It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Republican 'thought police' Enforce Climate Science Denial

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
How Republican 'Though Police' Enforce Climate Science Denial



Though it was surely not his intention to do so,David Brooks’s column today has made an airtight case for why no sane person would support any Republican candidate for president next year. Brooks begins his column by conceding that climate-science deniers have a hammerlock on public discourse within the party. “On this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship,” he writes, “a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation.” Brooks uses this observation as a launching point to tout glimmerings of moderate (or, at any rate, less extreme) thought within the party. But let’s instead linger for a moment on the ideological commissars who prevent Republicans from acknowledging scientific reality. That sounds kind of important.
...


I found this article earlier and figured it was worthy of sharing on ATS.

The flat out denial of climate science is almost exclusively a Republican view point and I feel this artivle sheds some light on why this is so and why the GOP is so adamant on denying what the scientists, research, and data is telling us about climate change and AGW. It also gives some insight.to why Lamar Smith has been trying to spearhead what I would call a witch hunt against climate scientists and NOAA.



+6 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Whaaaaa? Exclusively Republican? No mate. It's not. I deny the 'science'. I'm nothing like Republican.

That's like me saying 'people who dis "climate science deniers" are almost always stupid'

Oh wait, they are. My bad.

Number 1. There is no such thing as climate science. That's called bollocks. Well actually it used to be called weather, but that was when I was young.

You'd be one of them there global warmists advocates ten years ago. Fooled.
No its climate change... Well... Can't deny that, can we? Because we can't deny there's a climate and it changes. That'd be dumb. So it's left to the stuck up their own arse idiots, riding the high horse of condescension down the valley of belligerence to champion the cause of the private globalist elites who are the only ones capable of causing anything close to anthropogenic climate change, so they can tax the very breath escaping your lips as you exhale (if you can afford to) your last words 'how could I have been so effing dumb to have fallen for such a ridiculous fraud?'

Here we again... Groundhog day....



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

And then there is the Gore effect :>) ....
I wonder if it was caused by climate change or is the myth that is called the inconvenient truth finally going to collapse . Is there even one of Gores predictions we can find .



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I question man made climate change and am not Republican. Also, what kind of person writes an article about the other side being the thought police and then says no sane person can deny climate change? Pot meet kettle.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
If anything it's the exact opposite. Didn't Obama just suggest Dems "go get" "deniers"? Other Dems have suggested "deniers" be prosecuted and thrown in jail. Rather than debate the issues, the Warmists would rather engage in character assassination.

Remember Al Gore's red graph that took up six screens around the room? That's where he showed a graph of CO2 levels and a graph of temperature levels and showed them to be obviously correlated. Then he said, "Of course, there is no correlation." to rounds of raucous laughter at the absurdity of anyone claiming there wasn't.

What he failed to disclose (because he was ignorant of the issue) was that CO2 levels went up AFTER temperature went up. He mixed up cause and effect because he WANTED the data to say that CO2 CAUSES a rise in temperature when in reality a rise in temperature CAUSES CO2 levels to go up.

But will he debate the issue? Oh, no. We can't have that.

Thought police? You bet. That's the biggest weapon in the Warmists' arsenal of deceit.
edit on 12/5/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You are going to get a whole lot of right-wingers saying:

- They are NOT republican (even though they take the republican view on nearly every topic)
- That "thought police" is a term that is not allowed to be used against them (because they really really like to use it).
- That people who believe in climate change are stupid. Because a 95% scientist consensus just reeks of a goddam false flag conspiracy.

For as much as they like to puff out their chests and claim they aren't "PC (goddammit)", there certainly are a lot of rules and eggshells we are supposed to observe when engaging with them.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
OP,

Are you engaging in the call to action?

Just curious because all I ever do is see you rail against republican science deniers, but then you become an apologist when Hansen's BS is paraded about and ignore the other evidence of similar disingenuous reporting by the believer camp.

Do you even care for truth?

Or is this more a convenient political excuse to go after an industry dislike?

-FBB



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I'm so glad you posted this, it is amazing to me that people are so blind to the Republican agenda here!

They believe that scientists are lying about global warming in order to profit in some way, or that the Democrats are lying in order to profit in some way -

- yet they totally refuse to see that it is the rich, greedy, fossil fuel industry executives (all Republican global warming 'deniers') who are profiting by convincing people that everyone else is lying about AGW!!

There's that old saying, "follow the money" -

- and this is as simple as looking at who 'has' the money currently and who is in danger of 'losing' the money, if the general public finally accepts the truth that global warming is happening..



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Though police eh ? here is a small taste of what the MSM chicken little s have been trying to put into the publics mind



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cArLoSCuBsTaR
Whaaaaa? Exclusively Republican? No mate. It's not. I deny the 'science'. I'm nothing like Republican.

That's like me saying 'people who dis "climate science deniers" are almost always stupid'

Oh wait, they are. My bad.

Number 1. There is no such thing as climate science. That's called bollocks. Well actually it used to be called weather, but that was when I was young.

You'd be one of them there global warmists advocates ten years ago. Fooled.
No its climate change... Well... Can't deny that, can we? Because we can't deny there's a climate and it changes. That'd be dumb. So it's left to the stuck up their own arse idiots, riding the high horse of condescension down the valley of belligerence to champion the cause of the private globalist elites who are the only ones capable of causing anything close to anthropogenic climate change, so they can tax the very breath escaping your lips as you exhale (if you can afford to) your last words 'how could I have been so effing dumb to have fallen for such a ridiculous fraud?'

Here we again... Groundhog day....


The science does exist, whether you like it or not. You can call it bollocks or any number of things, but you can speak to the people who have a PHD in the science about that.

Denying Climate Science is almost exclusively a Republican view that is what the OP stated, leaving room for a few who are not Republican to join the unscientific party. You are free to deny science as much as you like. You can deny Chemistry, Biology and Physics- go for it.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

My question has always been, why do we need to believe in man made climate change?

What is so critical that WE NEED TO BELIEVE in it?

Why?

Just live our life, do your climate stuff and leave the rest of us alone. You don't need to convince us, do you?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: jrod

I'm so glad you posted this, it is amazing to me that people are so blind to the Republican agenda here!

They believe that scientists are lying about global warming in order to profit in some way, or that the Democrats are lying in order to profit in some way -

- yet they totally refuse to see that it is the rich, greedy, fossil fuel industry executives (all Republican global warming 'deniers') who are profiting by convincing people that everyone else is lying about AGW!!

There's that old saying, "follow the money" -

- and this is as simple as looking at who 'has' the money currently and who is in danger of 'losing' the money, if the general public finally accepts the truth that global warming is happening..



Follow the money?

Maurice Strong


His public service activities were carried out on a pro bono basis made possible by his business activities, which included being chairman of the International Advisory Group of CH2M Hill, Strovest Holdings, Technology Development Inc., Zenon Environmental, and most recently, Cosmos International and the China Carbon Corporation.


George Soros


His insider-trading conviction was upheld by the highest court in France on June 14, 2006.[57] In December 2006 he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on various grounds including that the 14-year delay in bringing the case to trial precluded a fair hearing.[59] On the basis of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that no person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offense at the time that it was committed, the court agreed to hear the appeal.[60] In October 2011 the court rejected his appeal in a 4–3 decision, saying that Soros had been aware of the risk of breaking insider trading laws.[61]


John Kerry (dat Heinz $$$)


Kerry and his second wife, Mozambican-born businesswoman and philanthropist Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões Ferreira (known as Teresa), the widow of Republican Pennsylvania Senator Henry John Heinz III, were introduced to each other by Heinz at an Earth Day rally in 1990. Teresa's has three sons from her previous marriage to Heinz, Henry John Heinz IV, André Thierstein Heinz, and Christopher Drake Heinz.[160] Heinz and Kerry got married on May 26, 1995, in Nantucket, Massachusetts.[161]

The Forbes 400 survey estimated in 2004 that Teresa Heinz Kerry had a net worth of $750 million. However, estimates have frequently varied, ranging from around $165 million to as high as $3.2 billion, according to a study in the Los Angeles Times. Regardless of which figure is correct, Kerry was the wealthiest U.S. Senator while serving in the Senate.


The list goes on and on, just look at Al Gore creating carbon trading companies which could have been worth billions if the legislation had passed as he intended.

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor


The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.


Don't be silly.
edit on 5-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I'm actually a registered Republican, as are many who accept the science NOAA and NASA is 'pushing.'

Believe it or not, most people actually accept the science, even registered Republicans. It is an issue that if anything will steer even some of the Republican faithfull away from the party. Informed and aware people can only take so much BS before they decide they have had enough.

Hansen's bad predictions have nothing to do with this, but I see he is your strawman of choice. We have thousands and thousands of scientists with informed opinions, yet you keep mentioning one who made a bad prediction that has been redacted. :thumbsup:

Do you care about the actual science, or are you here to launch strawman arguments, claim NASA, NOAA, and thousands upon thousands of scientists from around the world got it wrong, while keyboard warriors like yourself got it right?

Lets not forget, we(humans) first started studying things like CO2 and its effect on the climate over 100years ago. Since the 1960's we have been keeping a good record of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We also have been monitoring CO2 levels in the ocean. They have all been going up. The ocean's PH is dropping. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere via radiative forcing. This is established science and data records.

There is no doubt burning coal and petroleum and the subsequent CO2 that is released is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans. This also plays a significant role in our climate as our climate is driven by our atmosphere and ocean's chemistry.(not the only mechanism, but certainly a major one)

So I ask, why do you guys think that after a lifetime+ of collective research by some pretty smart scientists, that the scientists got it wrong and keyboard warriors and politicians who have someone pick out there outfits and write their speeches for them are on to something that contradicts what the overwhelming majority of the scientists and their peer reviewed papers are telling us?
edit on 5-12-2015 by jrod because: note how Al Gore has been.mentioned by 3 posters within the first hour of this thread



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Back to calling me a science denier again?

Are you an AI bot stuck in a loop? Should I just wait for the buffer overflow?

Remember when you said the science is unchallenged and debate should stop?


The study’s lead author, Jay Zwally of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, agrees that the overall global rate of ice discharge into the oceans is increasing. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” said Dr. Zwally. “But this is also bad news,” he added. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”


Jrod, actual scientists know that they need to refine their data and methods for modelling climate change accurately so they don't blow chunks like Hansen does on the regular.

This isn't partisan for me so much as I am totally sick of people who clearly know nothing about science calling each other deniers and then making appeals to a consensus of which they know nothing about.

It gets old.

Take the politics home and bury it.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: jrod

You are going to get a whole lot of right-wingers saying:

- They are NOT republican (even though they take the republican view on nearly every topic)
- That "thought police" is a term that is not allowed to be used against them (because they really really like to use it).
- That people who believe in climate change are stupid. Because a 95% scientist consensus just reeks of a goddam false flag conspiracy.

For as much as they like to puff out their chests and claim they aren't "PC (goddammit)", there certainly are a lot of rules and eggshells we are supposed to observe when engaging with them.


It's funny that 95% keeps changing, Obama said just the other day that 99.9% or some such nonsense agree. I wonder where they get the numbers from.
edit on 12/5/15 by Ksihkehe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: cArLoSCuBsTaR
Number 1. There is no such thing as climate science. That's called bollocks. Well actually it used to be called weather, but that was when I was young.

And yet again the denier shows utter ignorance since he does not know the difference between climate and weather.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I know George Carlin isn't a climate scientist, but I do enjoy his take on the subject.




posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
As I wrote in previous posts, I've debated both camps on this topic and alot in between.

The Antarctic is holding steady for now, while the arctic is no doubt losing ice.

You are just cherry picking data that you can knock down while ignoring the big picture and a plethora of data that is telling us AGW is valid and CO2 from burning fossil fuels appears to be a major contributor.

You accuse me of being an Al bot(thats a new one) when I make no.mention of his documentary. That is a clever play on words by you and words is all you got. When this topic is degraded to a war of words, the science is not addressed and you guys win(really a stalemate, but that is better than getting powned)

When the science is actually addressed, the science denial crowd loses because they cannot argue against the actual science.

Maybe thats why these threads seem to become a war of words, with little if any actual science presented from the anti-AGW faithful.
edit on 5-12-2015 by jrod because: err



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
As I wrote in previous posts, I've debated both camps on this topic and alot in between.

The Antarctic is holding steady for now, while the arctic is no doubt losing ice.

You are just cherry picking data that you can knock down while ignoring the big picture and a plethora of data that is telling us AGW is valid and CO2 from burning fossil fuels appears to be a major contributor.

You accuse me of being an Al bot(thats a new one) when I make no.mention of his documentary. That is a clever play on words by you and words is all you got. When this topic is degraded to a war of words, the science is not addressed and you guys win(really a stalemate, but that is better than getting powned)

When the science is actually addressed, the science denial crowd loses because you cannot argue against the actual science.


I linked you to the damn science . . . .

You addressed it by saying it was "cherry picked," would you please stop with this BS double speak of refusing to talk about the science and then turning around and accusing others of refusing to talk about the science.

It is disingenuous and your repeated use of the tactic could easily be replicated by a text analysing netbot.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

The science does exist, whether you like it or not. You can call it bollocks or any number of things, but you can speak to the people who have a PHD in the science about that.

Denying Climate Science is almost exclusively a Republican view that is what the OP stated, leaving room for a few who are not Republican to join the unscientific party. You are free to deny science as much as you like. You can deny Chemistry, Biology and Physics- go for it.


I'm an environmental scientist that isn't getting a check from a grant to study climate change. The whole crowd pretending that they understand climate science enough to make these kind of sweeping statements are doing so to push an agenda. We can barely understand most of the major cycles on this planet much less point to a single cause for the changes in climate.

The science does exist... and all the education in the world still can't decipher it properly right now. Don't let that stop you from being alarmed. I remember all the democratic candidates back in the Bush years talking about how the Republican party was the party of fear. Seems that the shoe is on the other foot now. Fear-mongering with not a single sensible way to change anything except to give them our money. That's always the answer to the problems, give the government more of our money.




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join