Global Warming/Climate Change

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Hi Lonnie,

Any specific examples of scientists caught lying to keep their government grants? Let's discuss specific instances rather than the rather cowardly attempt to blacken an entire profession.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Already posted this. And, that was the second time they were caught fudging numbers. First time was in 2009. They were then "exonerated" of cooking the books...then, caught again in 2011.

There is big money and governmental expansion/regulation - which leads to money taxpayer paid jobs and reasearch - to be had. No reason to let research that confounds your theory stand in the way...especially when other people's money is there to be had.

Meanwhile, as K Street multiplies lobbyists quicker than cockroaches, there is a government professor saying they have no effect. Her scholarly journals say they don't, so how could it be?

Academics. Gotta love 'em.

[meangreendork]

An independent analysis cleared the CRU researchers of wrongdoing, numerous scientifc organizations have ruled the scandal out, in addition to two media organizations and the Associated Press.

Just wanted to put that out there.

Here's the source for the info:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

I'm not saying people won't manipulate information in such a way to support their views, but if the information is still solid, then the information is solid.

[GTWT]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Already posted this. And, that was the second time they were caught fudging numbers. First time was in 2009. They were then "exonerated" of cooking the books...then, caught again in 2011.

There is big money and governmental expansion/regulation - which leads to money taxpayer paid jobs and reasearch - to be had. No reason to let research that confounds your theory stand in the way...especially when other people's money is there to be had.

Meanwhile, as K Street multiplies lobbyists quicker than cockroaches, there is a government professor saying they have no effect. Her scholarly journals say they don't, so how could it be?

Academics. Gotta love 'em.

Yep, you posted it and I responded to it. MeanGreenDork has posted links to the investigations that found no wrong-doing just above this.

So, Lonnie, what were the lies told to keep government grants?

Hint - it ain't 'climategate' but keep trying.

Oh! It has nothing to do with your government instructor. That's irrelevant.

[GTWT]

This discussion raises the question, 'why is science denial so strongly linked to conservatism?'

I know there are conservatives who understand and accept science. I know there are liberals and moderates who reject science (e.g., the irrational phobia of nuclear power by some progressives). But still, it seems that evolution-denial, climate science-denial, population crisis-denial all seem to be championed by by the political right.

Any hypotheses?

[MeanGreenTexan]

This discussion raises the question, 'why is science denial so strongly linked to conservatism?'

I know there are conservatives who understand and accept science. I know there are liberals and moderates who reject science (e.g., the irrational phobia of nuclear power by some progressives). But still, it seems that evolution-denial, climate science-denial, population crisis-denial all seem to be championed by by the political right.

Any hypotheses?

give this a listen:

It also goes for left-wing folks who choose to fund and believe what they want. Politicians are bad people on the whole. Doesn't matter which side you like.

[Stix]

This discussion raises the question, 'why is science denial so strongly linked to conservatism?'

I know there are conservatives who understand and accept science. I know there are liberals and moderates who reject science (e.g., the irrational phobia of nuclear power by some progressives). But still, it seems that evolution-denial, climate science-denial, population crisis-denial all seem to be championed by by the political right.

Any hypotheses?

Or is it that the media creates that impression? You call it denial, I would call it skepticism.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Already posted this. And, that was the second time they were caught fudging numbers. First time was in 2009. They were then "exonerated" of cooking the books...then, caught again in 2011.

There is big money and governmental expansion/regulation - which leads to money taxpayer paid jobs and reasearch - to be had. No reason to let research that confounds your theory stand in the way...especially when other people's money is there to be had.

Meanwhile, as K Street multiplies lobbyists quicker than cockroaches, there is a government professor saying they have no effect. Her scholarly journals say they don't, so how could it be?

Academics. Gotta love 'em.

Did you actually look at the pictures...??. good luck with that one . Guess you are someone that wants to believe what someone just says and not what can be seen...

A lot of people believed the Pope too ... when he claimed the world was flat ... based on the Bible phrase.... "spread the word to the four corners of the earth". Greeks and Babylonians had already calculated the size 100's of years before ... but those "academics" were ignored. ...Who was right??

Just maybe the truth isn't what you want it to be or what :"someone" is trying to convince you is true. Posting pictures again...

http://greekgeek.hubpages.com/hub/Pictures-of-Retreating-Glaciers-A-Century-of-Melting

.

Edited February 18, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Green P1]

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/massive-chunk-glacier-breaks-ocean

Edited February 18, 2014 by Green P1

[UNT90]

This discussion raises the question, 'why is science denial so strongly linked to conservatism?'

I know there are conservatives who understand and accept science. I know there are liberals and moderates who reject science (e.g., the irrational phobia of nuclear power by some progressives). But still, it seems that evolution-denial, climate science-denial, population crisis-denial all seem to be championed by by the political right.

Any hypotheses?

Maybe the same as why people who believe less in God put more faith in men?

[UNT90]

Did you actually look at the pictures...??. good luck with that one . Guess you are someone that wants to believe what someone just says and not what can be seen...

A lot of people believed the Pope too ... when he claimed the world was flat ... based on the Bible phrase.... "spread the word to the four corners of the earth". Greeks and Babylonians had already calculated the size 100's of years before ... but those "academics" were ignored. ...Who was right??

Just maybe the truth isn't what you want it to be or what :"someone" is trying to convince you is true. Posting pictures again...

http://greekgeek.hubpages.com/hub/Pictures-of-Retreating-Glaciers-A-Century-of-Melting

.

Wow.

So tell me this. With the ice caps melting away at record pace, why aren't the oceans rising as previously predicted?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Dig deeper. In 2009, they were caught in a few thousand e-mail. They were then cleared. Then...caught again in 2011. And, in the 2011 episode came the e-mails where they suggested throwing out (deleting) bad results in order to keep their U.S. DOE grants...and that the U.S. DOE agreed.

Caught twice. Not once.

Also, why the talk of science denial? Because I don't believe scientists who cook their results for the sake of research money, I'm against all science?

Far from it. I've posted several times about science - namely about the diseases that queers gets because they don't understand and accept biology, anatomy, and physiology. Ignoring science there has led to a great deal of suffering for people who can't/won't accept the differences between the reproductive organs and digestive system organs.

Science is great. My grandfather was a chemist for Exxon. Established over 50 patents in his career there. He was a great man, and well respected. Exxon flew him all over the globe the get them out of drilling jams.

But, when academic scientists cook the books for money, that's a problem. For me. It doesn't seem to bother others...which is great for academics who depend on taxpayer money...and, Al Gore, who has made a mint in selling it.

Edited February 19, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[UNT90]

This discussion raises the question, 'why is science denial so strongly linked to conservatism?'

I know there are conservatives who understand and accept science. I know there are liberals and moderates who reject science (e.g., the irrational phobia of nuclear power by some progressives). But still, it seems that evolution-denial, climate science-denial, population crisis-denial all seem to be championed by by the political right.

Any hypotheses?

Apparently, the denial also exists among republican scientist?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

The fact that you want to couch republicans as the only doubters of this highly questionable theory tells me a lot about where your opinions are based.

[Green P1]

Queers? Good form Lonnie. Good form.

[Quoner]

Far from it. I've posted several times about science - namely about the diseases that queers gets because they don't understand and accept biology, anatomy, and physiology. Ignoring science there has led to a great deal of suffering for people who can't/won't accept the differences between the reproductive organs and digestive system organs.

Science is great. My grandfather was a chemist for Exxon. Established over 50 patents in his career there. He was a great man, and well respected. Exxon flew him all over the globe the get them out of drilling jams.

So wait - are you for or against drilling?

[UNT90]

Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, Chip Knappenbergee, Patrick Michaels, and Sallie Baliunas are just a handful of many who have peer reviewed published work that doubts man made global warming.

But the global warming fear mongers (including John Kerry) ignore this work and choose to believe what they want to believe (although for Kerry, I'm sure it has far more to do with politics than belief).

People like GTWT who want to lie to you and say this is complete science have bought the political sell hook, line, and sinker. They will tell you that there isn't one doubt that it is happening and that we will suffer dire consequences in the future.

It's the politics of fear. It's been practiced for years. This is just a new face on an old, old game.

[UNT90]

My brief foray into doctoral level publications was one of seeing peers who despise each other, publicly call each other hacks, work tirelessly to not only discredit each other but also to outright shame and ostracize each other. Outside things like the tobacco industry funding research work a wink and a nod, I do believe there is considerably less group think than people think. That mentality took a huge hit back around 74 when Dupont went knocking on the door of the guy who posited a hole in the ozone over Antarctica.

You do realize that you just agreed with my point, correct?

[oldguystudent]

You do realize that you just agreed with my point, correct?

No, I worded poorly.

That mentality took a huge hit back around 74 when Dupont went knocking on the door of the guy who posited a hole in the ozone over Antarctica.

That mentality being one of solidarity among scientists. Everybody was suddenly off to the races trying to prove each other wrong. Death threats were thrown about.

[UNT90]

No, I worded poorly.

That mentality being one of solidarity among scientists. Everybody was suddenly off to the races trying to prove each other wrong. Death threats were thrown about.

So you are saying peer review science does have agendas? Edited February 19, 2014 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

Really Rick, the Free Republic?

Dude the hullabaloo about a new ice age was precipitated by an article in TIME. Time isn't a scientific journal. TIME isn't peer reviewed. Read the American Meterological Society article I posted for you.

Continuing to refer to old canards like, "well, in the 70s the scientists were saying the earth was cooling..." doesn't help your argument. It just makes you seem to be regurgitating silliness you're heard on O'Reilly, Watts-Up-With-That, and in (God help you) the Free Republic.

Science isn't always easy to understand. Science doesn't always tell you what you want to hear. Science is, however, our best approximation to reality.

Dude, if you can find another website that still publishes he entire Time Magezine article other than Free Republic, then by all means be my guest.

And Dude... you do realize that in 1974 we didnt have the internet and that publications like Time Mag were a few of the sources that brought information to the public, along with others like Pop Mechanics, National Geographic, Readers Digest and several others. Once Time and a couple of other periodicals carried this report the local and national TV news started carrying it and scared the shit out of a lot of people. I was in the 5th grade and our teachers teaching out of the science journals spent a month discussing how we were all gonna freeze to death by the time we were all in our 40's. It was a rediculous jump to conclusions then just like this horseshit scandal is today....only this time its in the other direction.

But hey, again, I got some leftover Carbon Credits I got out of a "Highlights" Magezine I'm saving for you. Just let me know.

Rick

[GTWT]

Or is it that the media creates that impression? You call it denial, I would call it skepticism.

Skepticism is a good thing. Skepticism means with-holding judgement until you understand the evidence.

Science denial is a bad thing. Science denial is disagreeing with the science because it threatens your religion, your economics, your preconceptions.

[GTWT]

Maybe the same as why people who believe less in God put more faith in men?

I think you're right. Fundamentalist Christians - overwhelmingly right wing politically - seem to prefer their science come out of Genesis. "We didn't come from no darn monkeys - God made us special!" or "The kind, loving God described in 1 Samuel would never allow global warming harm us, his beloved children!"

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

-- I'm sure those that crossed the Pope (religion) and said the world wasn't flat... often paid a huge price ( burned, tortured, killed etc.) ... Galileo was excommunicated for saying the world revolved round the sun. The good news he was reinstated as a Catholic in good standing later .. much later... about 10 years ago. I am Christian but some folks really have some strange ideas based on some obscure passage ( which was translated from another language even and might be exactly accurate anyway }. Declaring the world flat based on a " four corners of the earth" reference in the Bible was one of them .... the minister that died recently handling snakes was another one... I am not sure what passage he used to justify that but it killed him .

Denying reality is rarely a good thing... As for Gore... he overdid it.. he is no scientist either. Never have I said man is responsible for what has happened... Ice ages have come and gone and man didn't create them ( not to the 5000 year world guys, they never existed ) As for the melting reference and seas rising... it looks like a lot but is only a small percent of total ice is gone.. so far. .NY port authority claims water is about 1 foot higher than about 100 years ago. Maybe it will get worse.. or maybe not. There is a lot of land (and in cities) than would be under-sea level or very close if it went up 3-4 more feet...

If you hear a tornado or hurricane is coming don't ignore the weather scientists either.. that might get you killed ( might not..but be prepared in case it does get there )...

-----------

--- You are reading this on the internet... built by science and engineers ... electricity by some was considered unholy or Satanic.... can you really see it..?... It is the work of the devil ... hahaha. The Amish still don't use it (much). Lots of odd religious ideas.. Mormons think coffee or cokes is sinful (a drug, caffeine ) but some of them think having several wives and all that goes with that is ok. ..... weird..

I see no conflict in religion and science but some do.... One is faith and the other is observable facts. Just because some religious extremist wants to believe something doesn't make it true. The world just isn't flat and electricity isn't the work of the devil. ( and yes.. some science opinions do turn out to be incorrect once more is learned ) But there is no doubt a lot of ice melting has taken place.... will it continue and what is causing it ...who knows... either way be prepared.

Edited February 19, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[MeanGreenTexan]

I think you're right. Fundamentalist Christians - overwhelmingly right wing politically - seem to prefer their science come out of Genesis. "We didn't come from no darn monkeys - God made us special!" or "The kind, loving God described in 1 Samuel would never allow global warming harm us, his beloved children!"

You know how you're getting perturbed by people who are claiming they understand climatology, but have never studied it themselves?

Same thing.

Sincerely,

Fundamentalist Christian (BA-Biology from UNT) - overwhelmingly cynical politically.

EDIT: ...and I'm trying to agree with you in this thread.

Edited February 19, 2014 by MeanGreenTexan

[GTWT]

Science denial is largely science ignorance. We live in a country that is depressingly ignorant about science.

New poll - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jazBjrI8ZFm0e4fMwCtO_2WEbI3w?hl=en

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

So wait - are you for or against drilling?

Yes. For and against.

For: when there are proven sands or reserves, until such time as alternative fuels become economically viable for the masses.

Against: when supply and stock is abundant, and when alternatives become economically viable.

I think there is a myth out there that some outfits drill without cause. If you've ever studied law use law, you understand the myriad of red tape/regulations/paper work that must be muddled through in order to get permission to drill. It is not an endeavor that is quickly done, easily done, or cheap.

For any interested, my Oil and Gas Law, Land Use Law, and International Petroleum Transacations professor was this fella - an Ivy Leauger who worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations: http://www.ogel.org/about-author-a-z-profile.asp?key=12

I also took Property and Alternative Energy Law from this fella - another Ivy Leaguer, and although a lefty politically, he did not work in any presidential administration: http://www.ogel.org/about-author-a-z-profile.asp?key=1420

If you have the time, I suggest books written by both of them on the subject of energy law:

By Langenkamp - Oil Business Fundamentals, Handbook of Oil Industry Terms and Phrases, and Illustrated Petroleums Reference Dictionary

By Zedalis - International Energy Law: Rules Governing Future Exploration, Exploitation, and Use of Renewable Resources

These two, by far, were the best lecturers I've ever heard. They have their worldview - decidedly to the left, iin both cases - yet they do not let it interfere with the material presented. And, both took pains to answer seriously even the most primitive questions.

A sample of Zedalis is found in a recent Tulsa World article: http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/readersforum/rex-j-zedalis-requiring-skin-in-the-game/article_e8716756-5df7-5f81-921e-12e9a7bdfc26.html

He talks just like that as well. With many questions - points - driven into one long sentence. Then, pausing, for another. Then, bringing it all back together.

The other thing about Zedalis is, he practices what he preaches. Rain, snow, ice, or sunshine, the man rode his bicycle to the campus - every day. I remember sitting in the little pre-class lounge on some icy days, with few people in the building (only those of us stupid enough to brave the ice), and here would come Professor Zedalis, peddaling up to the undergraduate side entrance of the building, locking his bicycle, and entering as though nothing was awry.

Edited February 19, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch