Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics

  1. #1
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    33,347

    A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics

    This year, the American press has suppressed news related to the near assassination of the Republican congressional baseball team by a Bernie Sanders supporter and the apparently brutal beating of Senator Rand Paul by a neighbor whose Facebook pages are filled with anti-Trump messages.

    In this environment, it is no wonder that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has rolled back many toxic climate change regulations, feels the need to direct his agency’s dollars to his own security.

    There are so many threats against the head of the Environmental Protection Agency that his security detail is being expanded from 18 to 30, it was reported Monday.

    Officials said the extraordinary measures are necessary because Scott Pruitt is getting far more death threats than anyone who has ever led the agency.

    “We have at least four times — four to five times the number of threats against Mr. Pruitt than we had against Ms. McCarthy,” Assistant Inspector General Patrick Sullivan told CNN, referring to Gina McCarthy, EPA chief during the Obama administration.

    A case study to demonstrate the toxic environment and savagery of today’s progressives is the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, an experienced Texan politician with over 6 years of high-level administrative experience, as the lead of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Last year, she and Stephen Moore wrote the book Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.

    Her grilling during the Senate confirmation process is a verbal burning-at-the-stake for environmental heresy. This video from the always pompous Sheldon Whitehouse will give you a sense of what White endured.

    I don’t even know where to begin with @realdonaldtrump’s CEQ nominee Kathleen Hartnett White—she outright rejects basic science. pic.twitter.com/kjGONbsSVc

    — Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) November 9, 2017



    A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics
    Eco-Activists’ #WarOnWomen target Kathleen Hartnett White, nominee for lead of White House Council on Environmental Quality.
    We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.

  2. #2
    I am amazed that people so often get away with re-framing things in a sympathetic way - you could write a bill about reducing population and helping the poor by killing their children and feeding them to them - and say to those who oppose it 'why don't they want to help the poor?'.

    Someone says above - she outright rejects basic science. Seriously, who does that? No one does. But then again, climate science surely is not basic science.

    To my mind, basic science would be simple fundamentals a child can understand. Gravity makes things drop. Snow melts with heat. The sun is hot. Stuff like that.
    Stuff no human - heck, not even your dog - would dispute.

    If climate science were basic science, you could do ONE experiment that always came out the same. You could predict an event with 100% accuracy.
    Gravity won't make stuff go up, and the sun isn't going to freeze you to death. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but you get the idea.
    "Basic" science ought to be axiomatic - it just always, always, IS so.

    Climate "science" is at least 50% pure conjecture if not more. But what do you call it when you can't get it right even as often as Miss Cleo could predict the future?
    Is that still science? The alarmists have been predicting things for years that STILL haven't happened. They have been connecting cause and effect that have proven false.
    If it were subject to the same kind of scrutiny that other science does, it would be dismissed before it started.
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    If climate science were basic science, you could do ONE experiment that always came out the same.
    Well there's at least one repeatable experiment (or rather many many repeatable experiments) that show that CO2 in the concentrations found in our atmosphere trap heat.
    https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...on-properties/

    And there are any number of sources showing the amount of CO2 is rising.

    Now, whether man has any appreciable impact (vs say a volcano, or natural changes in vegetation, or whatever) on the amount of CO2, or to what level CO2 will actually affect global temperatures, or what effects temperature changes would have on the weather.....That's where you have a point about repeatable experiments.

    But basic science on "Green House Gasses" is easily verified.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Clem72 View Post
    But basic science on "Green House Gasses" is easily verified.
    I presume when you call something "climate science" - your universe is - the climate.
    If you want to prove something in, say, astrophysics - you point your telescope and find it, based on parameters you put together.
    You don't create something in a lab, and say, see? Proved it.

    There's an EXCELLENT part of Richard Feynmann's "Cargo Cult Science" lecture where he describes a set of experiments a man did with mice.
    Without going into TOO much detail, he was only able to prove the results were reliable once he had eliminated EVERY POSSIBLE reasonable alternative.
    You may have read it. If you haven't, I highly recommend the entire piece - it is very readable.
    There are simply far too many parameters involved in the warming and cooling of the Earth, some of which we either do not measure - or cannot measure.
    (Minor differences in the Sun's output, minor wobbles to our orbit and so forth).

    One of my observations about CO2 warming is that it follows warming, historically - it does not precede it.
    So historical data doesn't say CO2 added to the atmosphere warms it - it demonstrates it gains CO2 once it becomes warmer.
    So while that experiment may be meaningful - it's not very meaningful in the current discussion of climate.

    Anyway - the post was about "denying basic science". Nobody does that. People who claim that probably don't KNOW the science.
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,939
    I would like to see how they can prove it's man's fault and prove exactly what man can do about it and remain alive on the planet.

  6. #6
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    33,347
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    One of my observations about CO2 warming is that it follows warming, historically - it does not precede it.
    So historical data doesn't say CO2 added to the atmosphere warms it - it demonstrates it gains CO2 once it becomes warmer.

    Yes - CO2 is trapped in the Oceans - in times of increased Sun Spot Activity
    - like 1990 - 2011 / 12 [ 11 yr period] CO2 trapped in the Warming Oceans was Released
    - in the last 5 yrs of so Solar Activity is down, Oceans Cool Trapping CO2 Once Again
    - Also The Climate Cools
    - the past 5 yr some Annual Arctic Research Group has been UNABLE to reach their target Area - because of 'too much ice'
    - their Ice Breaker Ship got stuck several yrs in a row
    We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.

  7. #7
    - the past 5 yr some Annual Arctic Research Group has been UNABLE to reach their target Area - because of 'too much ice'
    - their Ice Breaker Ship got stuck several yrs in a row
    Excessive ice is a sign the planets getting warmer. I think in climate science they call it hot freeze.
    ___________________________________________________________
    "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain

  8. #8
    "Sustained over a period of a few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age"
    Dr. Sh Schneider etc all.
    You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer. -Frank Zappa

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    I presume when you call something "climate science" - your universe is - the climate.
    If you want to prove something in, say, astrophysics - you point your telescope and find it, based on parameters you put together.
    You don't create something in a lab, and say, see? Proved it.

    There's an EXCELLENT part of Richard Feynmann's "Cargo Cult Science" lecture where he describes a set of experiments a man did with mice.
    Without going into TOO much detail, he was only able to prove the results were reliable once he had eliminated EVERY POSSIBLE reasonable alternative.
    You may have read it. If you haven't, I highly recommend the entire piece - it is very readable.
    There are simply far too many parameters involved in the warming and cooling of the Earth, some of which we either do not measure - or cannot measure.
    (Minor differences in the Sun's output, minor wobbles to our orbit and so forth).

    One of my observations about CO2 warming is that it follows warming, historically - it does not precede it.
    So historical data doesn't say CO2 added to the atmosphere warms it - it demonstrates it gains CO2 once it becomes warmer.
    So while that experiment may be meaningful - it's not very meaningful in the current discussion of climate.

    Anyway - the post was about "denying basic science". Nobody does that. People who claim that probably don't KNOW the science.
    I'm not sure why you quoted me, are you arguing with my post that mostly agreed with you? All the things you point out agree with my last paragraph, I just pointed out that experiments on the basic science part of the equation (the trapping of heat) have been done and are repeatable. I agree we don't know how much this affects the weather, how much is "normal" variation vs man made, etc. but if the argument was about the BASIC SCIENCE (do "green house gasses" trap heat), then yes people do know that part.

  10. 11-14-2017, 10:54 AM

  11. #10
    Board Mommy vraiblonde's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Off the grid
    Posts
    117,888
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Hijinx View Post
    I would like to see how they can prove it's man's fault and prove exactly what man can do about it and remain alive on the planet.
    I just had this conversation with an acquaintance who I don't really like anyway. She stated that man is destroying the planet because of overpopulation and our use of natural resources. I suggested she be the change and go kill herself to do her part in saving the planet.

    She got pissed.

    See, they don't want to do without to "save" the planet; they just want everyone else to do without.
    "Too much agreement kills a chat."
    ~Eldridge Cleaver

Members who have read this thread: 31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |