This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

a reply to: ketsuko

False again. Not sure if you are just that ill informed or if you are truly trying to be manipulative here.

The 97% can be explained better here:
The 97% consensus on global warming

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

That is cute how you immediately get a few stars for that almost mindless comment, followed by one another mindless comment that tries to equate scientists to religious zealots.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is insulting to call science a religion

Is religion not a means of worship ? Science is looking for truth and true religion looks for the truth . Difference is that one looks to the material world while the other looks to the spiritual world . Religion is a difference of text books and the beliefs about those text books .

Not. EVEN. close. Science is defined by the scientific method that requires us to gather evidence and use that evidence to describe a process in the universe; it updates itself regularly as new evidence is brought to light. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that is unchangeable. Religion doesn't leave room for being wrong. At no point do the religious ever consider that their beliefs could be wrong, because that would shake their faith. Science on the other hand REVELS in people doubting its claims.

You are, ironically, preaching to the converted. Those who do not listen have their heads so far up their rear ends they are kissing their tonsils. Hopefully karma will have it's day......that may sound mean but I have kids and grandkids who have to live with the consequences of narrow minded stupidity.

originally posted by: Metallicus

You are arguing with religious zealots from the 'Church of Climatology'.

You can't win with facts.

Where are these facts?

Are you just going to call what the ~97% scientist who study this say, not factual but make up outrageous claims like the "Church of Climatology"?

You truly deserve a disinfo award for your efforts here.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

It's interesting how Climate Change denialism can be such a widespread idea, but things like denying evolution are laughed at. But the people pushing Climate Change denialism are also pushing Evolution denialism. When I first heard about that, that was the final nail in the coffin towards my skepticism towards man-made climate change. Now my skepticism is directed in a more positive direction in that I'm skeptical that the current models are correct and that we need to more data to improve on them to get a better idea of where the climate is going.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good! As a taxpayer I am happy to see at least some judicious use of my money rather than wasting it on crackpot theories which have gained "consensus" purely due to funding threats and shouting down of dissent.

And by crackpot theories, you mean really good scientific work by some of the smartest, brightest people in the world?

And then even worse...the funding cuts proposed aren't really for any of "them dang crackpot theories" They're to collect data so that we'll have real and good information to make informed decisions.

You get that they're cutting science and data collection, so that we'll know what's really going on.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, totally, DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL for wanting NASA to actually focus on Space, and not an every changing climate.
I mean, with your way of thinking, I guess NOAH should be investigating Uranus for intelligent life forms.

And the USDA should work on emission standards for vehicles.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is difficult for people to grasp the sort of waste and folly in the idea of $2 billion in funding to "earth sciences" in a defense related department.

There is frequently no civilian access to that data (or those experiments) outside of NASA and they don't share much voluntarily. They even acquire patents and just sit on them rather than make them public or auction them off.

At this point they are actually standing in the way of progress.

To even have $323 million available to cut shows how haphazard it must be behind closed doors.

Why not let scientists (as opposed to government employees) research the world with funding from eco-savvy associations of which there are plenty with very deep pockets. Private corporations would also contribute if they would be allowed to profit from their discoveries.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is difficult for people to grasp the sort of waste and folly in the idea of $2 billion in funding to "earth sciences" in a defense related department.

There is frequently no civilian access to that data (or those experiments) outside of NASA and they don't share much voluntarily. They even acquire patents and just sit on them rather than make them public or auction them off.

NASA releases its information that it finds all the time. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

At this point they are actually standing in the way of progress.

I'm not sure how you can make that claim... What progress are they preventing exactly?

To even have $323 million available to cut shows how haphazard it must be behind closed doors.

Not really... Considering this funding cut was a political stunt it is very unlikely that these Congressmen are accounting for financial bloat.

Why not let scientists (as opposed to government employees) research the world with funding from eco-savvy associations of which there are plenty with very deep pockets. Private corporations would also contribute if they would be allowed to profit from their discoveries.

They are allowed to do that. There are private universities that fund climate change research for instance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Crackpot theories? Really?!? Crackpot theories is Congressmen Smith attending more meetings on aliens than on climate change real or imagined.

You said it yourself. If a person believes it to be the myth it is to sell carbon credits and make billions, why waste time on imagined things? There are a lot of REAL issues going on in this country .

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, totally, DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL for wanting NASA to actually focus on Space, and not an every changing climate.
I mean, with your way of thinking, I guess NOAH should be investigating Uranus for intelligent life forms.

And the USDA should work on emission standards for vehicles.

Maybe the idiots should be forced to learn something about NASA before being put in charge of their budget. Earth science has been part of NASA's mission statement for decades.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, totally, DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL for wanting NASA to actually focus on Space, and not an every changing climate.
I mean, with your way of thinking, I guess NOAH should be investigating Uranus for intelligent life forms.

And the USDA should work on emission standards for vehicles.

Maybe the idiots should be forced to learn something about NASA before being put in charge of their budget. Earth science has been part of NASA's mission statement for decades.

Yeah and a big consideration is that to study the earth like that you need Satellites that are launched into space with the technology to collect that data and process it. NASA has always fit that bill. It makes sense for them to study the earth and our climate.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is technically part of the defense department and they conduct lots of secret programs and research.

The patents they hold could be auctioned off to private industry to enable a space renaissance.

Universities among others are willing and able to carry the torch.

More progressive poppycock!

Either you are a heathen, denier who is a gross, uneducated ignorant fool

or

You are an enlightened progressive filled with all the knowlege and understanding of the universe.



Samee thing with most any issue anymore.
Progressives won't allow you to just accept that homosexuality is a fact of life for a segment of the population, you have to like and embrace it to garner their approval.

Climate change folks are the same way.

Rational debate, healthy skepticism, is met with name-calling and slurs and insults if you don't bow down upon the altar of the Church of Climate Change.

I'm so glad, however, that we have people that know everything about anything about science and can sit comfortably upon their ivory tower and cast dispersions upon us, the unwashed masses.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is technically part of the defense department and they conduct lots of secret programs and research.

So? That doesn't mean that all or even MOST of the things they do is secret.

The patents they hold could be auctioned off to private industry to enable a space renaissance.

Allegedly.

Universities among others are willing and able to carry the torch.

They already do.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You do realize that the big losers in humanities quest to curve CO2 emissions is the Oil Industry?

I do not get how you guys think this is some conspiracy by the scientists to raise taxes, when we have been getting bent over and owned by the oil/coal elitists for over a century now.

FACT: Most Americans drive cars. These cars run on gasoline and require oil. Additional regulatory costs ARE NOT eaten by businesses, they're passed on to the consumers. Thus, jacking up the production cost per gallon of gasoline equals jacking up the cost PLUS AN OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER AND PROFIT MARGIN per gallon to the consumer at the pump.

FACT: Coal fired and oil fired generators are the least expensive method of generating electricity when factors such as efficiency are taken into account. Most Americans buy electricity. The more federal regulations there are regarding "acceptable" generation methods and prohibitions on clean coal technology, the higher American families' monthly electricity bills are.

FACT: Every tax dollar spent on NASA sitting around staring at mammoths is a dollar that would have been usable elsewhere in the federal budget. That means either somewhere else has to take a cut (ha-ha!) or an additional dollar in tax MUST be collected to make up for the loss of that dollar to NASA's mammoth gazing activities.

FACT: The cost is too high and the science is too presumptive to waste money on AGW.

originally posted by: beezzer
More progressive poppycock!

Either you are a heathen, denier who is a gross, uneducated ignorant fool

or

You are an enlightened progressive filled with all the knowlege and understanding of the universe.



Samee thing with most any issue anymore.
Progressives won't allow you to just accept that homosexuality is a fact of life for a segment of the population, you have to like and embrace it to garner their approval.

Climate change folks are the same way.

Rational debate, healthy skepticism, is met with name-calling and slurs and insults if you don't bow down upon the altar of the Church of Climate Change.

I'm so glad, however, that we have people that know everything about anything about science and can sit comfortably upon their ivory tower and cast dispersions upon us, the unwashed masses.

But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What was the last useful data dump that NASA issued to the scientific community?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It is insulting to call science a religion... If you are going to debate the topic then prove it wrong. Calling it a religion is just a science denialism buzzphrase, probably cooked up straight in an Oil company's board room.

Even the oil companies get it right sometimes...

originally posted by: beezzer
Rational debate, healthy skepticism, is met with name-calling and slurs and insults if you don't bow down upon the altar of the Church of Climate Change.

Rational debate? Healthy skepticism? Where? All I've seen in this thread is blind dismissal of Climate Change without ANY relevant facts or figures to back that dismissal up. Oh I've also seen a healthy dose of using slurs about the science (Church of Climate Change for instance). How about actually formulating a proper rebuttal to the thread before you start accusing your opponents of being closed minded?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You do realize that the big losers in humanities quest to curve CO2 emissions is the Oil Industry?

I do not get how you guys think this is some conspiracy by the scientists to raise taxes, when we have been getting bent over and owned by the oil/coal elitists for over a century now.

FACT: Most Americans drive cars. These cars run on gasoline and require oil. Additional regulatory costs ARE NOT eaten by businesses, they're passed on to the consumers. Thus, jacking up the production cost per gallon of gasoline equals jacking up the cost PLUS AN OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER AND PROFIT MARGIN per gallon to the consumer at the pump.

FACT: Coal fired and oil fired generators are the least expensive method of generating electricity when factors such as efficiency are taken into account. Most Americans buy electricity. The more federal regulations there are regarding "acceptable" generation methods and prohibitions on clean coal technology, the higher American families' monthly electricity bills are.

FACT: Every tax dollar spent on NASA sitting around staring at mammoths is a dollar that would have been usable elsewhere in the federal budget. That means either somewhere else has to take a cut (ha-ha!) or an additional dollar in tax MUST be collected to make up for the loss of that dollar to NASA's mammoth gazing activities.

FACT: The cost is too high and the science is too presumptive to waste money on AGW.

FACT as Elon Musk has shown, if we build electric cars people will buy them.

FACT Solar gets cheaper and more reliable and more efficient every year.

FACT the NASA budget is a really, really, really small drop in the bucket. I'd much rather fund money then have it go to military and alphabet agencies and congressional paychecks and all of that crap.

FACT the money that gets cut from NASA just gets blown on something stupid without any scientific value.