Why are Republicans so Anti-Climate Change?

[Torto]

You mean "proven" by nutbar conspiracists who don't have valid arguments. It's the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" nonsense of the climate change sector.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/bro...ckey-stick.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/Hockey-...ey-league.html

The "hockey stick" appearance of the graps is so overwhelmingly supported from pretty much every source of data that it's pretty damned silly to contest it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Read through that and tell me if everyone one of them disputing it are nutjobs. It's not just 'conspiracy theorists' questioning the global warming faith. When did it become acceptable for scientists to stop questioning theories? Why are so many happy to blindly follow the AGW faith without the usual rigorous debate?

[alexw]

It's been used as a excuse to increase the power of the federal government, power it was never intended to have and it won't easily give up.

No No. Its the Chinese who are controlled by the unicorn riding lizard people. That makes far more sense as the global conspiracy behind it all.

[Glorious Leader]

It's been used as a excuse to increase the power of the federal government, power it was never intended to have and it won't easily give up.

Thats amusing. Yes enivronmentalism was the real abuse of federal power. If only you constitutionalists had been so vocal and so plentiful after 9/11 could have probs saved a decade of administrative abuse of power.

[Mayhem]

It's been used as a excuse to increase the power of the federal government, power it was never intended to have and it won't easily give up.

Say, what´s the track record of republicans about reducing government powers?

[Glorious Leader]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Read through that and tell me if everyone one of them disputing it are nutjobs. It's not just 'conspiracy theorists' questioning the global warming faith. When did it become acceptable for scientists to stop questioning theories? Why are so many happy to blindly follow the AGW faith without the usual rigorous debate?

They arent. Climate science has been the most rigorusly peer reviewed, thoroughly tested, and consistently debated human scientific endevour. You can maybe argue relativity is equally as tested? Michael Mann was increidble skeptical till he saw the data back in 94 i think.it was. I saw an interview with him in a documentary about climate denial.

[God Save The King]

At some point in our country, clean air, clean water, clean energy, the environment, and climate became a partisan issue. It's quite challenging to come back from that. The way I see it there tends to be two sides. Either climate is changing naturally, or climate is changing more rapidly due to human interference(the impact of humans is still somewhat debated among scientists but the vast majority agree humans have some notable impact).

If you look at it that way, you came come to the conclusion that either we're right or we're wrong.

If we invest in clean energy, clean up our water/air sources, protect and conserve the environment, one of two things will happen. If we're wrong, nothing notable will change. If we're right, then we may end up improving the lives of all people for centuries to come.

[Torto]

And what time span was he talking about?

Back is 2006 he said the ice caps would melt in 15 years (2021) and seas would rise by 25 meters. The guy was an absolute clown and fraud, but the socialists couldn't get enough of him. What was most disappointing was that at the time no scientist was willing to refute him. They were terrified of be labelled a 'climate change denier' and being shunned by the scientific community.

This is what science has become is the 21st century.

- - - Updated - - -

They arent. Climate science has been the most rigorusly peer reviewed, thoroughly tested, and consistently debated human scientific endevour. You can maybe argue relativity is equally as tested? Michael Mann was increidble skeptical till he saw the data back in 94 i think.it was. I saw an interview with him in a documentary about climate denial.

Is that the same Michael Mann who sued Mark Steyn for defamation after Mark proved he was an idiot and fraud?

[Mayhem]

Back is 2006 he said the ice caps would melt in 15 years (2021) and seas would rise by 25 meters. The guy was an absolute clown and fraud, but the socialists couldn't get enough of him. What was most disappointing was that at the time no scientist was willing to refute him. They were terrified of be labelled a 'climate change denier' and being shunned by the scientific community.

I´m sorry you have to give a little more info on what he said, because right now i have a feeling you leave out crucial stuff (like if we keep going at this rate then sea levels will rise ...)

[Glorious Leader]

Back is 2006 he said the ice caps would melt in 15 years (2021) and seas would rise by 25 meters. The guy was an absolute clown and fraud, but the socialists couldn't get enough of him. What was most disappointing was that at the time no scientist was willing to refute him. They were terrified of be labelled a 'climate change denier' and being shunned by the scientific community.

This is what science has become is the 21st century.

- - - Updated - - -



Is that the same Michael Mann who sued Mark Steyn for defamation after Mark proved he was an idiot and fraud?

This is the michael mann who has received continual harrasement after the so called climate gate but has been vincated by 5 different academic inquiries


https://skepticalscience.com/Climate...ils-hacked.htm

[Torto]

This is the michael mann who has received continual harrasement after the so called climate gate but has been vincated by 5 different academic inquiries

lol, well that's what friends are for right?

- - - Updated - - -

I´m sorry you have to give a little more info on what he said, because right now i have a feeling you leave out crucial stuff (like if we keep going at this rate then sea levels will rise ...)

Seriously, don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend this guy.

Keep going at what rate? Australia could go back to the stone age tomorrow and whatever evil carbon emissions saved wouldn't reduce temperatures by a measurable amount.

[Mayhem]

Seriously, don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend this guy.

Keep going at what rate? Australia could go back to the stone age tomorrow and whatever evil carbon emissions saved wouldn't reduce temperatures by a measurable amount.

I´m asking for more information on that guy, i´m not defending him, i told you i have a feeling you´re leaving out stuff.

[Endus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Read through that and tell me if everyone one of them disputing it are nutjobs. It's not just 'conspiracy theorists' questioning the global warming faith. When did it become acceptable for scientists to stop questioning theories? Why are so many happy to blindly follow the AGW faith without the usual rigorous debate?

Mostly, yes. I can tell you didn't read it, because the clear conclusion of that article is that the "controversy" is more than settled, and all the evidence confirms the original "hockey stick" graph. That there's a Wikipedia page for the controversy doesn't mean it's a valid argument. Here's Wiki pages for flat-earth theories, Reptilians, and the Yeti.

It isn't that you can't criticise a theory. It's that step one of criticising that theory is showing how it fails to accurately model the data we have. And AGCC theory does model that data accurately. You could, in theory, also provide an alternative theory that's A> simpler and B> more effective at modeling that same data, but that's far more difficult at the levels science is working at these days, given the amount of evidence in play and the number of scientists all working and challenging these concepts regularly.

Science functions by testing these principles. Your problem is that 99.5% of those tests end up confirming the principles, and the 0.5% that don't turn out to be user or equipment or methodological error, when peer review explores their evidence.

Back is 2006 he said the ice caps would melt in 15 years (2021) and seas would rise by 25 meters.

The ice caps ARE melting; he might have erred SLIGHTLY on the side of alarmism, but he's likely only off by a few decades, at most.

As for the 25m of sea level rise, the only connections I can find are him repeating comments by James Hansen, and that 25 meter value was not a short-term projection, but a long-term one, of where we'd find a new balance point in several centuries. So that's basically down to you not even understanding the discussion.

Here's a fact sheet from the testimony that data point was pulled from; http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...estimony06.pdf
Here's the important element;

If Business-as-Usual global warming of 2-3°C occurs, sea level rise of at least 25±10 meters is likely.Dr. James Hansen has testified he expects about six meters of sea level rise by 2100

Note the second line; 25 meters is the "centuries from now" long-term prediction. When you don't straight-up lie about what people have said.

[Glorious Leader]

lol, well that's what friends are for right?

- - - Updated - - -

They were'nt his friends. They were his bosses and they were other scientists in other departments at other universities. It was impartial. 5 seperate inquiries. Excuse me 6.

February 2010. the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

March 2010. UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

April 2010. University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

June 2010. Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".

September 2010. UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

[Deleted]

Because they are convinced they were/are right.

The fear mongering from the likes of Gore, Flannery etc was just that, fear mongering.


The issue has sadly become fully politicized. And not only are Republicans dubious of the "experts" but so are moderates and even some liberals.

[PosPosPos]

Because they are convinced they were/are right.

The fear mongering from the likes of Gore, Flannery etc was just that, fear mongering.


The issue has sadly become fully politicized. And not only are Republicans dubious of the "experts" but so are moderates and even some liberals.

Since when? Non-republicans still more or less maintain the same proportion of believers, please cite this ridiculous statement of yours.

[Torto]

Since when? Non-republicans still more or less maintain the same proportion of believers, please cite this ridiculous statement of yours.

You are correct of course, the socialist/communist left would never let go of the AGW faith. It's simply too good an opportunity to pass up. This will get them to their end game, which is a new world order run by the UN.

[Wells]

You are correct of course, the socialist/communist left would never let go of the AGW faith. It's simply too good an opportunity to pass up. This will get them to their end game, which is a new world order run by the UN.

If we're just going to make shit up you could at least be more creative.

[Endus]

You are correct of course, the socialist/communist left would never let go of the AGW faith. It's simply too good an opportunity to pass up. This will get them to their end game, which is a new world order run by the UN.

"New world order"? If you're going to dip into nutso conspiracy theories, at least bring in the Illuminati, the Freemasons, or Molemen, or something.

[Torto]

"New world order"? If you're going to dip into nutso conspiracy theories, at least bring in the Illuminati, the Freemasons, or Molemen, or something.

Haha yes very funny....

There has to be some correlation as to why the Left have embraced the AGW faith so vehemently, and those on the Right still by and large remain sensibly sceptic. The most plausible reason is that the Left can use this global fear campaign for their ultimate goals. I'm happy to hear the arguments on a scientific level, but politically you have nowhere left to go.

[Endus]

Haha yes very funny....

There has to be some correlation as to why the Left have embraced the AGW faith so vehemently, and those on the Right still by and large remain sensibly sceptic. The most plausible reason is that the Left can use this global fear campaign for their ultimate goals. I'm happy to hear the arguments on a scientific level, but politically you have nowhere left to go.

It has nothing to do with "the left" or "the right". Outside of the USA, that divide is not remotely split over scientific theory. This is a uniquely American phenomenon, and the politically-driven rhetoric is entirely the deniers.

Those who realize what science is, how it works, and why it's so resilient don't try and deny the facts. If that makes them "the left", then you need to ask yourself why "the right" prefers to deny reality and insist that their incorrect fantasy is the truth, instead.

Not that I accept your dichotomy. A lot of right-wingers know full well how willfully ignorant and misinformed climate change denial is. Because this isn't political. It's about science, which is about measurable facts, and reality. Denying reality is never going to be a defensible position.

Your entire argument here is literally projection. You've let partisan bias blind you, so you assume your enemies must be similarly blind.