The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

[xfire]

I have supported my position that I don't buy into an ideologically driven agenda to restrict business/progress based upon a theory that has not been proven.

The deniers have their own ideologically driven agenda and it seems you're pushing that instead. And to revisit a point I made in Post #37, conserving the environment should be just as important to conservatives as pushing a social agenda.

 

[Jack Davenport]

The deniers have their own ideologically driven agenda and it seems you're pushing that instead. And to revisit a point I made in Post #37, conserving the environment should be just as important to conservatives as pushing a social agenda.

The only things that drives "deniers" is the resistance to more government in their lives and restricting business and progress based upon something that has not been proven. And you can't deny something that hasn't yet been proven. That is called skepticism.

They poisoned the fuck out of military members at Camp Lejeune during the 50's 60's and 70's with their tainted water. Guess what! Those people are dying because of it and will never see a dime in compensation for their exposure. You know why? Because the democrat NC legislature enacted a law that a democrat governor signed that limits lawsuits up to 10 years from the time it occurred not 10 years from the time they are diagnosed or knew they were exposed.This was our own government doing this not a corporation. That was all about business too! And the party of compassion has fucked at least 150,000 NC residents and maybe as much as 750,000 more living elsewhere now. The NC Statute of Repose was enacted to protect business and cover their asses not people. To add salt to the wounds, Obama signed a bill to give VA care to those affected but turns right around and orders Holder and his DOJ to motion for a dismissal before the 11th circuit court in Atlanta. They don't care about people they only care what plays well in a sound byte or what can hamper capitalism because it doesn't fit the agenda of a dependent society and private business is an impediment to their socialist utopia. So yeah, I am skeptical about claims of man made disaster based upon an ideology when they have proven when given the chance that democrats or the left don't really give a damn either.

 

[xfire]

The only things that drives "deniers" is the resistance to more government in their lives and restricting business and progress based upon something that has not been proven. And you can't deny something that hasn't yet been proven. That is called skepticism.

They poisoned the fuck out of military members at Camp Lejeune during the 50's 60's and 70's with their tainted water. Guess what! Those people are dying because of it and will never see a dime in compensation for their exposure. You know why? Because the democrat NC legislature enacted a law that a democrat governor signed that limits lawsuits up to 10 years from the time it occurred not 10 years from the time they are diagnosed or knew they were exposed.This was our own government doing this not a corporation. That was all about business too! And the party of compassion has fucked at least 150,000 NC residents and maybe as much as 750,000 more living elsewhere now. The NC Statute of Repose was enacted to protect business and cover their asses not people. To add salt to the wounds, Obama signed a bill to give VA care to those affected but turns right around and orders Holder and his DOJ to motion for a dismissal before the 11th circuit court in Atlanta. They don't care about people they only care what plays well in a sound byte or what can hamper capitalism because it doesn't fit the agenda of a dependent society and private business is an impediment to their socialist utopia. So yeah, I am skeptical about claims of man made disaster based upon an ideology when they have proven when given the chance that democrats or the left don't really give a damn either.

I don't care what they call themselves, Democrat or Republican, allowing a corporation to poison people is inexcusable. Look at what BP was allowed to do in the Gulf, for another recent example. So you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, fuck the government for allowing corporations to fuck people, great, we agree, and you know it's not just Democrats. The whole notion that "government needs to get out our lives" is horseshit with a capital H, government is the only means the average citizen has of fighting back at the corporations, when the corporations own the government it's called corruption, indeed, neither party is immune from it and at it's worse, and we're seeing it more and more it's nothing but fucking Fascism.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I don't care what they call themselves, Democrat or Republican, allowing a corporation to poison people is inexcusable. Look at what BP was allowed to do in the Gulf, for another recent example. So you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, fuck the government for allowing corporations to fuck people, great, we agree, and you know it's not just Democrats. The whole notion that "government needs to get out our lives" is horseshit with a capital H, government is the only means the average citizen has of fighting back at the corporations, when the corporations own the government it's called corruption, indeed, neither party is immune from it and at it's worse, and we're seeing it more and more it's nothing but fucking Fascism.

You missed the point. Who in the hell is for poisoning people? The democrats stake their claim to being the protectionist party but when the chips are down they do the same thing. As for BP, you realize that natural seepage does more damage than 1000 BP's but it is a non issue because it doesn't meet the narrative of man made catastrophe. When a community is poisoned by corporations it is easily identifiable and proven. There are more than enough regulations in place to pursue remedy already in cases like that. But the same lawmakers that write regulations also write legislation stopping people from pursuing justice. I object to creating more with the sole purpose of impeding capitalism and growth on the back of a theory that has not demonstrated dire consequences for mankind yet.

 

[xfire]

You missed the point. Who in the hell is for poisoning people? The democrats stake their claim to being the protectionist party but when the chips are down they do the same thing. As for BP, you realize that natural seepage does more damage than 1000 BP's but it is a non issue because it doesn't meet the narrative of man made catastrophe. When a community is poisoned by corporations it is easily identifiable and proven. There are more than enough regulations in place to pursue remedy already in cases like that. But the same lawmakers that write regulations also write legislation stopping people from pursuing justice. I object to creating more with the sole purpose of impeding capitalism and growth on the back of a theory that has not demonstrated dire consequences for mankind yet.

As I already pointed out, the "deniers", and I use that word only in response to "warmists" "alarmists", etc., have their own agenda. It's fucking profitable to exploit the environment, and taking the whole "man made climate change" debate off the table, taking reasonable measures to protect the environment isn't a bad thing and something that should fit well in the conservative agenda.

 

[Jack Davenport]

As I already pointed out, the "deniers", and I use that word only in response to "warmists" "alarmists", etc., have their own agenda. It's fucking profitable to exploit the environment, and taking the whole "man made climate change" debate off the table, taking reasonable measures to protect the environment isn't a bad thing and something that should fit well in the conservative agenda.

So far the measures aren't reasonable in relation to the lack of proof that it is man made. There are reasonable protections in place now that can be enforced, you are making the argument for more government, more regulation, government can never be big enough for you people.

 

[xfire]

So far the measures aren't reasonable in relation to the lack of proof that it is man made. There are reasonable protections in place now that can be enforced, you are making the argument for more government, more regulation, government can never be big enough for you people.

And just how big is government? As a percentage of the population the size of government in December of 2012 was 6.9%, the smallest in the last thirty years. I don't want big government, I want effective government. There should be no corporation or individual with more power than the government.

 

[Jack Davenport]

And just how big is government? As a percentage of the population the size of government in December of 2012 was 6.9%, the smallest in the last thirty years. I don't want big government, I want effective government. There should be no corporation or individual with more power than the government.

Yeah thanks to cuts in the military. Smoke and mirrors, it's the Obama way.

 

[Rattrap]

The only things that drives "deniers" is the resistance to more government in their lives and restricting business and progress based upon something that has not been proven. And you can't deny something that hasn't yet been proven. That is called skepticism.

I've got to hand it to you, BC, you'd make a damn fine politician. You twist words, avoid evidence, and take whatever opportunities to jump onto new tangents faster than a whip. I'm not convinced that's something you can fake, either - I'll bet you're completely earnest. After reading This Town, I understand most politicians actually are too.

But still:

Climate change impacts (Environmental defense fund)
Ecological Responses to recent climate change (International Weekly Journal of Science)
Ecological and and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change (University of Texas, Austin)
Impact of Regional climate change on human health (International Weekly Journal of Science)
The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems (Wiley Online Library)
A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK (Wiley Online Library)

Etc.

(narrowed it down even more for ya!)

You understand that when you complain about a lack of evidence, then are presented with plenty, and dismiss it all with basically "Yeah...nah" you have zero credibility, right? To even say you're interested in finding the truth is disingenuous BS at that point.

I guess we could keep going round and round about this...

Only until it's abundantly clear that you dismiss whatever evidence doesn't agree with you out of hand and have no credibility on the subject. This isn't for my or your benefit, mind, as I know your mind is set in stone and you haven't given me any evidence to change mine, but anybody else reading this. Not that that number is very high here, but nevermind.

I feel that point of clarity has ******.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

Somebody please explain to me why scientists are worth our trust, when their theories are not supported by rock solid evidence. Are we talking about a new sort of religious faith here? Thousands and thousands of well erudite ********* teachers around the world would like to convince us that touching ******** is ok, but i doubt it that that makes them right. Yes the paragon is ****** to say the least, but climate change caused by humans lifestyle is so controversial and unproven that ignites harsh debates all around the globe. It's funny how religious faith is ridiculed by scientists and atheists, but then the theory of a scientist sponsored by political and economical lobbies must be the law. According to thousands of scientists female orgasm and g-spot don't exist, for almost 40 years they have poisoned half of the western world with margarine in place of olive oil, US water supplies are still contaminated with methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether which scientists sold us as the end of gasoline pollution, 100 billions dollars is the cost of the y2k bug due to scientists incompetence. Just because a scientist say so, it does not make him right. Ask yourself who pay these scientists and who benefits from their conjectural theories.

Are you *****?

 

[ZiggyStardust]

I don't give a **** about global warming/climate change. The world could burn for all I care. The "debate" is especially worthless because we can't/won't generate the massive amount of energy to not cause climate change.

That said I think it's hilarious watching people deny "climate change". Anyone with a high school level education in science and nature would understand the basic logic of releasing the type of millions of pounds of gas/elements we do to sustain our way of life in the the air. Not to mention the expert opinions and empirical evidence.

If you don't care about climate change, or think we can't do anything to change it then say so. Don't be a dipshit and try to pretend this is some giant scientific fraud.

 

[MustBeGood]

What is happening in the NE of the United States? Blizzards.

How Climate Change May Lead to Bigger Blizzards
January 26, 2015, 5:32 pm ET by Tim Molloy

With every winter storm, including the blizzard hitting the Northeast this week, climate change skeptics return to a familiar argument: If the world is getting warmer, why am I stuck out here, shoveling so much snow?

Climate scientists tell FRONTLINE that blizzards don’t refute evidence of climate change — in fact, climate change can make blizzards more intense. The first thing people need to understand, they say, is the difference between climate and weather.

“Weather is telling us what is happening at a particular time,” said Rutgers Climate Institute co-director Anthony Broccoli. “Climate is telling us the statistics of the weather we experience. One analogy that is often used is that weather determines what clothes you wear on a particular day, but climate describes what clothes you have hanging in your closet.”

So what will we be wearing in the future? Climate change may mean that people in cold regions will spend fewer days in snow boots. But on the days they need them, they’ll really need them.

“You have to remember that there are two factors that result in heavy snow: It has to be cold enough to snow, and the atmosphere has to be moist,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Winters will likely get shorter as a result of climate change, Oppenheimer said. “On the other hand,” he said, “during the period when it is cold enough to snow, if you’ve got enough moisture in the air, you can get some wicked big snowstorms.”

Why does climate change lead to more moisture?

“The maximum amount of water vapor that can be present increases with increasing temperatures. That’s just a consequence of the laws of physics,” Broccoli said.

Global sea temperatures have gone up about one degree Fahrenheit since the 1970s because of human activity, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The higher sea temperatures lead to higher temperatures above the sea surface. That warmth moves throughout the year, and at this time of year, gathers off the East Coast.

“If we have a storm that’s developing, it reaches out as far as a thousand miles away and grabs the available moisture, and brings it into the storm so that it snows harder,” Trenberth said. “At this time of year, this is exactly what you expect.”

And what should we expect in the coming years? Perhaps the same pattern we’re seeing lately, suggests Oppenheimer.

“The bottom line is in the future we’ll have a shorter snow season overall but more very intense storms,” he said. “Has this already started? Probably so.”

If you’re hunkered down for this week’s blizzard, this might be a good time to nestle up with Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE’s look inside the groups that have shifted the direction of the climate change debate. You can watch it here:

Same thing Al Gore explained in An Inconvenient Truth in 2007.

 

[Straight Shooter]

A little context on the article the OP is talking about. The article was written by Christoper Booker in The Telegraph. Along with with being a climate change denier, Mr.Booker is also a supporter of intelligent design, he believes there's no link between second hand smoke and cancer, and he believes that asbestos poses no risks to public health. Plain and simple the man is a charlatan. But that's a discussion for another day. In the article, Booker is citing statistical work done by climate change skeptic Paul Homewood who runs the science blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat.

Whenever you encounter information that confirms what you already believe, be especially skeptical of it.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/12/scientific-literacy-climate-ch

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

OH. MY. GOD. BLIZZARDS?!?! IN FEBRUARY? Al Gore must be a fucking genius.

 

[sean miguel]

Were there other periods of warming in the earth's history before the industrial revolution and the combustion engine came along?

Climate change is cyclical. When has the world's climate ever been static? Now that would be something be concerned with.


The arrogance to think that we can somehow lessen the severity or frequency of hurricanes or tornadoes or even earthquakes (which have been blamed on man-made climate change by fanatics).

 

[MustBeGood]

Were there other periods of warming in the earth's history before the industrial revolution and the combustion engine came along?

Climate change is cyclical. When has the world's climate ever been static? Now that would be something be concerned with.


The arrogance to think that we can somehow lessen the severity or frequency of hurricanes or tornadoes or even earthquakes (which have been blamed on man-made climate change by fanatics).

The denial is all about politics. Watch the this Frontline episode that interviews mostly the deniers:

There is a part that shows a graph that each decade the world gets hotter, levels off but the peaks each decade is higher from the last one.

Responding to you because you don't resorts to personal attacks like FOs-Adams ask members here not to do on controversial topics like Ace Boobtoucher does acting like he is tough guy on people not in his face

Which is Georges job to stop as a MOD.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

The arrogance to think that we can somehow lessen the severity or frequency of hurricanes or tornadoes or even earthquakes (which have been blamed on man-made climate change by fanatics).

But we have people brainwashed by Alfonse Gorleone and the dimwits at moveon.org and salon and PMSNBC and other outlets who really want to be proven right. The problem is that for the last 18 years there has been a cooling trend. If you dare to mention there's more ice in the arctic than there was in the 1970's they call it an aberration. If you mention any type of inclimate weather, like a blizzard in winter, they run around like chicken Little. The sky isn't falling.

Can we reduce emissions? Sure. Will China? Nope. Thanks to Obammy's toothless foreign policy deals.

And MustBeStupid. Come to Las Vegas. Anytime.

 

[MustBeGood]

And MustBeStupid. Come to Las Vegas. Anytime.

Haha!

Fake tough guy on the internet!

Whatever dude. Case in point.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I'm not kidding. I will back up anything I write anytime, anywhere.

 

[Supafly]

I consider the best way to know if these stories about the vast majority of scientists conspiring on fooling us about climate would be:

Study yourself. Or use common sense - which looks like it isn't used so much an more. Can we assume that such a conspiracy could hold up, in these times of Wikileaks and other ways to spill the beans on us being lied to?