Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't know, guys and gals... I am sort of with the climate change deniers, too.  It's like the theory of "gravity" -- I think the science is pretty sketchy.  I mean think about birds?  Why aren't they affected by so-called gravity?

I can't give any answers for why pesky birds confound so called fiziks and gravity and stuff...BUT I know why jet aircraft fly. Thrust demons and lift pixies...maybe there's a similar alien thang going on with birds?

[onan]

I can't give any answers for why pesky birds confound so called fiziks and gravity and stuff...BUT I know why jet aircraft fly. Thrust demons and lift pixies...maybe there's a similar alien thang going on with birds?

After talking to jesus... god did it.

[RealCool Daddio]

I can't give any answers for why pesky birds confound so called fiziks and gravity and stuff...BUT I know why jet aircraft fly. Thrust demons and lift pixies...maybe there's a similar alien thang going on with birds?

The left has been hypocritically stifling reasoned criticism of this area of study since Newton.  Just more evidence of groupthink.

[RealCool Daddio]

After talking to jesus... god did it.

Now that's some good old fashioned conservative science at work.  Irrefutable facts, clear reasoning.  You should move to South Carolina, Onan, and run for office.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/south-carolina-state-senator-asked-governor-whether-appointe

[wr250]

Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures todayâ€"how long will it last?
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

some facts from a gov source. feel free to read the whole article. so the climate changes, its done that since the earth formed. sometimes it changes very quickly (in just a few years , acc'd to the article), so get over it.

[RealCool Daddio]

Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures todayâ€"how long will it last?
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

some facts from a gov source. feel free to read the whole article. so the climate changes, its done that since the earth formed. sometimes it changes very quickly (in just a few years , acc'd to the article), so get over it.

Nope:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

[wr250]

Nope:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

apparently you think the little ice age occured 12800 yrs ago, which was when i was talking about. i posted a link from the allways right government, for your convenience. however, that has shown to be a mistake to those who say "this is the truth. there is no other. here is some irrelevant data to prove it".
well i give up,you sir, have a nice day.

[onan]

Now that's some good old fashioned conservative science at work.  Irrefutable facts, clear reasoning.  You should move to South Carolina, Onan, and run for office.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/south-carolina-state-senator-asked-governor-whether-appointe

The fact that there may even be an atheist in the state of South Carolina precludes me living there.

[NowhereInTime]

Ohh, role playing games! How aaarrreee yeeeeeeew! I get to call you Nancy, as I always think of Pelosi when you start up with your shrill liberal ranting. Shomethn's goin on here, I can feel it. You just want to sell the more expenshive boozsh to get the salesh numbers higher.

If I wanted to drink like a man, I'd go with straight rye whiskey on the rocks. That'll grow hair on your chest and dissolve your vocal cords.

Call me anything you like.  You're only about the fifth con on here to immediately go to a female allegory as if I should somehow feel insulted or emasculated.
1) Jorch or Nancy?  No contest, you lose.
2) Given your stunning lack of original thought, I'm not surprised you employ conservative "groupthink" and issue a gender bender insult to a liberal.  To quote you" "Pfft." (Nice, comparing women to "shrill". No wonder your wife left you.)
3) Gordon's Gin delivers a higher GP but I just cannot bring myself to hand sell it over just about anything but Boodles.

[wr250]

The fact that there may even be an atheist in the state of South Carolina precludes me living there.

and there would be, should you move there.

[NowhereInTime]

apparently you think the little ice age occured 12800 yrs ago, which was when i was talking about. i posted a link from the allways right government,...

No, you posted a link from the Holy Theological State of Latter Day Saints Republic of Utah. They Jesus rode an iceberg out of Upstate New York on his way back to Heaven about 150 years ago.

[RealCool Daddio]

apparently you think the little ice age occured 12800 yrs ago, which was when i was talking about. i posted a link from the allways right government, for your convenience. however, that has shown to be a mistake to those who say "this is the truth. there is no other. here is some irrelevant data to prove it".
well i give up,you sir, have a nice day.

I read the article.  It doesn't disprove climate change, or man made influences on the same.  Do you think it does?

[wr250]

No, you posted a link from the Holy Theological State of Latter Day Saints Republic of Utah. They Jesus rode an iceberg out of Upstate New York on his way back to Heaven about 150 years ago.

no .gov tld's are reserved for government agencies, white house,congress and some states. if it were religious it could not have a .gov tld due to separation of church and state.
note your sarcasm is duly noted.

[RealCool Daddio]

and there would be, should you move there.

Onan is no athiest.  He talks to Jesus, for Christ's sake.

[wr250]

I read the article.  It doesn't disprove climate change, or man made influences on the same.  Do you think it does?

it most certainly proves climate change. the climate is always changing. sometimes very rapidly ,and in a shorter time period than today. that is the point

[ItsOver]

Why the hell was he banned?  I missed that somewhere.

It's my understanding Eddie had a meltdown with some folks who showed-up during the Dark Matter debacle.  It got worse from that point on.  Too bad.  I miss his exchanges with Sardondi.

[RealCool Daddio]

it most certainly proves climate change. the climate is always changing. sometimes very rapidly ,and in a shorter time period than today. that is the point

I guess you didn't return the favour and follow the link I posted.  Here is a sample:

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.

[PB the Deplorable]

You are mixing myth and belief systems with fact again.  If anything, climate science is subjected to much greater scrutiny than other areas of study, in plain view of the public.  And the facts continue to hold up...


Just in the interest of fairness, can you share some of the varied insight on the matter that is the result of the long, dark night of the soul that conservatives, in their ongoing quest for varied and diverse thought, have come up with?  Any scientific results from the numerous studies they have no doubt encouraged?  Any peer reviewed papers, with empirical evidence?  Anything at all that would show they aren't subject to ideologically induced groupthink and denial?

I'm still stuck on the phony scientists at East Anglia University.  On the eve of the Copenhagen Convention, hackers revealed them to be manipulating the climate change data - playing up data that agreed with their narrative, downplaying and ignoring data that didn't, and asking each other how best to do that.

The Climate Research Unit there - the CRU - are the people that collect the data and produce the climate change 'results'.  Everyone issuing an opinion uses their data.  They were caught red-handed lying about it.  They are what we call 'Political Scientists'.  The climate change data - all of it - can't be trusted.

The various alarmists use take this data as gospel, then build their cases around that.  Of course they find us precariously on the edge of disaster - they are starting with faulty dishonest manipulated information whose goal is just that, to predict disaster.

They got some group who agrees with them to 'investigate' their actions, dubbed 'Climate-gate'.  Surprise surprise, these other political scientists cleared them of wrongdoing.


Doesn't any of it give people defending this pause?  Doesn't anyone find it odd that these reports were riddled with errors - all of which erred in the direction of alarm?

Until we are at least getting honest facts and data, I'm out.  The Left has cried wolf too many times for us to take their claims seriously.  Whatever they come up with, it's interesting that it always involves shutting down business, raising taxes, creating more bureaucracy, and generally ratcheting up government control of the citizens.

Any climate change is a result of the sun's activity.  Period.  Any real scientist will tell you that.


If people want to talk about pollution, contaminated ground water and disappearing aquifers, plastic and other crap in the ocean, tearing down rain forest and other habitat, overpopulation, species protection - count me in.  Unfortunately Al Gore couldn't figure out a way to make billions by actually helping the planet, and the masterminds of the Left are really interested in power and control rather than addressing real problems, so we get man made climate cooling warming change

[onan]

I'm still stuck on the phony scientists at East Anglia University.  On the eve of the Copenhagen Convention, hackers revealed them to be manipulating the climate change data - playing up data that agreed with their narrative, downplaying and ignoring data that didn't, and asking each other how best to do that.

The Climate Research Unit there - the CRU - are the people that collect the data and produce the climate change 'results'.  Everyone issuing an opinion uses their data.  They were caught red-handed lying about it.  They are what we call 'Political Scientists'.  The climate change data - all of it - can't be trusted.

The various alarmists use take this data as gospel, then build their cases around that.  Of course they find us precariously on the edge of disaster - they are starting with faulty dishonest manipulated information whose goal is just that, to predict disaster.

They got some group who agrees with them to 'investigate' their actions, dubbed 'Climate-gate'.  Surprise surprise, these other political scientists cleared them of wrongdoing.


Doesn't any of it give people defending this pause?  Doesn't anyone find it odd that these reports were riddled with errors - all of which erred in the direction of alarm?

Until we are at least getting honest facts and data, I'm out.  The Left has cried wolf too many times for us to take their claims seriously.  Whatever they come up with, it's interesting that it always involves shutting down business, raising taxes, creating more bureaucracy, and generally ratcheting up government control of the citizens.

Any climate change is a result of the sun's activity.  Period.  Any real scientist will tell you that.


If people want to talk about pollution, contaminated ground water and disappearing aquifers, plastic and other crap in the ocean, tearing down rain forest and other habitat, overpopulation, species protection - count me in.  Unfortunately Al Gore couldn't figure out a way to make billions by actually helping the planet, and the masterminds of the Left are really interested in power and control rather than addressing real problems, so we get man made climate cooling warming change

Two things, and you will argue both until blue in the face... but here goes.

The email hack you bring up was explained as dubious hacks with intention to obfuscate and the CRU (climate research unit) stated that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.

Secondly, real scientists also include green house gasses and the link to our dependence on petroleum.

[RealCool Daddio]

Even the military is concerned about climate change:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/david_titley_climate_change_war_an_interview_with_the_retired_rear_admiral.html

[SciFiAuthor]

You posted this before, and as before you seem to have no real grasp of agriculture. You do seem to have the ability to look no further than you have to for supporting your beliefs. Higher crop yields as explained to you before produce lower nutritional value. Is there some trade off, I would imagine so? but to just make a point and hope no one notices is below your abilities.

I don't see it as an insurmountable problem. In fact it's a non-issue. We don't seem to be suffering malnutrition from these crops--in fact quite the opposite--and if we did get to that point I can think of three ways to fix it off the top of my head:

1. Broader fertilizer formulas that combat soil mineral and nutrient exhaustion. We already soak half the planet in anhydrous ammonia, we can add selenium or whatever else is needed any time we wish and even tailor it to specific regions. I'm sure liberals will find a way to be against this though. Better food production is bad news for sustainability in global population numbers.

2. GMO engineering of the crops to be more nutritious. Liberals hate this one too, unfortunately, and have gotten quite a few countries to reject it outright whether Monsanto was involved or not. Of course all GMO is now on the liberal ten commandments no no list. And that'll kill a few million needlessly the next time a famine happens. Africa's about due again.

There may well already be blood on your guy's hands on this one, actually, from when your hippies were down in post-earthquake Haiti scaring the shit out of the locals regarding seeds that were donated.

3. We live in a society that long ago cured goiter by simply adding iodine to salt. I guarantee we can distribute just about any nutrients we wish if the plants aren't cutting it.

Of course, decades of anti-humanist brainwashing has you thinking that humans are too stupid to solve problems, so of course this nutrient non-issue gets blown up to the usual "oh my god, we're all gonna die!" magnitude that it doesn't deserve much like climate change.

[SciFiAuthor]

You are mixing myth and belief systems with fact again.  If anything, climate science is subjected to much greater scrutiny than other areas of study, in plain view of the public.  And the facts continue to hold up.

No, they don't hold up. The anticipated IPCC Fifth Assessment Report due this year includes an admission that the predicted .13C rise in global temperatures from IPCC AR4 in 2007 did not pan out because the model was wrong. IPCC AR4 was also spectacularly wrong in it's prediction of more severe hurricanes, when in fact the opposite has occurred, again attributed to the model being flawed by the researchers themselves.

The list of incorrect predictions goes on. Who could forget the Pine Island Glacier debacle where it was discovered that the glacier had been resting on a ridge that finally gave way and allowed warm water to flow beneath the glacier and change its melt profile. They simply missed seeing the ridge when doing their underwater mapping of the area, and ASSUMED that the increase in melting was due to climate change when it wasn't. As a result, every glacial melt model for Antarctica previous to 2010 that used data from Pine Island had to be reworked because of the error. Of course that didn't stop anyone previous to that from scaring the shit out of the public with the data.

Shit like that doesn't fly in other sciences. In fact, it's sort of made fun of, especially within physics which necessarily holds itself to a much more stringent ethic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?sq=Freeman&_r=0

And it doesn't change the fact that the whole thing is a moot point anyway. 20 more years of C02 production and then we're done with it as a species due to new technology.

Or if you prefer the big freeeeekout to skepticism, then it's already too late to do anything about it anyway:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/late-stop-global-warming/story?id=17557814

Just in the interest of fairness, can you share some of the varied insight on the matter that is the result of the long, dark night of the soul that conservatives, in their ongoing quest for varied and diverse thought, have come up with?  Any scientific results from the numerous studies they have no doubt encouraged?  Any peer reviewed papers, with empirical evidence?  Anything at all that would show they aren't subject to ideologically induced groupthink and denial?

I think you simply need to watch their behavior. As I said, they've moved from a position hostile to libertarianism, even attempting to ban Ron Paul from their primary debates, to widespread support of libertarianism. If you don't think that was an ideological shift due to internal debate, then what do you think it was?

[RealCool Daddio]

No, they don't hold up. The anticipated IPCC Fifth Assessment Report due this year includes an admission that the predicted .13C rise in global temperatures from IPCC AR4 in 2007 did not pan out because the model was wrong. IPCC AR4 was also spectacularly wrong in it's prediction of more severe hurricanes, when in fact the opposite has occurred, again attributed to the model being flawed by the researchers themselves.

You are  presenting falsehoods as facts, again. Or reading David Rose. (Please note where the accuracy of the projections is to within 0.01 degrees celcius):

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/scientists-take-the-mail-on-sunday-to-task-over-claim-that-warming-is-half-what-ipcc-expected/

For further reading on how the models have correctly predicted warming, and how they continue to become more accurate, see here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ar5-human-caused-global-warming-confidence.html


Or here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html

Or here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

[SciFiAuthor]

You are  presenting falsehoods as facts, again. Or reading David Rose. (Please note where the accuracy of the projections is to within 0.01 degrees celcius):

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/scientists-take-the-mail-on-sunday-to-task-over-claim-that-warming-is-half-what-ipcc-expected/

For further reading on how the models have correctly predicted warming, and how they continue to become more accurate, see here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ar5-human-caused-global-warming-confidence.html


Or here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html

Or here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Um, that's an English newspaper that claimed it was half, not me. Contact them. Your error and inconsistency is downplaying a .01c prediction error in a science that deals in terms of fractions of a single degree being damaging.

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb/pbch4_ss2

If you look carefully, you'll see that a 1-2 decade rise of .14c is considered alarming, i.e. the rise between the 1980's and 1990's. They're not clear on exactly what years they're measuring between, but at it's shortest .01 represents the better part of a year of warming. That large of a lag can't be credibly ignored in a model especially when short interval measurements make up the basis of the data going into the model.

It gets a bit worse when the models fail to predict this:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Cited in there are a whole lot of unfactored in variables within the climate models you claim are accurate. And when IPCC AR5 comes out, it's going to have to reckon with that .04c per decade UK measurement. 2014 will be a rough year for climate science.

Not that it should be surprising, a .01 modeling error in aerospace engineering means your rocket just exploded.

[onan]

I don't see it as an insurmountable problem. In fact it's a non-issue. We don't seem to be suffering malnutrition from these crops--in fact quite the opposite--and if we did get to that point I can think of three ways to fix it off the top of my head:

1. Broader fertilizer formulas that combat soil mineral and nutrient exhaustion. We already soak half the planet in anhydrous ammonia, we can add selenium or whatever else is needed any time we wish and even tailor it to specific regions. I'm sure liberals will find a way to be against this though. Better food production is bad news for sustainability in global population numbers.

2. GMO engineering of the crops to be more nutritious. Liberals hate this one too, unfortunately, and have gotten quite a few countries to reject it outright whether Monsanto was involved or not. Of course all GMO is now on the liberal ten commandments no no list. And that'll kill a few million needlessly the next time a famine happens. Africa's about due again.

There may well already be blood on your guy's hands on this one, actually, from when your hippies were down in post-earthquake Haiti scaring the shit out of the locals regarding seeds that were donated.

3. We live in a society that long ago cured goiter by simply adding iodine to salt. I guarantee we can distribute just about any nutrients we wish if the plants aren't cutting it.

Of course, decades of anti-humanist brainwashing has you thinking that humans are too stupid to solve problems, so of course this nutrient non-issue gets blown up to the usual "oh my god, we're all gonna die!" magnitude that it doesn't deserve much like climate change.

I tried to approach your response with more information. But I have had it. Look your argument is specious at best. More CO2 is bad. It is that simple. And you just go on... more plants... but the more plants really have no more nutrients than those grown in a normal CO2 environment. But you do fill up lines of text. Now you suggest more nitrogen... I guess you don't understand the nitrogen cycle either.

but I am brainwashed. Ya know at some point you become really annoying. I have tried in the last several discussions to stay on the high road. You, are at best hit and miss.

Now it's liberals hate gmo... fuck... I don't hate gmo's not even a little. I do hate patenting dna. And monsanto should have its executives genetically modified.

It is simple, I know you don't like it because... apparently only you have any common sense.

[SciFiAuthor]

I tried to approach your response with more information. But I have had it. Look your argument is specious at best. More CO2 is bad. It is that simple. And you just go on... more plants... but the more plants really have no more nutrients than those grown in a normal CO2 environment. But you do fill up lines of text. Now you suggest more nitrogen... I guess you don't understand the nitrogen cycle either.

You incorrectly read my point, though I'd have thought the use of the word "selenium" would have tipped you off that I wasn't talking about nitrogen. Go back and read what I wrote instead of posting a bullshit response please.

Fuck it, I'll dumb it down for you:

The lack of nutrients, which currently has zero effect on public nutrition since you're obviously not sitting there dying of scurvy, is largely due to soil depletion. The solution is that you fix the fucking soil depletion Onan. Apparently that seems as hard as going to fucking Alpha Centauri to you, but to me I see that we already fertilize every fucking farm field in the US and can easily add other nutrients to the mix. Jeeeezus.

And if that doesn't work, GMO the fucking things so they produce whatever the hell nutrient value you want.

but I am brainwashed. Ya know at some point you become really annoying. I have tried in the last several discussions to stay on the high road. You, are at best hit and miss.

Fucking right you are, you just claimed I was talking about nitrogen with no basis whatsoever to do it from as a kneejerk reaction to being presented with a solution. That's fucked up. You really do apparently think that you can't alter a plant's nutrient levels. That's fucking incomprehensible to me. Why would you think that?

Now it's liberals hate gmo... fuck... I don't hate gmo's not even a little. I do hate patenting dna. And monsanto should have its executives genetically modified.

Yeah, except the proof is the pudding. The GMO potato, which was not cultivated by seed, not transmissible genetically to other potatoes nor a product of Monsanto was all but killed off for human consumption by your protestors. Hopefully it will make a comeback, but your folks did a real number on it.

It is simple, I know you don't like it because... apparently only you have any common sense.

No, I think outside the box and ask unpopular questions and make unpopular points. Are you saying that's unhealthy for society?

[RealCool Daddio]

Um, that's an English newspaper that claimed it was half, not me. Contact them. Your error and inconsistency is downplaying a .01c prediction error in a science that deals in terms of fractions of a single degree being damaging.

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb/pbch4_ss2

If you look carefully, you'll see that a 1-2 decade rise of .14c is considered alarming, i.e. the rise between the 1980's and 1990's. They're not clear on exactly what years they're measuring between, but at it's shortest .01 represents the better part of a year of warming. That large of a lag can't be credibly ignored in a model especially when short interval measurements make up the basis of the data going into the model.

It gets a bit worse when the models fail to predict this:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Cited in there are a whole lot of unfactored in variables within the climate models you claim are accurate. And when IPCC AR5 comes out, it's going to have to reckon with that .04c per decade UK measurement. 2014 will be a rough year for climate science.

Not that it should be surprising, a .01 modeling error in aerospace engineering means your rocket just exploded.

Again, you fail to take into account that a) the projections are for a range, b) that the actual amount of greenhouse gas emissions can only be calculated to a high degree of accuracy retroactively, and c) that predictive models will always be revised as more data becomes available.  That is what good science is all about  - test, measure, revise, repeat. 

So, yeah, ignore the data, the science, the ever increasing volume of scientific proof, and the ever dwindling pool of evidence to the contrary for you to cherry pick from.  Or take Freeman Dyson's word on the matter, from his 2008 review of books on global warming:

"I begin this review with a prologue, describing the measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science." 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/

[SciFiAuthor]

Again, you fail to take into account that a) the projections are for a range, b) that the actual amount of greenhouse gas emissions can only be calculated to a high degree of accuracy retroactively, and c) that predictive models will always be revised as more data becomes available.  That is what good science is all about  - test, measure, revise, repeat. 

Wait a minute, you've just been arguing that the models are accurate and now you've flip flopped. Now you're telling me that you can only calculate greenhouse gas emissions retroactively, which is correct, but those numbers are essential for a forward predicting model. In other words, now you're saying that forward predicting models are necessarily inaccurate.

So, yeah, ignore the data, the science, the ever increasing volume of scientific proof, and the ever dwindling pool of evidence to the contrary for you to cherry pick from.  Or take Freeman Dyson's word on the matter, from his 2008 review of books on global warming:

"I begin this review with a prologue, describing the measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science." 

I see the problems with the data, and you just spotted one yourself. But you're incorrect in that the scientific proof is increasing in volume. What's increasing in volume are irregularities and mysteries.

Again, the whole thing is moot anyway. Climate change is either past the point of no return, or it's nothing close to as big of a problem as we think. Spending trillions to combat it, disadvantaging the third world in the name of sustainability, lowering everyone's standard of living in the west, and promoting a general freak out of the population while we're sitting on the cusp of eliminating CO2 emissions entirely due to technological development is fucking insane.

It's even more insane to see the left protesting that very technological development because ITER has that scary word nuclear involved in it. Never mind that it's fusion, not fission, but that apparently doesn't matter to your liberal peeps.

[RealCool Daddio]

Wait a minute, you've just been arguing that the models are accurate and now you've flip flopped. Now you're telling me that you can only calculate greenhouse gas emissions retroactively, which is correct, but those numbers are essential for a forward predicting model. In other words, now you're saying that forward predicting models are necessarily inaccurate.

I see the problems with the data, and you just spotted one yourself. But you're incorrect in that the scientific proof is increasing in volume. What's increasing in volume are irregularities and mysteries.

Again, the whole thing is moot anyway. Climate change is either past the point of no return, or it's nothing close to as big of a problem as we think. Spending trillions to combat it, disadvantaging the third world in the name of sustainability, lowering everyone's standard of living in the west, and promoting a general freak out of the population while we're sitting on the cusp of eliminating CO2 emissions entirely due to technological development is fucking insane.

It's even more insane to see the left protesting that very technological development because ITER has that scary word nuclear involved in it. Never mind that it's fusion, not fission, but that apparently doesn't matter to your liberal peeps.

Where did I flip flop?  It is impossible to predict with finite accuracy how much carbon byproduct will be emitted into the planetary atmosphere tomorrow, next week, next year, or over the coming decade.  What is known - what is a scientific fact, as Freeman Dyson (your guy) agrees - is what the impact to our climate will be as a net result.  I'll keep it simple for you, as you seem to be struggling with basic concepts.  More greenhouse gas = bad! less greenhouse gas = good.  Clear enough for you?

The second half of your post is a a garbled mess of contradictions and political bias.  You view science through a political filter, instead of a neutral one.  You immediately jump to political and social/economic impacts of scientific proof as a means of determining the truth, instead of the proof itself - in other words, you advocate bad science.  Then, in the same breath mind you, you hail science as a saviour for our problems.  Trust some scientists you say (eg: those that have the blessing of the right), but distrust those whose whose truths are inconvenient. 

So to summarize, your position is:

Nuclear power - yay! Science rules!

Climate change - boo!  Science hurts my brain!

[SciFiAuthor]

Where did I flip flop?  It is impossible to predict with finite accuracy how much carbon byproduct will be emitted into the planetary atmosphere tomorrow, next week, next year, or over the coming decade.  What is known - what is a scientific fact, as Freeman Dyson (your guy) agrees - is what the impact to our climate will be as a net result.  I'll keep it simple for you, as you seem to be struggling with basic concepts.  More greenhouse gas = bad! less greenhouse gas = good.  Clear enough for you?

Are the models accurate or not? Now you're saying that they aren't. Look a bit deeper into Freeman Dyson's papers on climate change, you'll find much of what I'm saying within them. And he's not the only one, there are a number of physicists that question the methods of climate science.

The second half of your post is a a garbled mess of contradictions and political bias.  You view science through a political filter, instead of a neutral one.  You immediately jump to political and social/economic impacts of scientific proof as a means of determining the truth, instead of the proof itself - in other words, you advocate bad science.  Then, in the same breath mind you, you hail science as a saviour for our problems.  Trust some scientists you say (eg: those that have the blessing of the right), but distrust those whose whose truths are inconvenient.

No, actually I view science from the standpoint of holding a degree in a science. Skepticism is essential to science, yet in this one field skepticism is ostracized. That's not scientific, it's really that simple. And the reason skepticism isn't allowed is specifically because the issue is more political than scientific.

I advocate skepticism, not bad science. As Carl Sagan once said (somewhat before he fucked up by claiming the burning of the Iraqi oil fields would produce an effect similar to a nuclear winter) extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the climate scientists simply do not have it given the magnitude of the social impact of their findings. They are an immature, relatively new field. Personally, I think a much greater and more immediate threat is an asteroid hitting the planet, and had a few variables been different in the Chelabinsk event of last year a Russian city might have been reduced to a smoking hole. But that's being ignored entirely due to NASA budget cuts done by the Obama administration. The reason they can do that is because the problem is not in the political arena.

So to summarize, your position is:

Nuclear power - yay! Science rules!

Climate change - boo!  Science hurts my brain!

No, my position is that nuclear fusion is an entirely different phenomenon than nuclear fission and it should not be opposed as though they were the same thing.

Here's fission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

That's what you should be scared of.

Here's fusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

That's what you shouldn't be mistaking for fission.

Here's ITER:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Notice they had to change the meaning of the acronym because you morons on the left kept mistaking it for a fission reactor.

And here's your peeps pissing and moaning about an entirely clean energy source that's already producing net gains in energy production in US labs:


http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

And don't think that opposition is merely due to mistaking fusion and fission. It's because you people on the left want the human race to stop expanding, stop breeding, and stop advancing.

Don't believe me? Then please explain why the left, and it's not just Greenpeace, would oppose an entirely clean energy source that neither has the potential for accidents nor produces any appreciable amount of radioactivity or waste products.