National Geographic goes all in on Tea Baggers

[DMX7]

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297668743121_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/26/liberals-mock-mpps-anti-evolution-statement-with-magazine

[Wild Cobra]

The article leads of with fluoride, then the flat earth. It speaks of how these new realizations are counterintuative to the understanding of the times.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

This article speaks of the likes of Mouse and Cosmoron:

http://s.ngm.com/2015/03/science-doubters/img/kennedy-space-center-exhibit-captioned-615.jpg

It has nothing to do with Tea Party members. You are making things up. Your thread title is a lie. But then, we all know you are a low-life despicable person.

Do Tea Party aligned individuals, in general, think fluoridation is bad? Isn't that the liberals?

Do Tea Party aligned individuals, in general, think the earth is flat?

Do Tea Party aligned individuals, in general, think GMO are bad? Isn't that the liberals?


Do Tea Party aligned individuals, in general, believe climate change is a hoax? I think not. They just don't perceive it as a problem. A quote from the article:


But industry PR, however misleading, isn’t enough to explain why only 40 percent of Americans, according to the most recent poll from the Pew Research Center, accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.

It doesn't say there are disbelievers of AGW, it says they don't believe AGW is the dominant cause.

I would say your ability to be a tool for the left is amazing. You start this thread that primarily addresses liberal shortcomings, and spin it as conservative shortcomings.

Why don't you liberal lemmings who parrot slanderous leftist sites have a brain? You know, evolution developed most of ours. Did you miss that step in your lineage?

The bulk of the article is about climate skeptics. The ending paragrah actually shows skeptics to be correct about science:


Now we have incredibly rapid change, and it’s scary sometimes. It’s not all progress. Our science has made us the dominant organisms, with all due respect to ants and blue-green algae, and we’re changing the whole planet. Of course we’re right to ask questions about some of the things science and technology allow us to do. “Everybody should be questioning,” says McNutt. “That’s a hallmark of a scientist. But then they should use the scientific method, or trust people using the scientific method, to decide which way they fall on those questions.” We need to get a lot better at finding answers, because it’s certain the questions won’t be getting any simpler.

[boutons_deux]

Pretty gutsy. How many subscribers will they lose?

[Wild Cobra]

Pretty gutsy. How many subscribers will they lose?

I suspect only the nutjobs like yourself.

I read the article. Did you?

[DMX7]

I suspect only the nutjobs like yourself.

I read the article. Did you?

The article was written in a deliberately non-partisan manner, but the cover page (which I specifically referenced) reminds you quite boldly who it is that's really engaged in the war on science...

Sadly though, you have the reading comprehension of a third grader, so naturally you missed the entire point of the article. It does not "shows skeptics to be correct about science". There couldn't possibly be a more wrong conclusion to draw from this article than that. Inquiry through means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is fundamental to science. That's what the author means when he writes "everybody should be questioning". Questioning and criticizing the consensus reached BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (i.e., a thoughtful, precise and rigorous process of hypothesizing, testing, analyzing and forming conclusions) itself without any real basis for such ridiculous questions or claims is what the war on science is all about.

[Wild Cobra]

It does not "shows skeptics to be correct about science".

You ignore the fact that science is all about being skeptical. Not consensus.

[DMX7]

You ignore the fact that science is all about being skeptical. Not consensus.

NOT SKEPTICAL OF SCIENCE, DUMBSHIT.

[Aztecfan03]

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297668743121_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/26/liberals-mock-mpps-anti-evolution-statement-with-magazine

How many of those are common tea party beliefs?

[Aztecfan03]

The article was written in a deliberately non-partisan manner, but the cover page (which I specifically referenced) reminds you quite boldly who it is that's really engaged in the war on science...

Sadly though, you have the reading comprehension of a third grader, so naturally you missed the entire point of the article. It does not "shows skeptics to be correct about science". There couldn't possibly be a more wrong conclusion to draw from this article than that. Inquiry through means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is fundamental to science. That's what the author means when he writes "everybody should be questioning". Questioning and criticizing the consensus reached BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (i.e., a thoughtful, precise and rigorous process of hypothesizing, testing, analyzing and forming conclusions) itself without any real basis for such ridiculous questions or claims is what the war on science is all about.

Most of the things on the cover aren't even close to conservative positions.

[DMX7]

How many of those are common tea party beliefs?

What political group in America is filled with more people that don't believe in climate change or evolution and also thinks vaccinations can lead to autism?

[boutons_deux]

Most of the things on the cover aren't even close to conservative positions.

The really BIG one is. Conservatives, whores to BigCarbon/BigCorp, deny man causes global warming, deny the global warming exists, and if it does, it's no problem.

[DMX7]

The really BIG one is. Conservatives, whores to BigCarbon/BigCorp, deny man causes global warming, deny the global warming exists, and if it does, it's no problem.

And let's ask the republican primary candidates at the far right Iowa caucuses how many of them are proud evolution believers!

gt5g-xawEh8

[Wild Cobra]

How many of those are common tea party beliefs?

I don't think any of them are.

[Wild Cobra]

The really BIG one is. Conservatives, whores to BigCarbon/BigCorp, deny man causes global warming, deny the global warming exists, and if it does, it's no problem.

Who denies that global warming exists?

Link please.

[Wild Cobra]

And let's ask the republican primary candidates at the far right Iowa caucuses how many of them are proud evolution believers!

gt5g-xawEh8

Is a refusal to answer questions normal, or abnormal? Politicians "punt" all the time.

[DMX7]

Who denies that global warming exists?

Link please.

How about the link you just read?


Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most powerful Republican voices on environmental matters, has long declared global warming a hoax.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

[Wild Cobra]

How about the link you just read?
Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most powerful Republican voices on environmental matters, has long declared global warming a hoax.
Really?

I'll bet the journalist is not correctly quoting him.

How about the original link?

The best quote I know of is:

"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?"

I see it as the idea that AGW is primary, not that it doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't see evidence.

Does saying "man made" include natural global warming?

How does a twisted mind spin that to mean all warming is a hoax?

Also, using the qualifying words "could it be," poses it as a pointed question, rather than stating it as fact.

Now unless you have a better quote...

[Wild Cobra]

Again, he doesn't say global warming isn't real...


As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.

When your side has to lie to make a point, you have no credibility.

then you are too stupid as to why people don't listen to your side!

[tlongII]

I would say that believing vaccinations lead to autism is more of a liberal belief.
I would say that believing the moon landings were faked is more of a liberal belief.
I would say that believing GMO food is bad for you is more of a liberal belief.

[DMX7]

Again, he doesn't say global warming isn't real...



When your side has to lie to make a point, you have no credibility.

then you are too stupid as to why people don't listen to your side!

The guy literally wrote a book entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JDX0OWNDL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

What political group in America is filled with more people that don't believe in climate change or evolution and also thinks vaccinations can lead to autism?

You're about 50/50 there.

[Wild Cobra]

The guy literally wrote a book entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JDX0OWNDL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Yes, I know. Did you read it?

Care to show me a photo of the offending text?

How does it compare to this piece of fiction:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/An_Inconvenient_Truth.jpg

[z0sa]

Misleading thread title, tbh.

[SupremeGuy]

Misleading thread title, tbh.Yup.

I love threads like this, tbh. They always start off with the op making up bullshit to get views/responses, then it quickly turns into the op getting his shit pushed in by multiple people, then the op trying desperately to save face by deflecting/spinning as much shit as he can, and finally ends with the op getting butthurt and leaving the thread with his tail between his legs. :lol

[SupremeGuy]

I would say that believing vaccinations lead to autism is more of a liberal belief.
I would say that believing the moon landings were faked is more of a liberal belief.
I would say that believing GMO food is bad for you is more of a liberal belief.But but tea party :cry

[Wild Cobra]

But but tea party :cry

Maybe the real teabaggers are the liberal faggots?

[SnakeBoy]

The really BIG one is. Conservatives, whores to BigCarbon/BigCorp, deny man causes global warming, deny the global warming exists, and if it does, it's no problem.

How do you feel about GMO's Boo?

[Aztecfan03]

What political group in America is filled with more people that don't believe in climate change or evolution and also thinks vaccinations can lead to autism?
only evolution is something a lot of republicans don't believe in. And for the vaccinations: Democrats.

[boutons_deux]

How do you feel about GMO's Boo?

GMOs are a huge scam. GMO "food" is not better than organic food. GMO seeds are a scam to enslave farmer to the annual seed purchases and the required polluting chemicals.

[Drachen]

I think evolution and climate change denying are the purview of the far right. Avoiding vaccinations would probably be 50/50 but avoiding vaccinations re: autism is probably more left leaning while the right who avoid vaccinations probably do so more because "the fuckin government can't tell me what to do."

GMOs would probably be more to the far left, though I would imagine that as more farmers get upset over lack of ability to reseed, that might change. I've not met enough moon landers to make any kind of observation there. Sometimes crazies are apolitical.

[Drachen]

If it's not obvious by the fact that I started with "I think", these are my observations and are not a conveyance of empirical evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

only evolution is something a lot of republicans don't believe in. And for the vaccinations: Democrats.

Actually you have that wrong. You find that in the fundamentalist christian types. Believing intelligent design does not mean evolution isn't real. Both can be real.

Just because someone believes a higher power may have helped in forming our world doesn't mean they reject evolution.

[Wild Cobra]

GMOs are a huge scam. GMO "food" is not better than organic food. GMO seeds are a scam to enslave farmer to the annual seed purchases and the required polluting chemicals.

Is it something like how liberal policies enslave their voters for SNAP, and other subsidies?

[baseline bum]

I think evolution and climate change denying are the purview of the far right. Avoiding vaccinations would probably be 50/50 but avoiding vaccinations re: autism is probably more left leaning while the right who avoid vaccinations probably do so more because "the fuckin government can't tell me what to do."


Lots of the anti-vaccine crowd is religious nuts too.

http://www.constantinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/kenneth-copeland1.jpg

[Nero5]

You ignore the fact that science is all about being skeptical. Not consensus.

No, as a person with a couple of science based degrees I can address this at least. Science is about answering questions with evidence and proof. In this regards the issue of climate change is moot, the scientific evidence is solid.
re tea baggers ... Political flat liners rather than scientific ones, perhaps promoting ignorance is their shtick in order to be appealing to the more low brow voter base

[Aztecfan03]

Actually you have that wrong. You find that in the fundamentalist christian types. Believing intelligent design does not mean evolution isn't real. Both can be real.

Just because someone believes a higher power may have helped in forming our world doesn't mean they reject evolution.

there are still a lot that don't believe it though.

[Aztecfan03]

Lots of the anti-vaccine crowd is religious nuts too.

http://www.constantinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/kenneth-copeland1.jpg

The left has their share of religious nuts too. Like Fred Phelps (of Westboro Baptist infamy) and Obama's pastor just off the top of my head so that doesn't automatically mean right-wing.

[Wild Cobra]

No, as a person with a couple of science based degrees I can address this at least. Science is about answering questions with evidence and proof. In this regards the issue of climate change is moot, the scientific evidence is solid.
re tea baggers ... Political flat liners rather than scientific ones, perhaps promoting ignorance is their shtick in order to be appealing to the more low brow voter base

Science is also about testing materiel that is in conflict with the current belief. Climatology has become a religion when opposite views are shunned instead of looked at.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The left has their share of religious nuts too. Like Fred Phelps (of Westboro Baptist infamy) and Obama's pastor just off the top of my head so that doesn't automatically mean right-wing.

:lol so the Westboro are leftist exactly why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Science is also about testing materiel that is in conflict with the current belief. Climatology has become a religion when opposite views are shunned instead of looked at.

Your views were looked at and rejected. There is a difference. And how you can say this when you have been on your soot crusade and they very obviously looked at the degree of forcing?

You just want refuted arguments to be accepted carte blanche. Isn't going to happen, dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

Really?

I'll bet the journalist is not correctly quoting him.

How about the original link?

The best quote I know of is:

"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?"

I see it as the idea that AGW is primary, not that it doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't see evidence.

Does saying "man made" include natural global warming?

How does a twisted mind spin that to mean all warming is a hoax?

Also, using the qualifying words "could it be," poses it as a pointed question, rather than stating it as fact.

Now unless you have a better quote...

“The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-sen.-jim-inhofe-votes-to-say-climate-change-not-a-hoax-but-says-man-cant-change-climate/article/5386634

[Wild Cobra]

“The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-sen.-jim-inhofe-votes-to-say-climate-change-not-a-hoax-but-says-man-cant-change-climate/article/5386634
I would agree with that. We can change temperatures a little, but climate is a whole different thing.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the differences between climate and weather.

[ChumpDumper]

I would agree with that. We can change temperatures a little, but climate is a whole different thing.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the differences between climate and weather.i know the difference.

You wouldn't think we'd be able to pollute large bodies of water or air, but here we are.

Why wouldn't we be able to affect climate?

[Nero5]

Science is also about testing materiel that is in conflict with the current belief. Climatology has become a religion when opposite views are shunned instead of looked at.


No, no and nooooooo!
science is about proving or disproving a question that in itself has some validity. The climate deniers for 99.9% of the time will pose a rediculous statement, which is not a question and when there is no proof either way will then claim it is proven or valid. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We are NOT talking about climatology, we are talking about climate change and many different forms of science are involved. Also religion is a faith, it does not require scientific proof, but rather a philosophical or theological proof which are VASTLY different things. Climate change denial fails simply because the scientific proof that could support it simply does not exist at any meaningful level. The Koch brothers, notable financial supporters of climate denial have notably refused to fund scientific research but instead have spent hundreds of millions on political opposition. We're they confident of any reasonable chance of finding proof they would get their Chq book out fast enough.

[boutons_deux]

No, no and nooooooo!
science is about ...

don't waste your time splainin science to an blind ideologue who "believes" science that doesn't agree with his "science" is a religion.

[Aztecfan03]

:lol so the Westboro are leftist exactly why?

I said Fred Phelps was because he was a Democrat. Ran for office as a Democrat several times in the 90's, never as anything else.

[sickdsm]

GMOs are a huge scam. GMO "food" is not better than organic food. GMO seeds are a scam to enslave farmer to the annual seed purchases and the required polluting chemicals.


Not better, but not worse. Some foods are genetically better. (Golden rice?)


GMO's for the most part are designed to yield better by resisting disease, insects, fungus, herbicides, flood, and drought.


Where do you see reliable sources claiming that GMO food is better for you? Better for the world and environment maybe.

Are you fighting the war on science? Gmo soybeans now have some roundup ready varieties with no patent restrictions.

[boutons_deux]

Not better, but not worse. Some foods are genetically better. (Golden rice?)

GMO's for the most part are designed to yield better by resisting disease, insects, fungus, herbicides, flood, and drought.

Where do you see reliable sources claiming that GMO food is better for you? Better for the world and environment maybe.

Are you fighting the war on science? Gmo soybeans now have some roundup ready varieties with no patent restrictions.

Golden rice? not this shit again. there's no proof that its Vit A? actually is bioavailable and actually solves Vit A deficiency in humans.

GMO is a scam to enrich Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto, while poisoning ground and water with glyphosate and soon anAgent Orange component.

Also, the sterilization of ground (no insects, worms, fungus, etc) results in poor, denatured soil so the GMO crop is less complex, less nutritious.

Resisting science? Not this straw man shit again. GMO is not ALL science. It's corporate profiteering while poisoning the planet. The BIG lie is that glyphosate deteriorates after a 7 - 10 days, but it's found in food, in breast milk, in placenta.

[angrydude]

A person can be skeptical of any one of those issues and still support the rest.

But national geographic just wants to shout....SCIENCE, and end the conversation

Very unscientific.

[Wild Cobra]

A person can be skeptical of any one of those issues and still support the rest.

But national geographic just wants to shout....SCIENCE, and end the conversation

Very unscientific.

Magazines aren't scientific. They sensationalize to sell.

[boutons_deux]

SCIENCE, and end the conversation

SG's topic is War on Science from the "fact-free believers" of religious and political bullshit.

[DarrinS]

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297668743121_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x


Hmm, I'm conservative and believe in all of those things. With respect to anthropogenic climate change, I just don't think it's effects will be catastrophic, but that's enough to be labeled a "denier".

[DarrinS]

People that have environmental hypochondria, are probably also paranoid about vaccinations and genetically modified foods.

[DarrinS]

Fake moon landers, like 9/11 twoofers, are retarded (regardless of political ideology).

[pgardn]

You ignore the fact that science is all about being skeptical. Not consensus.

Absolutely wrong. Consensus is reached once some claim has been tested and retested and/or proper evidence gathered by many. If some claim cannot be reproduced by many others independently, a consensus is not reached in the first place. Any claim, such as evolution, can be refuted by a minority. But until that minority counterclaim undergoes the same scrutiny and passes the test, it is a fallow claim.

This is is what you fail to understand. Be skeptical, but understand the power of good science. And I should not partition you as the only one who gets pleasure out of some shallow, incoherent claim that is judged as refutation of the value of what some very smart people spend their lifetime doing.

Just walk all into the middle of a movie, pretend you wrote the script, directed it, and produced it. And then claim it's the best thing you have ever seen. Because Afterall, you can see what no one else can.

[pgardn]

Golden rice? not this shit again. there's no proof that its Vit A? actually is bioavailable and actually solves Vit A deficiency in humans.

GMO is a scam to enrich Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto, while poisoning ground and water with glyphosate and soon anAgent Orange component.

Also, the sterilization of ground (no insects, worms, fungus, etc) results in poor, denatured soil so the GMO crop is less complex, less nutritious.

Resisting science? Not this straw man shit again. GMO is not ALL science. It's corporate profiteering while poisoning the planet. The BIG lie is that glyphosate deteriorates after a 7 - 10 days, but it's found in food, in breast milk, in placenta.

So you stop golden rice because THE TESTS HAVE NOT BEEN concluded.
You truly don't understand science and technology, just like your dogmatic conservative buddies. You think the idea came up in some giant corporate heads mind. You don't know the science behind it, and you have no idea of the history and current status. You are in one word, wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Absolutely wrong. Consensus is reached once some claim has been tested and retested and/or proper evidence gathered by many. If some claim cannot be reproduced by many others independently, a consensus is not reached in the first place. Any claim, such as evolution, can be refuted by a minority. But until that minority counterclaim undergoes the same scrutiny and passes the test, it is a fallow claim.

Consensus needs to be 100% for that to be true. When other research also shows different results, the science is not yet settled.

Any claim, such as evolution, can be refuted by a minority. But until that minority counterclaim undergoes the same scrutiny and passes the test, it is a fallow claim.

That's a different argument yet.



This is is what you fail to understand. Be skeptical, but understand the power of good science.

I do understand the power of good science, and most papers used to back up alarmist claims are not good papers. They are filled with subjective reasoning instead of hard facts.

One of the best scientific methods used is to do everything one can to disprove what is believed to be true. In the climate sciences, they completely shun and try to discredit anyone that does this. When this occurs, one has to believe they know their science is weak and flawed.



And I should not partition you as the only one who gets pleasure out of some shallow, incoherent claim that is judged as refutation of the value of what some very smart people spend their lifetime doing.

Shallow and incoherent?

I agree I am poor at expressing my views, but I am far from shallow. Instead of jumping to such conclusions, maybe you could give my views the benefit of doubt, and ask me to clarify.

If you refuse to allow such a process in debate, I suggest it is you who are shallow!



Just walk all into the middle of a movie, pretend you wrote the script, directed it, and produced it. And then claim it's the best thing you have ever seen. Because Afterall, you can see what no one else can.

LOL...

I find people often project their own faults on others. You sure have an active imagination. No wonder you're in fantasy land.

[pgardn]

?
Consensus needs to be 100% for that to be true. When other research also shows different results, the science is not yet settled.

Good luck then. Never believe anything.

That's a different argument yet.

its the same basic idea...


I do understand the power of good science, and most papers used to back up alarmist claims are not good papers. They are filled with subjective reasoning instead of hard facts.

Example of what you consider an alarmist scientific paper?

One of the best scientific methods used is to do everything one can to disprove what is believed to be true. In the climate sciences, they completely shun and try to discredit anyone that does this. When this occurs, one has to believe they know their science is weak and flawed.

All good papers are suppose to reflect upon what needs to be done in order to make the assertion even better.


Shallow and incoherent?

Yes. I have read your climate papers and your views.

I agree I am poor at expressing my views, but I am far from shallow. Instead of jumping to such conclusions, maybe you could give my views the benefit of doubt, and ask me to clarify.

If you refuse to allow such a process in debate, I suggest it is you who are shallow!

It is tiresome to debate the same tiresome repeated arguments.

Give me what you consider the best paper summarizing why you don't believe the Earth is in a warming trend that is alarmingly rapid. Then give me your best paper that illustrates the methods currently used to look at climate in the past are so incredibly inaccurate as to be pure folly. There is quite a bit of science that is used today to predict what things were like in the past. Maybe you can give us a paper showing there are no accurate ways to measure the approximate age of the Earth. And how many Millions of years the claims could be off. I will read all again.



LOL...

I find people often project their own faults on others. You sure have an active imagination. No wonder you're in fantasy land.

I have great faith in your findings Dr Phil.

[Spurminator]

http://mashable.com/2015/02/25/greenhouse-effect-surface-data/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said Fred Phelps was because he was a Democrat. Ran for office as a Democrat several times in the 90's, never as anything else.

Well I guess when you need to demonize your political opponents he is a convenient guy to conflate them with. The Unabomber was a self described communist so go ahead and add him in there too right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297668743121_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x


Hmm, I'm conservative and believe in all of those things. With respect to anthropogenic climate change, I just don't think it's effects will be catastrophic, but that's enough to be labeled a "denier".

Here is you in 2008 waving your hands at sea ice which is pretty stupid because it's the land/glacial ice going into the sea which is a big part of the problem. Here it is obvious that you are trying to con people into believing there is no warming.


Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

Here is you waving your hands at a snowstorm at a Pelosi climate rally.


Sweet irony.


http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44320

Here is you in 2009 saying its natural variation.


UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html

Here is you posting a story about someone deciding to not believe in climate change. It's particularly shitty and goes a long way to showing how science is not high on your list of priorities. Apparently this circumstance of changing beliefs is something that is of interest to you though.


http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/i-no-longer-quite-believe/2/

More warming denial:


The global temperature record of the last decade is not subjective, would you agree?


When you see continued rising of CO2 and a declining average temperature, you have to stop and think about it.

Here is you positing that the scientific community is scandalous:


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Here is you denying that climate models are legitimate science.


An excellent article on climate models.

Why Climate Modeling Is Not Climate Science

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-climate-modeling-not-climate-science




http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/climate_modeling-ruddman.jpg

More:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted

Not warming you say? Fuck that Darrin has us cooling now:


Global Warming or Cooling?

117 years of Failed Climate and Environmental Predictions

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890

The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,

The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - January 1905
“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912


Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age - Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," - New York Times - May 30, 1947

Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. - Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

"(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971

New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. - Los Angles Times - May 16, 1972

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974

Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - October 10, 1975

A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature - March 6, 1975

Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978

One of the questions that nags at climatologists asks when and how fast a new ice age might descend. A Belgian scientist suggests this could happen sooner and swifter than you might think. - Christian Science Monitor - Nov 14, 1979

Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - November 1980

A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said... Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years - San Jose Mercury News - June 11, 1986

Greenhouse Effect Culprit May Be Family Car; New Ice Age by 1995?...As the tropical oceans heat up (due to increased greenhouse gases), more of their moisture is evaporated to form clouds. The increasing pole-tropic wind systems move some of these additional clouds toward the poles, resulting in increased winter rainfall, longer and colder winters and the gradual buildup of the polar ice sheets. This phenomenon has come to be widely recognized by climatologists in recent years. What most of them do not recognize is that this process may be the engine that drives the 100,000-year cycle of major ice ages, for which there is no other plausible explanation....we may be less than seven years away, and our climate may continue to deteriorate rapidly until life on earth becomes all but unsupportable.... New York Times - Larry Ephron , Director of the Institute for a Future - July 15, 1988

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants -- at a cost of $110 billion -- to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says...Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

'New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,' - St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990's) are not difficult to make... Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990

Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991

''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an "above normal" year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year's, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. -- Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted - The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team's forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. - ScienceDaily April 3, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States - NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country - ScienceDailyOct. 11, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008

This next quote was after you had denied that you thought that the Earth was cooling and when RG called you on it with quotes you defined your position as:


I think the Earth has warmed an insignificant amount in the past 100 years and that this study confirms that.

But hey now that you have gone the hedge route what is to stop you from backtracking onto your old shit just a few weeks later? Nothing of course:


I don't think 10 years of data proves anything either. Serious question: how many consecutive years of "stable" or downward trending temps would be needed to "falsify" AGW theory?


Whatever Happened to Global Warming?


It is true that we are currently experiencing a "pause" in warming.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Fuzzy is a peanut counter!

[DarrinS]

How much time did Fuzzy spend on that? Creepy

[DarrinS]

I hope he doesn't report me to realitydrop or attackwatch? :lmao

[DarrinS]

For FaggyLumpkins

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665

[Wild Cobra]

How much time did Fuzzy spend on that? Creepy

No shit.

Just proves he has one pathetic live to have to collect so much data.

PS Fuzzy...

I call data collectors peanut counters.

You squirrel such facts away until they are useful...

LOL...

Pathetic!

[Winehole23]

You squirrel such facts away until they are useful...

LOL...

Pathetic!DarrinS's own words. DarrinS wishes they'd vanish like turds in the litter box, but they keep coming back to haunt him.

It's understandable he's slapping back at Fuzzy.

[Wild Cobra]

DarrinS's own words. DarrinS wishes they'd vanish like turds in the litter box, but they keep coming back to haunt him.

It's understandable he's slapping back at Fuzzy.

Regardless, I think it's pathetic that RandomGuy/Fuzzy keeps records of people's posts.

I didn't read the entries, just couldn't fail to notice the enumeration of them.

If Darrin is sorry of some of his entries, then that means he changed his mind on some. Doesn't that count for something? Do you still hold the same beliefs on every topic you did in years past?

[DarrinS]

DarrinS's own words. DarrinS wishes they'd vanish like turds in the litter box, but they keep coming back to haunt him.

It's understandable he's slapping back at Fuzzy.

Not really. Pointing out that projections have been exaggerated, computer models flawed, and current temp trends underwhelming is completely consistent with what I think about climate change alarmism.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How much time did Fuzzy spend on that? Creepy

I have to read you claim that you are being unfairly labeled a denier repeatedly for awhile now and have called you on it which you poo poo and deny. I decided to take 10 minutes and utilize "DarrinS warming stopped" in the search function.

I clicked a link, reply with quote, and some control commands 10 whole times from said list. That is the point. It's easy to find this shit on you. I left a whole lot out there and only tried the one set of parameters.

From now on when you go for your whine of unfair treatment, I will just click the link in my sig, and copy and paste it again. So expect it when you try and sell us that line of shit again.

[DarrinS]

I have to read you claim that you are being unfairly labeled a denier repeatedly for awhile now and have called you on it which you poo poo and deny. I decided to take 10 minutes and utilize "DarrinS warming stopped" in the search function.

I clicked a link, reply with quote, and some control commands 10 whole times from said list. That is the point. It's easy to find this shit on you. I left a whole lot out there and only tried the one set of parameters.

From now on when you go for your whine of unfair treatment, I will just click the link in my sig, and copy and paste it again. So expect it when you try and sell us that line of shit again.


Oh. Please don't. I'm trembling....Nooooooooooooooooooo!

:lmao

You go ahead and copy, paste, bump, or whatever you feel you need to do.

[Aztecfan03]

Well I guess when you need to demonize your political opponents he is a convenient guy to conflate them with. The Unabomber was a self described communist so go ahead and add him in there too right?

Was talking about religious nuts...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Was talking about religious nuts...

So? You were trying to come up with people to compare Inofe, Santorum, Lee, Robertson to from the opposition and the best you could come up with was a guy that never even won a primary and a black preacher whose link is that a politician is in his congregation. Nevermind that OTOH you have committee chairs and leadership posts in the party.

The GOP put Inhofe in chair of the science committee and you want to say that both sides have their equal amount of religious nuts? Shall we examine local government action like with say school boards?

[RandomGuy]

How many of those are common tea party beliefs?

Not many. The list is a mix of liberal/conservative/neutral dumb shit.

[Aztecfan03]

So? You were trying to come up with people to compare Inofe, Santorum, Lee, Robertson to from the opposition and the best you could come up with was a guy that never even won a primary and a black preacher whose link is that a politician is in his congregation. Nevermind that OTOH you have committee chairs and leadership posts in the party.

The GOP put Inhofe in chair of the science committee and you want to say that both sides have their equal amount of religious nuts? Shall we examine local government action like with say school boards?

I said off the top of my head. I don't search forall the dumb things liberals say like you and boutons do.

[Drachen]

I'm impressed. How do people do this? The search on this site is pretty bad. I've been on here forever and still haven't figured out how others do this.

Edit: this should have been a reply with quote to fuzzy's post. Also, I'm not being facetious.