Damn, just drop the hammer on these fools bro!! President Reagan and Bush knew what they were doing appointing you to the National Science Board. He must have had a major agenda to prove Global Warming is real, lmao!!! Someone watch out for Ace... this shit can't be good for his health!
-----------------------------------------
Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
-----------------------------------------
Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Notice how Paul can't answer direct questions.
Notice how Paul cites argument via authority - no actual intelligent or educated person tries such stupid tactics
Notice how Paul doesn't know that science isn't some popularity contest nor are things confirmed by "the only plausible explanation!"
Paul doesn't know science.
Notice how Paul cites argument via authority - no actual intelligent or educated person tries such stupid tactics
Notice how Paul doesn't know that science isn't some popularity contest nor are things confirmed by "the only plausible explanation!"
Paul doesn't know science.
So the world of climate scientists are 90-99% confident that humans are the cause of global warming. It's not even a debate in academia or amongst climate scientists.
------------------------------------------------------
That’s why the American Association for the Advancement of Science—the world’s largest general science society—has put together a public information campaign called “What We Know.” The motivation behind it is not so much to be a compendium of facts, but instead to “present key messages for every American about climate change” as a way to hopefully show people the reality of what we’re doing to the Earth.
I think the idea behind the campaign is a good one. The problem right now isn’t any scientific debate or controversy, for there isn't one. Virtually all the doubt and arguing are being instigated by politically motivated groups and do not exist among actual climate scientists. Getting this across to the public is a crucial step in ousting head-in-the-sand politicians and marginalizing the denial groups that are massively overrepresented in the media.
I also think What We Know picked three key issues that do need to be hammered home.
One is that scientific consensus. The second is the risk of abrupt change in the climate, and the third is the need to act swiftly to lower the risk and cost of action. All three of these are important, and sometimes lost in the noise in the media.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...raise_public_awareness_of_global_warming.html
------------------------------------------------------
That’s why the American Association for the Advancement of Science—the world’s largest general science society—has put together a public information campaign called “What We Know.” The motivation behind it is not so much to be a compendium of facts, but instead to “present key messages for every American about climate change” as a way to hopefully show people the reality of what we’re doing to the Earth.
I think the idea behind the campaign is a good one. The problem right now isn’t any scientific debate or controversy, for there isn't one. Virtually all the doubt and arguing are being instigated by politically motivated groups and do not exist among actual climate scientists. Getting this across to the public is a crucial step in ousting head-in-the-sand politicians and marginalizing the denial groups that are massively overrepresented in the media.
I also think What We Know picked three key issues that do need to be hammered home.
One is that scientific consensus. The second is the risk of abrupt change in the climate, and the third is the need to act swiftly to lower the risk and cost of action. All three of these are important, and sometimes lost in the noise in the media.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...raise_public_awareness_of_global_warming.html
Paul clings to religious dogma, not science.
He's the poster child for the brainwashed, uncritical thinking drone who blindly pulls the 'D' lever every election because, "educated people are making intelligent informed decisions"
"Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe." - Obama's State of Confusion
ointer:Always liked this guy. Definitely in the wrong party because he's educated and understands things like science and economics. But Jon Huntsman is a legit dude. Too bad he has to fight the clown tea party and their anti-American, anti-science, anti-education agenda.
See Republicans... you don't have to be dumb. You can be intelligent and still be a Republican.
----------------------------------------
[h=1]The G.O.P. Can’t Ignore Climate Change[/h]
WASHINGTON — “TO waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”
These words were spoken by one of the nation’s most passionate conservationists: Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. I admire him for his pragmatism and individualism — foundational traits of the Republican Party. We must summon these qualities and apply them immediately and stoutly to the issue of climate change.
Leading up to the elections of 2008, Republican leaders at all levels were working innovatively across party and ideological divides to address environmental issues, including climate change. They included names like Huckabee, Pawlenty, Schwarzenegger and McCain. I was re-elected with almost 80 percent of the vote in bright red Utah as an environmentally forward-leaning Republican.
But there has been a shift among Republicans on climate change. Last fall, 50 percent said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth, according to the Pew Research Center. But that is down from 2006, when 59 percent of Republicans held that view.
Perhaps some of this shift has to do with the economic collapse and a resulting change in concerns and priorities. At the same time, many party leaders may have felt the need to run for cover because of growing pressure from the Tea Party. (Among Tea Party Republicans, 41 percent told Pew last fall that global warming was not happening; another 28 percent said not enough was known.) Others in the party have simply moved away from the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt. What’s been lost is any Republican creative thinking on the issue.
So obtuse has become the party’s dialogue on climate change that it’s now been reduced to believing or not believing, as if it were a religious mantra.
This approach reached a new low last month during a North Carolina congressional debate at which all the Republican candidates chuckled at a question on climate change — as if they had been asked about their belief in the Tooth Fairy. Is climate change a fact, they were asked. All four answered no. This is a shortsighted strategy that is wrong for the party, wrong for the country and wrong for the next generation. It simply kicks a big problem farther down the field. And it’s a problem we — as solution-seeking Republicans — have the opportunity to solve.
The implications were underscored once again on Tuesday, when a team of more than 300 scientists warned in a report to the White House of “mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.”
Our approach as a party should be one of neither denial nor extremism. Science must guide sensible policy discussions that will lead to well-informed choices, which may mean considering unexpected alternatives. We aren’t inspiring much confidence, especially among millennials, who at least want an intelligent conversation on the subject.
But the scales must be balanced. This means that the environmental community must be able to demonstrate a genuine appreciation for different perspectives. Discussions will not be productive if certain solutions are dismissed out of hand. This may mean accepting that natural gas or nuclear energy are part of our shorter-term horizon, rather than fighting those approaches.
While there is room for some skepticism given the uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, the fact is that the planet is warming, and failing to deal with this reality will leave us vulnerable — and possibly worse. Hedging against risk is an enduring theme of conservative thought. It is also a concept diverse groups can embrace.
If Republicans can get to a place where science drives our thinking and actions, then we will be able to make progress. We need to plan for the impacts of climate change at all levels of government. We need to empower Republicans leading those efforts to make decisions and investments that benefit their constituents, the party and the planet. Denying the science will only hinder their chance for success.
Republicans need to get back to our foundational roots as catalysts for innovation and problem solving. The country is already on a positive trajectory, with 2012 greenhouse gas emissions down 10 percent from 2005 levels. What we need to do now is what we have always done well: combine our ingenuity and market forces to lock into that trajectory. As Teddy Roosevelt teaches us, it would be foolhardy to undermine the environmental richness that will serve to empower our future generations.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...really-get-climate-change/former-utah-gov-jon
See Republicans... you don't have to be dumb. You can be intelligent and still be a Republican.
----------------------------------------
[h=1]The G.O.P. Can’t Ignore Climate Change[/h]
WASHINGTON — “TO waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”
These words were spoken by one of the nation’s most passionate conservationists: Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. I admire him for his pragmatism and individualism — foundational traits of the Republican Party. We must summon these qualities and apply them immediately and stoutly to the issue of climate change.
Leading up to the elections of 2008, Republican leaders at all levels were working innovatively across party and ideological divides to address environmental issues, including climate change. They included names like Huckabee, Pawlenty, Schwarzenegger and McCain. I was re-elected with almost 80 percent of the vote in bright red Utah as an environmentally forward-leaning Republican.
But there has been a shift among Republicans on climate change. Last fall, 50 percent said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth, according to the Pew Research Center. But that is down from 2006, when 59 percent of Republicans held that view.
Perhaps some of this shift has to do with the economic collapse and a resulting change in concerns and priorities. At the same time, many party leaders may have felt the need to run for cover because of growing pressure from the Tea Party. (Among Tea Party Republicans, 41 percent told Pew last fall that global warming was not happening; another 28 percent said not enough was known.) Others in the party have simply moved away from the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt. What’s been lost is any Republican creative thinking on the issue.
So obtuse has become the party’s dialogue on climate change that it’s now been reduced to believing or not believing, as if it were a religious mantra.
This approach reached a new low last month during a North Carolina congressional debate at which all the Republican candidates chuckled at a question on climate change — as if they had been asked about their belief in the Tooth Fairy. Is climate change a fact, they were asked. All four answered no. This is a shortsighted strategy that is wrong for the party, wrong for the country and wrong for the next generation. It simply kicks a big problem farther down the field. And it’s a problem we — as solution-seeking Republicans — have the opportunity to solve.
The implications were underscored once again on Tuesday, when a team of more than 300 scientists warned in a report to the White House of “mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.”
Our approach as a party should be one of neither denial nor extremism. Science must guide sensible policy discussions that will lead to well-informed choices, which may mean considering unexpected alternatives. We aren’t inspiring much confidence, especially among millennials, who at least want an intelligent conversation on the subject.
But the scales must be balanced. This means that the environmental community must be able to demonstrate a genuine appreciation for different perspectives. Discussions will not be productive if certain solutions are dismissed out of hand. This may mean accepting that natural gas or nuclear energy are part of our shorter-term horizon, rather than fighting those approaches.
While there is room for some skepticism given the uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, the fact is that the planet is warming, and failing to deal with this reality will leave us vulnerable — and possibly worse. Hedging against risk is an enduring theme of conservative thought. It is also a concept diverse groups can embrace.
If Republicans can get to a place where science drives our thinking and actions, then we will be able to make progress. We need to plan for the impacts of climate change at all levels of government. We need to empower Republicans leading those efforts to make decisions and investments that benefit their constituents, the party and the planet. Denying the science will only hinder their chance for success.
Republicans need to get back to our foundational roots as catalysts for innovation and problem solving. The country is already on a positive trajectory, with 2012 greenhouse gas emissions down 10 percent from 2005 levels. What we need to do now is what we have always done well: combine our ingenuity and market forces to lock into that trajectory. As Teddy Roosevelt teaches us, it would be foolhardy to undermine the environmental richness that will serve to empower our future generations.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...really-get-climate-change/former-utah-gov-jon
This is kind of how it is structured...
Group 1: Educated Republicans are typically 5-10 years behind science and academia... not because they don't believe scientists but because they spend those 5-10 years pretty much claiming there isn't enough evidence yet for them to completely accept it.
Group 2: Moderate Uneducated Republicans are about 15-20 years behind science and academia... they teeter between the educated Repubs and the retard conservatives.
Group 3: Dumbass Tea Party type conservatives are about 100-200 years behind science and academia.... they just blatantly deny science and education, pretty much chalking it up to a big government conspiracy.
Acebb, Sheriff Joe, Dave, JDeuce, and Russ are all in group 3 obviously. But thankfully there are some Group 1 and Group 2 folks here. And the group 2 folks, which are the majority of the party are slowly coming along and accepting the facts.
Group 1: Educated Republicans are typically 5-10 years behind science and academia... not because they don't believe scientists but because they spend those 5-10 years pretty much claiming there isn't enough evidence yet for them to completely accept it.
Group 2: Moderate Uneducated Republicans are about 15-20 years behind science and academia... they teeter between the educated Repubs and the retard conservatives.
Group 3: Dumbass Tea Party type conservatives are about 100-200 years behind science and academia.... they just blatantly deny science and education, pretty much chalking it up to a big government conspiracy.
Acebb, Sheriff Joe, Dave, JDeuce, and Russ are all in group 3 obviously. But thankfully there are some Group 1 and Group 2 folks here. And the group 2 folks, which are the majority of the party are slowly coming along and accepting the facts.
40-50 years ago, there had to be a guy like AKphidelt, at work, screaming at people about global cooling, and another Ice Age is coming. Since scientists all over were saying it is predictably going to happen back in the 1960's.
So maybe in 10 years or so, when its finally out what the real story is, if they can comment here (if therx is still around haha)
So maybe in 10 years or so, when its finally out what the real story is, if they can comment here (if therx is still around haha)
So you are comparing 1960s knowledge of climate with very primitive computer technology with 2015? Sounds intelligent. Your arguments are always so scientific, lol. But you don't call me names and I slip up with that because I'm use to the sheriff Joe, Acebb types. So I apologize, you don't deserve to be treated like them.
