Red States Are Way Ahead of Congress on Global Warming

[Weegle777 78]

Amen to that brother!

[AFTiger 282]

Homer,

Here are a few but you have already dismissed these scientists as frauds:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Heartland-ICCC9-Panel-1-Spencer.pdf

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Heartland-ICCC9-Wed-morning-breakfast-Spencer.pdf

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-physical-science

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/04/17/coming-paradigm-shift-climate

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-date-forecasting-manmade-global-warming-alarm

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/06/05/politics-outweigh-science-global-warming-debate

[homersapien 11,393]

Homer,

Here are a few but you have already dismissed these scientists as frauds:

http://www.drroyspen...l-1-Spencer.pdf

http://www.drroyspen...ast-Spencer.pdf

http://heartland.org...hysical-science

http://news.heartlan...m-shift-climate

http://heartland.org...l-warming-alarm

http://news.heartlan...-warming-debate

You are correct. I reject those as "science". But if you want to pick out one to parse, I will be happy to explain why.

[AFTiger 282]

You have made my point, Science that runs counter to your faith is automatically rejected, so you can stop preaching "science" to us because you reject science.

[homersapien 11,393]

You have made my point, Science that runs counter to your faith is automatically rejected, so you can stop preaching "science" to us because you reject science.

Your point seems to be that anything can be labeled as valid science and that is simply not true. All of the above have been debunked as being false.

Besides science is a process, not results. Faulty practices or a flawed process produce incorrect results. To reject bad or invalid science is certainly not to reject science as a whole.

And I am not preaching to anyone. I am simply pointing out the correct vs. the incorrect. It only seems like preaching because you are obviously determined to accept bad science on the basis of your political beliefs rather than the merit.

[autigeremt 6,650]

Correct isn't always correct in the scientific world. It may be the current finding, but science is also about continued research to preserve the finding over time.

[cooltigger21 0]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

[homersapien 11,393]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

Good grief. :-\

[AuburnNTexas 7,154]

I will concede up front humans are part of the cause of Global Warning. There have also been some things in last few years that have not matched global warning extremists. Things like water temperature not rising in some areas as expected and part of Antarctic melting while other parts are getting thicker ice. US Carbon Dioxide pollution has gone down more because of capitalism then because of Government. Natural Gas has become cheaper than coal and wind is slowly becoming cost effective.

Government programs like Solyndra which is not really addressing Global warning but instead doing Crony Capitalism is why I am against many government programs. I am a great believer in electric cars in the future. But pushing cars that have battery ranges of 40-150 mile, take hours to re-charge and are not actually green when you have to dispose of the batteries is what our government tends to do. Wastes money and often sends us down the wrong path.

I am from a Red State and I probably would have been one of the people in the poll that agreed there is Global Warming and that Government should do something about it. The difference is what I think the Government's role should be. The Government should fund pure research with no strings attached, we did something similar for the original space program we didn't let government bureaucrats try to decide what would work.

The problem with Government programs is they are politically leaning sometimes right sometimes left depending who is in power at the time, their biggest function is to create a new bureaucracy and to grow it, they are not driven by the marketplace and often slow the marketplace down.

There have been some recent announcement on the battery front Lithium Sulfur Graphene batteries, Aluminum air batteries and a few other some will work some won't but when we have a clean battery with solid range, and quick re-charging, with a decent life span. Then the cost difference between electric cars and fuel driven cars will disappear when electric cars are manufactured in mass. Who wouldn't want a car with better acceleration, less moving parts that will break, almost no pollution, that has equal or better range it is nirvana and the marketplace will explode. That will do more for Global Warming then all the government programs combined.

The difference between Red States and Blue states is the Red States often realize how wasteful Government is even if the way polls are worded don't always show it.

[autigeremt 6,650]

Nice post, AuburnNTexas! Very nice indeed.

[cooltigger21 0]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

Good grief. :-\/> :no:/>

if you can't handle the truth, well that's your problem.

[homersapien 11,393]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

Good grief. :-\/> :no:/>

if you can't handle the truth, well that's your problem.

That's right. It's all a hoax and I just don't see it.

[Tigermike 3,039]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

Good grief. :-\/> :no:/>

if you can't handle the truth, well that's your problem.

That's right. It's all a hoax and I just don't see it.

That's not what he said and you know there are instances of your dear leaders and scientist falsifying data they present.

[homersapien 11,393]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

Good grief. :-\/> :no:/>

if you can't handle the truth, well that's your problem.

That's right. It's all a hoax and I just don't see it.

That's not what he said and you know there are instances of your dear leaders and scientist falsifying data they present.

For example......

And really, "dear leaders"? That sounds like something a gay person might say.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that .)

[Tigermike 3,039]

we already know that they have been falsifying the data, making it look like they are right. What makes me reject it is their solution always involves the growth of government and the diminishing of individual freedom.

Good grief. :-\/> :no:/>

if you can't handle the truth, well that's your problem.

That's right. It's all a hoax and I just don't see it. :rolleyes:/>

That's not what he said and you know there are instances of your dear leaders and scientist falsifying data they present.

For example......

And really, "dear leaders"? :rolleyes:/> That sounds like something a gay person might say.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that ;)/> .)

You are a legend in your own mind.

[AFTiger 282]

Take the time to view this:

It explains the problem well.

[homersapien 11,393]

Take the time to view this:

It explains the problem well.

Ah yes, a (6 year-old) propaganda piece produced by the notorious carbon industry shill Craig Isdo. I like the way Rational Wiki described his organization:

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is not so much a "center" as it is a family-run global warming denialism operation.

http://rationalwiki....d_Global_Change

See also:

http://www.exxonsecr...sheet.php?id=24

http://www.sourcewat...d_Global_Change

http://en.wikipedia....d_Global_Change

http://blogs.nature...._climate_1.html

http://www.skeptical...al_project.html

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4171

http://www.desmogblo...d-global-change

etc.

[Tigermike 3,039]

And there is never any self serving propaganda on WIKI is there?

[homersapien 11,393]

And there is never any self serving propaganda on WIKI is there?

Show me some.

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, you have demonstrated time and again that you will accept no scientific argument that undermines your belief in AGW. AGW is a religion for you. Your anti-science crusade on this board is not working as more and more science seeks to explain the natural order of climate change. You are undercut by the ridiculous assertions by alarmist such as "no more redheads" , no more arctic ice, more extreme weather, censorship by newspapers, data manipulation, and so forth. You ignore history and geology as well as science. You attack the honor of respected scientists as you continue your childish rants.

The fact is that we don't know enough to make any conclusion on AGW, but you are always good for many pages of unmitigated stupidity.

[homersapien 11,393]

Homer, you have demonstrated time and again that you will accept no scientific argument that undermines your belief in AGW. AGW is a religion for you. Your anti-science crusade on this board is not working as more and more science seeks to explain the natural order of climate change. You are undercut by the ridiculous assertions by alarmist such as "no more redheads" , no more arctic ice, more extreme weather, censorship by newspapers, data manipulation, and so forth. You ignore history and geology as well as science. You attack the honor of respected scientists as you continue your childish rants.

The fact is that we don't know enough to make any conclusion on AGW, but you are always good for many pages of unmitigated stupidity.

No, you have got it wrong again. Let me explain one more time:

I reject the arguments you are presenting because they do not represent valid science at all. Even the ones that qualify as science are wrong. One is supposed to reject wrong science. To do so is not the same as rejecting valid science because of it's conclusions.

So I am not rejecting science that opposes my position, I am rejecting faulty or wrong science. There is a difference.

I don't understand the rest of your post. AGW is not a religion to me. I just recognize the consensus of opinion in the scientific community and the evidence that informs that opinion.

Obviously, I am not "anti-science". No one with even a slight understanding of science would think that. I don't get the "alarmist" reference, you need to expand on that too. Finally, please explain the parts of history and geology I am ignoring that makes such a difference (this ought to be good).

And I am not particularly interested in exchanging generalities about what I think. Let's try to keep the discussion specific, which is what I always try to do on these threads. So please don't make a general claims about me without tying it to a specific example. I can't refute generalized accusations. I can damn well dismantle any specific claim you care to make, at least if it's wrong or distorted.

That's exactly why making generalized charges and insults - such as "unmitigated stupidity" :-\ - is the unmistakable sign of a losing argument.

[AFTiger 282]

Out of curiosity and since you can discern good science from bad science, what are your bona fides?

[homersapien 11,393]

Out of curiosity and since you can discern good science from bad science, what are your bona fides?

If you think it's important, I hold BS and MS degrees from Auburn, where I also worked as a research assistant for the University, which paid for my MS degree. After graduating, I was hired into an industrial laboratory position and worked for about 12 years in new technology development and technical sales support, primarily in foods and perishable products.

This was followed by a marketing position in new business development, specifically, marketing engineered films used to package pharmaceutical products and medical devices, so I got to know that industry pretty well also.

I published a couple of papers in association with my MS degree which is a routine requirement. I also hold 8 patents from my industrial work.

None of this makes me an expert in climate science, nor would I ever imply that. It does give me a good basic understanding of science, research and the way the scientific community operates. Otherwise, science has always been one of my personal interests and I like to think I keep up with it, at least in the fields that most interest me.

[AFTiger 282]

OK, so you are not a climate scientist and can't tell good science from bad. Your attachment to AGW is emotional and you are unable to look at that science which may cast doubt on AGW. You cling to consensus and questionable manipulation of data as proof.

Even NASA has gone back on its recent declarations of most recent warm years and returned to the 1930s as the warmest decade. Surface temperatures have been demonstrated as unreliable because of station locations near heat sinks. If NASA can reevalute its conclusions based on new studies, I see no reason why you should not.

I'm done.

[homersapien 11,393]

OK, so you are not a climate scientist and can't tell good science from bad. Your attachment to AGW is emotional and you are unable to look at that science which may cast doubt on AGW. You cling to consensus and questionable manipulation of data as proof.

Even NASA has gone back on its recent declarations of most recent warm years and returned to the 1930s as the warmest decade. Surface temperatures have been demonstrated as unreliable because of station locations near heat sinks. If NASA can reevalute its conclusions based on new studies, I see no reason why you should not.

I'm done.

I never represented myself as a climate scientist. You asked about my bona fides and I gave them.

And I most certainly can tell good science from bad science. Or to be strictly accurate, I can understand the analysis of a given piece of work that concludes it's invalid and explains why. As far as my "emotionalism"' clinging to "manipulation of data", etc, that's all complete BS. (See I can express a general opinion too.) :-\

But again, if you want to present a specific example of any of those bad habits, do so and I will be glad to explain how you are wrong. And I will even do it politely.

Likewise with the NASA reference. NASA hasn't backed off their basic position at all. Show me where you are getting that idea and I can probably show you - politely - where you are misunderstanding it.

On the other hand, if you really are "done", prove it by not responding.

War Eagle!