Ahem brother.
No, that was Andrew Wakefield.
Yeah, that part’s easy enough, but then you have to blow the whole Northeast!
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?
A quick reminder that the Tea Party might be nowhere without their promotion from Rick Santelli and then Fox News.
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).
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.
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.
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.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
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.
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!
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/
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’.
:rolleyes: Oh, Jesus K. . . .
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
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.
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?
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:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract
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/
The Expanding Earth hypothesis! Have not seen that one since the 80’s… the 1880’s that is! 
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:
(Expanding earth my ass!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.