is a front organization for The John Birch Society because when they report on anything environment, they don't read word-for-word the scientific papers and journals about which they report.

The point is, not every one - not even among scientists - agree with climate change theories espoused by the various Henny Pennies of science.

And, some, who shill for it today are the same who shilled for global cooling and other such nonsense and overpopulation in the 1970s, such as Obama's science bozo John Holdren. That isn't left wing or right wing opinion - that's just historical fact.

meangreener · March 6, 2014

Yes, the journalists at the New York Times, TIME, and Newsweek have so often been shills for conservative political efforts. How could they be trusted to interview scientists and report on their studies without injecting their well known right wing bias?

The next thing you'll be telling in is that MSNBC is a front organization for The John Birch Society because when they report on anything environment, they don't read word-for-word the scientific papers and journals about which they report.

The point is, not every one - not even among scientists - agree with climate change theories espoused by the various Henny Pennies of science.

And, some, who shill for it today are the same who shilled for global cooling and other such nonsense and overpopulation in the 1970s, such as Obama's science bozo John Holdren. That isn't left wing or right wing opinion - that's just historical fact.

97% is a pretty overwhelming concensus for science in 2014.

JustSayin'

UNT90 · March 6, 2014

Xyy, Lonnie, 90,

Please post something, anything, in the scientific literature that supports your position. Not Newsweek, not the New York Times, not New American but Nature or Science or Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Until you do I'll hold the opinion that you are all representative of right-wing ideologues - short-sighted, simple-minded, and ignorant. I say that with all due respect.

Already have. You dismissed it because they weren't the "right" scientists.

Because you have that global warming religion deep down in your soul.

Preach, brother! Preach!