# Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574 "2013-10-18T13:53:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/81 "2013-10-31T02:18:02Z")
> [@Bill\_F](#): > > I am a registered Democrat. I am an engineer. I voted for Tea Party candidates because I didn’t leave the Democratic party, it left me. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I had no problem with the Half Trillion dollar tax increase, the country clearly needed it. I do not believe in Human Caused Global warming. The ‘science’ of global warming is about as rigid as wet cardboard. Huge sums of money fund ‘research’ that concludes all kinds of terrible things. I am a scientist and an engineer. I’ve been listening to the clap trap coming from the extreme left for 20 years. The east coast should have been under water by now using the ‘science’ put forth by Al Gore and his pet scientists. I quote. “There’s an Ozone hole over Kennebunkport”. Same guy was predicting huge increases in sea level by now. > > There are facts. Facts ignored or glossed over. The Polar Ice caps melted on Mars. There is strong science that has suggested that the solar output hitting Earth is at an all time high for our measurement. This is science that is REPRESSED. It is called names it is called the lying tools of the Oil Company conspiracy. That’s crap. One ‘environmentalist’ said the Martian polar ice caps melting was clearly the sun, but the Earth melting was caused by man. Clearly ignoring the law of inverse squares when it comes to radiation and how that the Earth, being closer to the radiation (the sun) would be more profoundly effected by this. How much? Mars gets 1/2 of the radiation that Earth does using the law of inverse squares. Also scientists measured something else. Cosmic radiation. Thats radiation that comes from other stars. That level goes up and down over time and the controlling mechanism is what is called “The solar wind”, essentially the particles ejected by the sun, hydrogen and helium nuclei for the most part. That ‘wind’ intercepts cosmic radiation, so when the Solar output is up, less cosmic radiation hits the earth. Guess what was at an all time measured low. Yep. Basically the conclusion to draw is. “Its the sun, you dummies.” Also Al Gore, showing what a true genius he is, in his ‘lecture’ where he shows the correlation of Earth Temperature to Carbon Dioxide, he tells us the relationship is complicated. Apparently too complicated for him. Because First the temperature goes up. then the Carbon Dioxide goes up. And the science explanation is an easy one. Hot Seawater does not absorb as much CO2. Ok, what is the #1 ‘greenhouse gas’? Answer, its Water Vapor. How much water vapor is in the air. Answer, a lot more then CO2. I’d be more worried about Methane if I was you. OK, so lets back up a notch and talk about cosmic radiation again. There’s a point. Cosmic radiation is detected by something called a ‘cloud chamber’ basically a volume of water saturated gas, ie air. When a cosmic ray passes through the chamber it forms a small ‘cloud’. This is one way our clouds form. On a cloudy day is it cooler then on a bright sunny day? The answer is obvious. We have fewer clouds forming, we have more solar radiation, why is anyone surprised it got a little warmer. So people are clamoring, again on the left that this is unprecedented and etc. I is not. It has warmed up to the point that it was in the 1800’s. Hardly disastrous. You know like it was the last time the Northern Polar Ice cap melted almost completely between 800 and 1200 AD. When it was significantly warmer, when the Glaciers on Greenland had melted so far back that the Norsemen (Vikings) had settled both Greenland and Iceland, and had established farms and were shipping FOOD from the ‘colonies’ back to Europe. And the ‘tree line’ the semi-official designation for what the arctic and antarctic circles were, WAY north. They have the date tree fossils to prove it. The 1000 year old Glacier in Glacier National Park? Not there. I mean really, people say those who oppose this ‘version of the truth’ that says I am a tool of the Oil companies and do not use science. What the heck was that? Oh yes, and ‘all scientists agree’. Really? How about the large number of scientists whos names are on the Global Climate Change study who sued, unsuccessfully I might add, to get their names removed after the science part got changed and it turned into a Political Science game instead. Those people too are tarred with the ‘tools of the Oil company’ brush. I’m a scientist, I’m offended that you even presume I don’t look at things with an open mind. I’m also offended by the notion that people who disagree with your politics are somehow dumber. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met have been the full spectrum from Marxist and Anarchist to John Birch Society right wingers. They might be smarter then me but that doesn’t mean that they are more correct on all things. > > So yes, I tell people I am a tea partier. And I hear all the BS. “they don’t believe in taxes”. Yes they do, they don’t believe in wasteful government. A large distinction. “they are a bunch of racists.” Really, you want to call me a racist? Racists will stand with whoever gets them attention. I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is run by a bunch of racists. They’ve pretty much declared anyone who disagrees with them a hate group. And its done very well in removing poverty from the people who run it. I wonder what Dr. King would say about these ‘jerks’. I also think the Nazi’s, the KKK, and a few other groups might qualify for the racism tag. Here’s what a Tea party person really is. They are, in fact Centrists. They don’t believe in the excesses of the left or the right. Yes there are people who are conservatives, who do not agree with you on things like marriage or taxes or insurance in this group. Not me. I believe in MYOB, the first slogan on American Money. Its nobody’s business who you consort with, go into business with, hang with, live with. Government has grown fat and crazy. We have more then we can afford and just to be clear. I think everyone needs health insurance. WE just didn’t need the crazy law they passed. Really ? How big was the problem, it could have been solved with a 10 page long bill. I will stand with those who promised to put NORMAL back into the laws of this country. Because Normal is the center position. The people currently pissed at all of these selfish jerks. I’m a scientist, I’m a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. As an engineer i think high gas mileage cars are a great idea and electric cars even better. I believe that people will solve these problems, not governments. Find fault with that. As such I must stand with those I do not agree with because in essence that’s all any government is. People banding together for the common good despite their differences on other things. Good day. Ahem brother. ---
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/82 "2013-10-31T02:22:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” > > – Alexander Pope No, that was Andrew Wakefield. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/83 "2013-10-31T02:32:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sneak into houses and leave all the taps running? Yeah, that part’s easy enough, but then you have to **blow** the whole Northeast! ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/84 "2013-10-31T17:16:24Z")
If I have garnered anything from this thread, it’s that there is no more misunderstood group of people in this country than the Tea Partiers. Because they were labeled “Enemy No. 1” from their inception by many in the media, all we have are distorted perceptions of their membership counter-acted with distorted perceptions of their membership. Does anybody actually have any damn clue who comprises the Tea Party, besides the tired old meme of “angry old white racists” that propagates itself among our media? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/85 "2013-10-31T17:19:52Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Because they were labeled “Enemy No. 1” from their inception by many in the media A quick reminder that the Tea Party might be nowhere without their promotion from Rick Santelli and then Fox News. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/86 "2013-10-31T17:24:26Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Because they were labeled “Enemy No. 1” from their inception by many in the media, all we have are distorted perceptions of their membership counter-acted with distorted perceptions of their membership. Rubbish. The media was lining up to kiss TP arse at the beginning. Even now I don’t see media criticism of the TP (other than the inescapable fact that they keep hurting the chances of Republicans in general elections by helping extremists win primaries). ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/87 "2013-10-31T17:35:04Z")
> [@Bob's Zombie](#): > > A quick reminder that the Tea Party might be nowhere without their promotion from Rick Santelli and then Fox News. The way you phrased that it sounded like Santelli had moved from CNBC to Fox so I had to go and check. By some miracle though it looks like he still has a job with them. I haven’t watched in years but for some reason that’s the channel everybody seems to watch so Business Insider sometimes runs a story when there is a notable bit of buffoonery. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/88 "2013-10-31T18:10:38Z")
GIGObuster said this: with my edits. The use of Al Gore by **Bill F.** is just classic personification to dismiss the science as Myth #19 reports, then there is the myth about the planets warming, one can click on myth #43 to see that "Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly. And so on… the problem I have with posters like Bill F. is that there is no excuse to not be aware of what the science and most experts agree on, resources like Skeptical Science link to the published science, and even in academic settings the published science is already offered as lessons at university level, the point here is that many of the contrarians of today that are not experts in the field even refuse to acknowledge that the controversy that they think that there is among the scientists is not really there. And the reality is that the few remaining skeptical climate scientists are getting it wrong. I reply: Thank you to the people pointing out that my words were difficult to follow. I shall endeavor to use the carriage return. My use of Al Gore. In the year 2000 I considered Al Gore to be the most dangerous man in the world. He’s not quite so dangerous now as he’s not in charge of anything. Al had it wrong, I used him as a point maker. He has the relationship, this is science, between temperature and carbon dioxide backwards. I think that’s a pretty big mistake and its not refuted because it is backwards and no amount of hand waving and misdirection is going to change that. On other planets warming. I mentioned one, not any others. The polar ice caps, in particular the Northern polar ice cap on Mars Visibly melted away in the Mars summer. At the same time we did see a spike in temperature here on Earth. Arguing that it didn’t happen is classic ‘koolaid drinking thinking’. It did happen and increased luminosity from the sun is what did it. And the law of inverse squares says the increased radiation that Mars got was doubled when it hit Earth. Anyone arguing about the alleged temperature of Saturn or Jupiter clearly does not understand either inverse square relationship or the simple fact that both of those planets are QUITE warm and it has nothing at all to do with the sun and everything to do with what is going on inside those planets. Quite a bit of Radiation coming off those planets, and strong magnetic fields and … etc. On the use of “Skeptical Science”. Really a web site set up to prove the political part of this argument? This really will set me into the meat of my argument, and, its not mine, but I have adopted it. A few years ago Michael Crichton wrote a book about Climate Science. I didn’t read it. As an author he is pretty good, he’s also been controversial. In this case, I was driven to read the book after Senator Robert Kennedy Jr. called him a liar. In fact, he used an expletive in front of liar. So I got the book, read its forward, read its afterward. Read the story itself. Not quite up to his usual standards in terms of its relative merit as fiction. Nope the real value of that book was in the stuff before and after the story. What Crichton was asserting and I see no evidence that its not true, is that Climate Science was born out of politics (Thatcher started it forward in England) and has been hijacked by politics since. Its not just bad science, its worse, its political science. I’m not readers digest, go find his book, read the forwards and afterwards. As an author, and I’ve been reading his stuff since I was a kid when he wrote the Andromeda Strain, he’s been writing cautionary tales about the misuse of science. People have wrongly characterized him as anti-science. He’s not and never was, he was against BAD science. Climate science, in many cases is just that, bad science. OK, another carriage return. So telling me that 93% of climate scientists agree and now we must cut off debate means nothing to me as an argument. Because at one point, 100% of scientists thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and one scientist who disagreed was threatened with death for disagreement. So don’t tell me we are above that because we aren’t. Papers are written, and rejected from journals because they don’t meet the politics of Global Warming, the papers are rejected outright because of their conclusions. Study after study is done proving global warming is real because. That’s the business those scientists are in. proving global warming is caused by man. No one has refuted my claims in my earlier missive about how we have warmed all the way up to 150 years ago. AFter cooling off steadily for over 1000 years. In fact, in the early 1970’s most climate scientists were concerned that the world was heading into another Ice age as the earths temperature had been steadily falling since the 1940’s (despite the slow climb of CO2?) The simple facts are, well supported by everyone’s science is that things were a lot warmer in 800 AD then they are now and that had nothing to do with CO2. The northern polar ice cap melted every summer. Greenland had farms on it that are currently covered by glaciers and you know what? The coastlands weren’t submerged. In fact sea levels don’t appear to have been as altered as people believe. The northern cap is an ice cube in a drink, it melts and the level doesn’t change. Yes there is a hell of a lot of water locked up in Greenland. But not that much. So why were we hot then? No one has convinced me that the ‘proof’ is CO2 because there’s too much proof saying its other things. ON the real topic. which is apparently still why are ‘tea party’ members educated but still apparent jackasses because they don’t agree with ‘the rest of us educated types’. Because there is one thing that unites all tea party members be they wrong headed or be they ‘educated’. And that is this maxim. “You don’t spend money you don’t have.” That’s the reason for the birth of the movement. And to morph back to that subject I’ll share a bit more. I’m from Illinois. Chicago, in fact. I heard Obama’s speech to the convention in 2004 and said to myself. "At last, someone who seems to have a conviction about things. " Oh he touched on themes like Bush spending our children’s future and other things. He might have been a bit more liberal then myself (remember, I’m a Democrat) but I said to myself. This might be the replacement for Paul Simon, a liberal democratic senator from Illinois who could be best characterized by this statement. “He was a United States Senator.” Which means, he was a man who did the best thing for the country, not necessarily for his state. A good and honest man. Also a fair dealer. Well… Obama turned out to be quite the politician. Not the man he said he was. None-the-less I hoped for the best and saw a resounding lack of leadership and partisanship as he rammed his overpriced agenda through congress with NO votes from the opposition. Not one democrat stood up and said, ‘hey wait, this is bullshit’. That’s why I voted for a Tea Party candidate, and will continue. Because this crap, makes no sense. Do not get me wrong. Our heath care system needed a tune up. It did not need what they did to it. People should not starve in this country. People should not die in this country because someone found them inconvenient. Simply buying people insurance who needed it would have been a good idea. But really a bill that will add 2 trillion dollars to the budget, and where will that come from? From us. When you do that at a time when you are running 4 trillion dollar deficits and think this is no big deal, well I hearken back to his speech from the floor of the Senate in 2006 when he voted against raising the spending limit, railing against spending our childrens future. As he put it. “That was just politics.” Well I don’t want politics. I want rational thinking running things. Must be the engineer in me. And that’s why a lot of smart people are ‘tea party’ members. Back to global warming one more time for today. “The sun is cooling”. Yes that is correct. It has been. Mars polar ice caps are also no longer melting in their summer. Also the earths been a bit chillier for the last couple years as well. Something that hockey stick jerk with the models can’t explain either. The Earth’s temperature has dropped a bit and that doesn’t fit well with some people’s ‘data’. More evidence, I think, that the sun plays a bigger part then people want to admit. The real problem with climate science is it hasn’t been science for a long time. By my standards, which are just as high in MY fields as they are when measuring other peoples work. But I admire the political job this movement has done. Anyone who disagrees is automatically labeled a fake. Some people on the left have stated that people who disagree should be locked up. Some country this is turning out to be. The constitution is inconveinient. If I wanted to live in the dark ages I’d go join Gallileo in the prison dictated by the Church. Stop talking about it or die. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/89 "2013-10-31T20:35:50Z")
> [@Bill\_F](#): > > My use of Al Gore. In the year 2000 I considered Al Gore to be the most dangerous man in the world. He’s not quite so dangerous now as he’s not in charge of anything. Al had it wrong, I used him as a point maker. He has the relationship, this is science, between temperature and carbon dioxide backwards. I think that’s a pretty big mistake and its not refuted because it is backwards and no amount of hand waving and misdirection is going to change that. First, this shows that you refused to check the cite. The simple thing to reply for pitiful efforts like yours is to point out that even conservative scientists agree with almost all of what Al Gore reported, and the reason is because Al Gore did something that many contrarians think is impossible, he consulted the experts, that is all. So, besides the need of checking the Skeptical Science site, you need to check what conservative republican Scientists like Barry Bickmore and Richard Alley report about Gore and the relationship of temperature and carbon dioxide. > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… > [@](#): > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. ”Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. > **[Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over...](https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1856&p=2)** > > Key Points: [http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture\_videos/A23A.shtml](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml) > [@](#): > > Carbon dioxide is the most significant of the greenhouses gases, gases that trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere and reduce the rate of heat loss to space in the upper layers of the atmosphere. As a result the temperature of the planet’s surface and ocean is largely dependent upon the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Generally-speaking; increase the concentration of greenhouse gases and the planet traps more heat, reduce them and the planet cools. Because of this behaviour, renowned glaciologist, Richard Alley, has dubbed carbon dioxide Earth’s biggest temperature control knob. As for the planets, you still need to read the cite, and no, it is not “just a site” it has been recommended for a reason by conservative scientists like Bickmore and Alley, so drop the naive idea that using politicians to score points will do anything to change the science. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/90 "2013-10-31T21:49:05Z")
The _Camellia sinensis_ Alliance Is surprisingly well- **versed** in science But in re evolution Or climatic pollution They’ll dig in their heels in defiance! ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/91 "2013-10-31T21:56:50Z")
I think you missed my point. Join a large crowd of others. I shall quote you a little. " First, this shows that you refused to check the cite. " You have no idea how much time I spent or didn’t spend at the Site, looking at the citations. My opinion of the site is one based on reading, not dismissal without evidence. Specifically this bit of supposition was about ‘orbital cycling’ as a basis with a bunch of other stuff to propose what is, at best a theory about how CO2 lags but then causes Global warming. It appears most of this science was done and issued well after the movie. A skeptic might say its for covering up the weakness’ in Saint Al’s argument. Not me, I’m not a skeptic. I found the argument for the base cause of Ice ages to be at least scientifically relevant. The 100,000 year cycle. I won’t say that some of this is new, I know about precession and the cycle of earth’s axis shifts over time. I read science fiction. Lots of facts are presented in that form that any inquiring mind can easily follow. People have presented a possible solution to how Al might still be right, while he was dead wrong based on the science when he said it. I’d say the jury is still out on this, if the jury pool wasn’t tainted in the first place. I need to be brief, as Dr. Watson says on the TV show Sherlock Holmes “Up all night argueing with idiots on the internet?” I will try not to be that guy. You make a point that some convervative scientists argue that a lot of the information given by Al Gore is not incorrect. The website that you cited used to be named something a little less friendly about a politician from Utah. Excuse me if I once again point out that the fact that some people who seem to agree with me, might in fact be flaming idiots, and everyone who also might agree with me may also have some rather, best say it directly, MORONIC approaches to other issues. Two words. “Authentic Rape”. My point is Crichton’s point. Or actually Crichtons point is the one I agree with. There’s far too much politics tied up with this issue. We can disagree on points of fact. Some have said, it might even have been you in this discussion that CO2 is the biggest contributor. I have stated in this discussion that people need to be far more concerned about Methane as it is 72 times more powerful then CO2 in terms of reflecting heat and has been admitted to having 4 times the influence on global warming then first thought. Methane has a life of 12 years in the atmosphere before it breaks down into CO2 and other stuff. We’ve got lots of methane. Before 1750 AD we had 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now we have 40% more. We also have had a huge increase in Methane, but a small decrease in Nitrous Oxide… that actually suprised me. why are we colder now then we were in 1750? We certainly have MORE PEOPLE, and we’ve done a great job of cutting down forests and paving over farmland and etc. So why are we still colder? You can’t answer that question because it blows up your theories that its JUST gas and its JUST manmade stuff. Most CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t even human based. Or is it. The old line graph that shows it has disappeared and everyone, including your beloved skeptical science now shows that humans provide 99% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Wow, who provided it before we were here? Everyone all cites the same study. At least all of the citiations I checked are in fact ONE study. Unfortunately CO2 leaks out all over the place. Not just active volcanoes. Except for Timothy Casey, he’s not buying this and at this point neither am I. I suggest you read this place and open your mind up a bit. [http://geologist-1011.net/](http://geologist-1011.net/) He makes cogent arguments, it has those nasty old facts in it and discusses this issue. Science is the discussion of issues, not the discarding of ideas to a ‘majority vote’. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/92 "2013-10-31T22:20:50Z")
> [@Bill\_F](#): > > My point is Crichton’s point. Or actually Crichtons point is the one I agree with. :rolleyes: [Oh, Jesus K. . . .](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_fear#Criticism_from_scientific_community) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/93 "2013-10-31T22:28:35Z")
For all your insistence that you check the cites, you still miss that they link to the published science: [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/1216073110](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/1216073110) > [@](#): > > Abstract > > On 103- to 106-year timescales, global sea level is determined largely by the volume of ice stored on land, which in turn largely reflects the thermal state of the Earth system. Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My to identify a well-defined and clearly sigmoidal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and sea level on geological (near-equilibrium) timescales. This strongly supports the dominant role of CO2 in determining Earth’s climate on these timescales and suggests that other variables that influence long-term global climate (e.g., topography, ocean circulation) play a secondary role. And indeed, published before and after Al Gore came into the picture. You are still missing the point that Al Gore is not important, the science is still there even if Gore smells. > [@Bill\_F](#): > > Most CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t even human based. Or is it. The old line graph that shows it has disappeared and everyone, including your beloved skeptical science now shows that humans provide 99% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Wow, who provided it before we were here? Everyone all cites the same study. Easy for you to say it, but that is not what they reported, do you have a link to the cite you are talking about? > [@Bill\_F](#): > > At least all of the citiations I checked are in fact ONE study. Unfortunately CO2 leaks out all over the place. Not just active volcanoes. Except for Timothy Casey, he’s not buying this and at this point neither am I. I suggest you read this place and open your mind up a bit. [http://geologist-1011.net/](http://geologist-1011.net/) > > He makes cogent arguments, it has those nasty old facts in it and discusses this issue. Science is the discussion of issues, not the discarding of ideas to a ‘majority vote’. So a geologist that worked for the petroleum industry and does not publish his “papers” in scientific journals. I’m convinced… Not! And just looking at the basic page on the volcanoes at Skeptical Science one can see that more than one study and the EIA report that: > **[Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?](https://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-basic.htm)** > > \Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.\ > [@](#): > > The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject. > > The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. [http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=432&noexcl=true&t=Volcanic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20Global%20Carbon%20Cycle](http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=432&noexcl=true&t=Volcanic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20Global%20Carbon%20Cycle) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/94 "2013-11-01T00:21:21Z")
> [@Bill\_F](#): > > I am a registered Democrat. I am an engineer. What kind of engineer? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/95 "2013-11-01T01:51:16Z")
> [@Grave Filler](#): > > What kind of engineer? Not sure now, have you seen the last link that he claims should be looked at so you will open your mind? :rolleyes: It has weapons grade woo woo, and I’m not talking global warming denial: [http://expansion.geologist-1011.net/](http://expansion.geologist-1011.net/) The Expanding Earth hypothesis! Have not seen that one since the 80’s… the 1880’s that is! 😃 > **[Expanding Earth](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth)** > > The Expanding Earth hypothesis, first proposed by Robert Mantovani in 1889, attempts to explain continental drift, but without the actual continental drift. > [@](#): > > The Expanding Earth hypothesis, first proposed by Robert Mantovani in 1889, attempts to explain continental drift, but without the actual continental drift. > > This hypothesis was actually considered not unreasonable before the acceptance of plate tectonics, so this could then have been considered to be a protoscience. These days, it’s cranks all the way down. Some thing is going on with a few a geologists, that crank idea appears so many times coming from people that have problems with climate science that even science writer Peter Hadfield noticed and made a fine short video explaining and debunking this peculiar bit of woo: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/epwg6Od49e8/hqdefault.jpg "Expanding earth my ass") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8) (Expanding earth my ass!) ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/96 "2013-11-08T23:20:19Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What kind of engineer? Not the kind that drives a train. Wouldn’t that be cool? Materials Science, formerly Metallurgy. My two years of Chemistry, Two years of Physics, and etc. To go along with my multiple degrees. BS, MS, but not a Piled Higher and Deeper, my family was more important than another piece of paper. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/97 "2013-11-09T00:09:29Z")
Gigo, My long reply got lost because it unlogged me in. It is clear you didn’t read the post. The Geologist discussed the theories of expanding earth and debunked them. But that would have required reading, which, you didn’t do. Also requiring reading was the left hand of the website which had the site owners thoughts on CO2. You missed that, but didn’t miss the fact that he was employed by the oil industry… for 10 years, as a driller. Should he just commit suicide now? But hasn’t worked for them for 6 years? So your reading skills are apparently limited to searching for things that MAY support your argument and not the entire set of facts. Quite typical of the pseudo science you argue so strongly for. I’m going to post this and then continue to debunk. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/98 "2013-11-09T00:13:57Z")
Gigo, part 2. You want the cite. The USGS did a study that concluded less than 1% of all CO2 in the atmosphere comes from Volcanos. Nearly all people concluding this cite this ONE study done and reported on this page. > **[Hawaiian Volcano Observatory](https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/hvo_volcano_watch.html)** > > USGS: Volcano Hazards Program - Hawaiian Volcano Observatory USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Hawaiian Volcano Observatory My response is this. Where did the CO2 come from when we weren’t here, weren’t burning fossil fuels? How did the earth heat up back in the years 800 - 1200? CO2 didn’t do it. Yet it was QUITE A BIT warmer. No one takes that on, because it flies in the face. of what you ‘true believers’ like to spout. It was the sun. Posting again. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/99 "2013-11-09T00:22:25Z")
No G, what you continually miss, on purpose I think, is the fact that people who hold differing opinions from you ARE using science, and using it correctly, without bias or foregone conclusions, to prove, disprove, or discuss a point. On that site I provided a link to you can click on “Not so Apologetic” where he takes his shot, with science on debunking some pretty big ‘stones’ in the Human causes global warming arguement. But this is the thing about intellectual discussions, If you are unwilling to at least listen to without dismissing someones arguement and break it down to facts and what they mean, then its not an intellectual discussion at all. Its a not funny version of “The arguement sketch”. My statement remains that Human cause Global warming science is a house built on a foundation of sand. I do not disagree with a number of things necessary to improve our own human condition. In 1980 I supported John Anderson for president (against Carter and Reagan) because he called for the immediate imposition of a 50 cent per gallon gas tax to be used to improve energy efficiency and remove the US from disruption from global energy sources. This at a time when gas was 1 dollar a gallon. Up from 50 cents a few years earlier. I support the recent law, but not its convolutions to raise the efficiency of automobiles and trucks. I do not support a Carbon tax. Carbon Taxes are stupid money grabs by government. Carbon taxes do nothing. Posting again ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/100 "2013-11-09T00:30:46Z")
No G, the simple facts are, Gasoline consumption in this country is down by 20% from 2006, because cars and trucks are more fuel efficient. And will be increasingly so. More efficient transportation, heating, electrical use are things that are evolutionary, not revolutionary. The solution for these issues sat, unused for several reasons. 1. They worked, but were very expensive. Direct injection at the cylinder with different timing and quantities based on feedback information was not possible until computers became fast enough. Otherwise modern engines would literally blow themselves apart. 2. These things cost money and until everyone HAS to do it no one can do it without putting themselves at a disadvantage. Cynics (call them nutjobs) have always said there was a secret 100MPG carburator that would allow people to get 100MPG with their… 6000 pound vehicles. Engineers always knew that was complete BS. You have to take thermodynamics to understand that arguement. There are more efficient engines now in use in many cars, not just hybrids. The Atcheson (sp?) cycle engine is one that has greater efficiencies and uses that advance computer stuff to make it work even better. Posting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574.md?page=6)