It is the way it's reflected on in here, and in most extreme right wing blogs like this one. Actual Conservatism is fine. But it's been bastardized by these wingnuts today.
Actually you have it backwards. Extreme leftists are the conjured up all this Green stuff including global warming. It usually takes one extreme to offset another extreme but in the mean time common sense should prevail. Global warming is bogus and backing it to an extreme simply exposes an agenda not a true concern.
Totally wrong.
Real science is based on the scientific method.
Junk science (opinionated, judgemental science) is peer review.
Republicans aren't anti-science, we're anti-junk science.
Left wing science isn't science, it's ideology...corrupt, manipulated ideology.
"Global warming" radicals want to control global production - that's their agenda.
You have to be bat shit crazy to think anyone sane would allow "peer review" and faulty "computer models" that have been proven 95% wrong to control entire economies.
Ain't.
Gonna.
Happen.
These commies need to go away.
That is a fact but the climate scientists are saying it is warming at a faster rate than it should. Is it going to be "Catastrophic?" I don't know it's what they are telling us. Do I believe that hook, line, and sinker? No, but I am not an expert. I will say this Acceb, Joe, and now RR have provided us with 3 scientists over the past few days on the other side. Do the research on guys like Goddard and Ian Plimer and you will be more convinced that there is man made climate change.
I think I asked you this before, do you really believe that humans do not effect the climate and can not change the rate of the Earth's heating. To me it is somewhat a common sense that it is very plausible.
The guy Goddard is junk science. Your guy Ian Plimer is Junk Science. You are looking more and more like a low informed idiot. I have supplied enough data that has pointed out how embarrassing these scientists are. I don't know what more to tell youTotally wrong.
Real science is based on the scientific method.
Junk science (opinionated, judgemental science) is peer review.
Republicans aren't anti-science, we're anti-junk science.
Left wing science isn't science, it's ideology...corrupt, manipulated ideology.
"Global warming" radicals want to control global production - that's their agenda.
You have to be bat shit crazy to think anyone sane would allow "peer review" and faulty "computer models" that have been proven 95% wrong to control entire economies.
Ain't.
Gonna.
Happen.
These commies need to go away.
Totally wrong.
Real science is based on the scientific method.
Junk science (opinionated, judgemental science) is peer review.
Republicans aren't anti-science, we're anti-junk science.
Left wing science isn't science, it's ideology...corrupt, manipulated ideology.
"Global warming" radicals want to control global production - that's their agenda.
You have to be bat shit crazy to think anyone sane would allow "peer review" and faulty "computer models" that have been proven 95% wrong to control entire economies.
Ain't.
Gonna.
Happen.
These commies need to go away.
Your science is ALL POLITICAL!
Peer review is corrupt junk science.
Sucks to be you (anyone who believes this bullshit).
Normal people aren't falling for it.
I really don't give a shit what politicians think. I go by what experts think. I can provide you with tons of expert opinion, you guys have provided me with 3 non experts and bloggers over the past few days. I have neo cons and NFL trends providing blank statements without any science, just useless opinions such as, "the Earth warms and it cools." Do you guys think the expert know this? I have to go with the experts over the guys you guys provide or the neo base's OPINION but thats just me. I really hope you guys are right and the experts are wrong
Now, as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gather in Sweden this week to approve portions of the IPCC's fifth assessment report, they are finding themselves pressured to explain this glaring discrepancy.
...
Though scientists don't have any firm answers, they do have multiple theories. Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.
The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn't enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.
Scientists have also offered other explanations for the hiatus: lack of sunspot activity, low concentrations of atmospheric water vapor and other marine-related effects. These too remain theories.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep...ainty-20130923
That's the point just like nobody has a clue anything at Goddard's link is true but here is a thread titled,
- "more scientists caught manipulating data to prove global warming
- Can't make this up. Do you want me to provide more material showing Steve Goddard and his "Real Science" being mocked, I can provide an excerpt where anti climate scientists have to apologize for him. That's how bad he is. I just wanted people to do their own research on the guy and decide for themselves if he is credible.
- The link I provide shows a guy's opinion about Goddard and how he is inconsistent with his research that can be said as true.
Actually, "peer review" has become politicized by these zealots
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night. In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.
Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.
Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.
The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”. The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”
Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics. . .
Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.
He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
