How Republican 'thought police' Enforce Climate Science Denial

a reply to: jrod

Freeman Dyson, a Democrat. Most scientists who reject man-made global-warming hysteria are Democrats with no ties to any questionable funding. Most scientists in-general are living off of the global-warming hysteria, and probably would never find a job unless they can help to prove global warming. The whole man-made global-warming threat is ridiculous. Do your own research. I know it hurts to be un-brain-washed. I, too, once believed in man-made global-warming until I did my own own objective research. It was sad. I had been lied to for so long, but I've accepted the truth now and am trying to warn people about the COMING ICE AGE!

en.wikipedia.org...
www.sourcewatch.org...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
It is made very clear in the section from which I quoted.

I believe you can read them for yourself.

Ah, so the only parts in contention are Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise?

I believe an author of the study said the documented rise in sea levels needs to be explained in light of his research suggesting that Antarctica is actually gaining ice, but he didn't question that sea levels are rising.

Yes.

Except the sea level rise, a large portion of it, was attributed to Antarctica. This brought to light the uncertainty of whether the continent is rising or falling which changes all the variables in the region.

If it turns out this study is correct, then how the hell is the IPCC predicting the correct measurements with the wrong data sets?

Most of my contentions are with the specific predictions, and people blaming every bit of whether on global warming or not. The folks who say every flood and drought is global warming are equally insane, in my humble opinion, as the most extreme "denier" as you call them.

-FBB

//edit
And don't act like individual contributors and associates at the IPCC are saints who wouldn't dare tell a little white lie for the "greater good."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

He rejected calls to quit after an error in the 2007 report exaggerated the rate of melt of Himalayan glaciers. An external review at the time recommended that IPCC chairs should only serve one seven-year term.

//edit

originally posted by: jrod
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.

Thank you for sharing this. I heard something a couple of days ago about this 'echo chamber' of republicans and that deadlock in congress, regression in quality of life for most of us, decline in infrastructure, education, health, general wellbeing is going to continue until Republicans of good will and moral character start confronting the lunatics running their political party.

A realistic and thoughtful Republican, conservation in the true sense of the word (meaning to husband resources wisely) is an excellent person(s) to have on a team. A team that shares a common goal and is willing to work towards a compromise solution not an 'idealogically pure' (hmmmm) one.

Perhaps some Republicans are starting to see the real enemy of the people.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

You said the science was completely settled . . .

That's my favorite quote from the politicians pushing the agenda... the science is in, the science is settled, the science has spoken...

It's the most unscientific thing you can say. It's an absolute. Science constantly changes to incorporate new data... the climate agenda doesn't.

As an 'environmental scientist' you must understand systems. Correct. I don't know your specific degree or experience. So I'll ask a simple question of you:

In an enclosed space, all other inputs being equal, what happens when you increase CO2 and other greenhouse gases, into the space?

Temperature up or down?

Oxygen levels up or down?

originally posted by: jrod
Why is Southern Sea Ice Increasing?

The most common misconception regarding Antarctic sea ice is that sea ice is increasing because it's cooling around Antarctica. The reality is the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has shown strong warming over the same period that sea ice has been increasing. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it's warming faster than the global trend. This warmingtrend is apparent in satellite measurements of temperature trends over Antarctica(see link)

Still a warming trend down there.

You still haven't produced a valid link.that contradicts AGW mate.

I'll add this article from The Guardian (with pictures - whoo hoo)

www.theguardian.com...

I can't find the link (in another browser) but a part of the increase in Antarctic Sea Ice has to do with increased 'precipitation' on the continent. Antarctica is considered a desert (dry and cold) without rain - the sea ice is a slow accumulation over years as the coastal saltwater freezes and what they are finding is that warmer water and air are contributing to an increase in precipitation creating 'fresh water' sea ice in some areas about the continent.

Over any span of time scientists expect this increased 'sea ice' to melt further raising sea levels and lowering salinity.

One of the things about a system, any system, is that in the effort to restore equilibrium more extreme swings are necessary in order to keep the system viable. Over time one extreme or the other will 'creep' the 'set point' into new territory. That is exactly what we are seeing around the globe (for those that look beyond their backyard) ever greater 'heat' and 'cold' extremes locally and short term - but the global average is 'creeping' up at an unprecedented rate.

It is a false equivalent to compare a single season - to an overall trend over decades.

a reply to: jrod

An interesting note; Victor Schraberger (AKA The Water Wizard) predicted this over a hundred years ago.

UFO aficionados should know the name.

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
a reply to: jrod

Freeman Dyson, a Democrat. Most scientists who reject man-made global-warming hysteria are Democrats with no ties to any questionable funding. Most scientists in-general are living off of the global-warming hysteria, and probably would never find a job unless they can help to prove global warming. The whole man-made global-warming threat is ridiculous. Do your own research. I know it hurts to be un-brain-washed. I, too, once believed in man-made global-warming until I did my own own objective research. It was sad. I had been lied to for so long, but I've accepted the truth now and am trying to warn people about the COMING ICE AGE!

en.wikipedia.org...
www.sourcewatch.org...

Your references are completely irrelevant.

Sourcewatch provides a list of 'climate denialists' mostly non-scientsits'

And if you follow the link to Dysons listing you will find:

Dyson works for the Institute for Advanced Study[2]

Member, Global Business Network
Advisory Board, Space Frontier Foundation
TED Brain Trust, TED [3]
Board of Sponsors, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Not the most respected of Climate oriented groups....

While the Institute for Advanced Study is a reputable organization, as a physicist he is not trained in biological sciences. And he appears to work and belong to groups that have an interest in maintaining high carbon fuel usage.

I wonder what the other members of the list will turn up - wonder if they "scorcewatch" have a page for AGW supporters?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
a reply to: jrod

Freeman Dyson, a Democrat. Most scientists who reject man-made global-warming hysteria are Democrats with no ties to any questionable funding. Most scientists in-general are living off of the global-warming hysteria, and probably would never find a job unless they can help to prove global warming. The whole man-made global-warming threat is ridiculous. Do your own research. I know it hurts to be un-brain-washed. I, too, once believed in man-made global-warming until I did my own own objective research. It was sad. I had been lied to for so long, but I've accepted the truth now and am trying to warn people about the COMING ICE AGE!

en.wikipedia.org...
www.sourcewatch.org...

Your references are completely irrelevant.

Sourcewatch provides a list of 'climate denialists' mostly non-scientsits'

And if you follow the link to Dysons listing you will find:

Dyson works for the Institute for Advanced Study[2]

Member, Global Business Network
Advisory Board, Space Frontier Foundation
TED Brain Trust, TED [3]
Board of Sponsors, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Not the most respected of Climate oriented groups....

While the Institute for Advanced Study is a reputable organization, as a physicist he is not trained in biological sciences. And he appears to work and belong to groups that have an interest in maintaining high carbon fuel usage.

I wonder what the other members of the list will turn up - wonder if they "scourcewatch" have a page for AGW supporters?

I must thank you for the excellent source (SourceWatch) for finding the funding and background on denialists.

Wasn't a page for supporter of the consesus.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Freeman Dyson is very old 90+, doubt he is a democrat because he is British and they do not have a two party system like the US has.

His area of expertise is quantum mechanics and he.also recognizes that humans are indeed changing the climate as a result of our CO2 output. He just thinks the changes are not necessarily a bad thing.

More on Dyson:
www.desmogblog.com...

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

You said the science was completely settled . . .

That's my favorite quote from the politicians pushing the agenda... the science is in, the science is settled, the science has spoken...

It's the most unscientific thing you can say. It's an absolute. Science constantly changes to incorporate new data... the climate agenda doesn't.

As an 'environmental scientist' you must understand systems. Correct. I don't know your specific degree or experience. So I'll ask a simple question of you:

In an enclosed space, all other inputs being equal, what happens when you increase CO2 and other greenhouse gases, into the space?

Temperature up or down?

Oxygen levels up or down?

This is a disingenuous question if you understand what you are asking.

Obviously the pressure increases. How do you relate this as having anything to do with what they were talking about?

Is the enclosure exposed to EM waves? Is it submerged in some medium?

What are you even asking?

All other inputs being equal?

What?

This question is far too obtuse to offer any useful data to make a judgement call from.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Hmmm - and when 'pressure' increases - what happens to the temperate?

No - I question your definition of 'environmental scienctist'.

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.

No mate, weather was NEVER called climate or vice-versa. Even back when you were in school. They are two different concepts and this sentence just shows sums up the rest of your intellectual opinion on climate change. When you can't even be bothered to learn about basic scientific concepts before throwing your opinion into the ring, it's probably wrong.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Hmmm - and when 'pressure' increases - what happens to the temperate?

No - I question your definition of 'environmental scienctist'.

Temperature can increase, but that doesn't mean it will.

Isothermal, Isochoric, etc you need to provide more information about whether the container expands? What it may or may not expand into. You didn't provide enough information to do anything.

-FBB

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Ksihkehe
That is just political posturing....never once mentioned taxes or giving the government money to solve this.

It is up to us, the consumer to invest in clean energy while shying away from burning fossil.fuels.

Government regulation was necessary to end leaded gasoline, and maybe be needed to curb CO2 output.

ps,
We are currently throwing billions of dollars at the fossil fuel industry in the form if subsidies, subsidies that the same politicians who deny climate science strongly support.

Sorry I missed this because of the forum glitches with response notification.

I can tell you it's really not political posturing. I find that, given what we actually KNOW about climate change vs. what we KNOW of other problems, climate change should not be the primary concern. There are plenty of other environmental problems that, if we address them now, will also have positive effects on whatever might be happening with a warming climate. We have a terrible problem with affluenza. We are doing damage to the planet.

This article I saw today says that 14.5% of global warming emissions are from beef consumption which is comparable to almost all other transportation generated sources. So the question is why is there no mainstream push for eliminating beef? I can give you two reasons. The first is that a whole lot of people would say without hesitation "go f yourself I want my steak". The second reason is that there is nobody standing to make a whole bunch of money on that proposal. Probably hard to find a lot of high money lobbying from the meat substitute industry in Washington. What you can find is politically connected people with connections to the alternative energy industry.

Recycling has been a successful, and I would say pretty grassroots, movement that made it to the mainstream. I haven't lived anywhere in the past 15 years that did not embrace recycling and make efforts to maximize it. Climate change solutions are not like that. The climate change policy push is from the top down. The environmental movement has been distracted from sensible solutions that we can rapidly and effectively institute without taking more money from the people. There is no reason to ignore all else for the sake of pushing a big money climate agenda that will just be another way to spread money around... money that I can assure you will come from the working class rather than the rich.

Just as an illustration of the lunacy let me offer this. There is a push against logging that's been going on for decades. Trees are an incredible carbon sink essentially locking carbon so that it's out of the atmosphere. There are plenty of people who will tell you for days how the logging industry is destroying the old forests. The fact is that the logging industry has changed and adapted to more sustainable models. A good way to lock more carbon out of the atmosphere would be to stop using plastics and start using more wood. When wood is used for building it locks that carbon out of the atmosphere. Never once heard that common sense solution offered. Instead we have a proposed carbon trading system that will put money in the pockets of traders while taking money out of the pockets of the working class paying for power. We hear about alternative energy. How much money are we willing to piss away on the failed ventures of people who have powerful politician friends?

There are already people working toward these goals... we don't need the government grabbing money and wasting it. The revolution will not be sponsored by the government.

Until you're willing to look past the rhetoric of politics there will never be sensible solutions. When you call my position political posturing you do so at the expense of real solutions. The problem is that we've been polarized into thinking that anybody who thinks different is wrong and against us. People in power want more power and more money. They will do whatever it takes to get more. Obama doesn't care about climate change. Al Gore doesn't care about climate change. They do more damage to the environment every day than everybody that reads this combined (well except maybe for the NSA, CIA, and FBI monitoring it ). They want money and power.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
As an 'environmental scientist' you must understand systems. Correct. I don't know your specific degree or experience. So I'll ask a simple question of you:

In an enclosed space, all other inputs being equal, what happens when you increase CO2 and other greenhouse gases, into the space?

Temperature up or down?

Oxygen levels up or down?

Well I'm really more specialized in ecology with an interest in evasive ecology specifically. From an ecological perspective I would say that increased CO2 would spur increased vegetative growth... which in turn would reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long run and increase oxygen generation because things work in cycles and there is ultimately a balance due at the end of every peak. Of course that is independent of catastrophic environmental degradation, which I would argue is a far bigger problem than burning fossil fuels. I just responded to another post above where I stated that using more wood and more intensive silvaculture would be a very simple step to decreasing atmospheric CO2. That doesn't generate money for people in power though. Obama could open up national forests and create guidelines for management, but that doesn't generate income for his political allies.

a reply to: Ksihkehe
This world has a lot of man made problems. Pollution if our water, especially fresh water sources is a big one, overfishing, deforestation, and many others need to be addressed.

To write we should not worry about CO2 because there are other problems in my opinion appeals to the not as bad logic fallacy. The excessive CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is a problem and we need to find solutions to that problem.

Building more houses and other stuff from wood is something I heard a professor mention back when I was a freshman in.college(2001), but it would only lock in a small.amount if CO2. The ultimate solution would be to greatly reduce CO2 emissions globally which would require ending our dependence on fossil fuels.

We have the technology and ingenuity. One major barrier is the value if the US dollar depends on the petroleum trade, so our fiat banking system ciuld potentially collapse if the world didn't depend on consuming petroleum. Another more obvious barrier is the fossil fuel industry has a lot of wealth and power and wants to keep it that way, reducing our consumption would hurt their profits.

I really do not believe you have studied this subject enough if you think more CO2 would cause more plant growth(including phytoplankton) and that would balance everything out. Its simply not happening, the amount of CO2 we pump out is too great and the CO2 concentrations will continue to climb as long as its business as usual for fossil fuel industry. Its merely wishful thinking to think nature will be able to balance the excess CO2 out.

Excellent piece.

The only issue I would take with it is that it goes well beyond the Republican Party. The most hard-nosed deniers, they are not skeptics, are those that are so extreme Right Wing that they do not associate themselves with the party because the party is not extreme enough.

a reply to: jrod

How Republican 'Though Police' Enforce Climate Science Denial

Interesting...

In the first 10 minutes of the film, 'An Inconvenient Truth', former VP Al Gore addresses himself to his audience as, basically, the next president who won't be the next president.

Yeah, he was mad. He was flustered and... he was being very, very political before even beginning to explain his beloved theory of Global Warming.

Now, that noted... the horrid sums of pollution we crap out into the water and atmosphere does deserve attention. We have the technology to create better, less toxic sources of energy. But, until we reach that stage, applying climate change as an excuse to strip energy from human civilization... is, well, simply insane and entirely politically driven.

So, if the other side takes an equal, opposing political stance, it should not be surprising or even unexpected.

Have a nice day

...

a reply to: redoubt
Thanks for the thoughtful post. There are already several countries that produce most of their electricity via renewable power plants. The technology is here, we just have to implement it.

I'm not sure why so.many insist on mentioning Al Gore. Global warming was a well established science before he was VP circa 1992, well before his movie was released.

It is as if some of you believe, or at least want an ill informed reader to believe Al Gore 'invented' the AGW theory.