I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Burgold]

It's not normal, or at least it's not ethical/honest.

It's also not normal/ethical/honest to completely discount peer review and go out of your way to avoid peer review of your own work.

I was agreeing with you

Whoops. Sorry.  Safeties back on the gun

[tshile]

My favorite is when we have a historic/record cold period for an area in a given week/month, and certain people trot it out and make snide remarks about current climate change theory.

They have no idea the remarks they're making, which their tone suggests they think are clever, only go to show their lack of a grasp on both statistics and the actual theory which they purport to be arguing against...

Edited February 23, 2015 by tshile

[Burgold]

My favorite is...

 

If you can't absolutely probe that 100% of the effect of climate change is real and man made then we should do nothing.  Knowing that good scientists rarely (almost never) speak in absolutes and that if the man's contribution is 5, 10, or 30% and that happens to be the amount that tips us over the edge well we should do something about it.

 

It's like those who complain that a proposed spending cut won't erase the entire deficit and therefore it's meaningless.  Pennies add up for good or ill.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Burgold

[twa]

Whoops. Sorry.  Safeties back on the gun

 

reflex action? 

 

My favorite is when we have a historic/record cold period for an area in a given week/month, and certain people trot it out and make snide remarks about current climate change theory.

They have no idea the remarks they're making, which their tone suggests they think are clever, only go to show their lack of a grasp on both statistics and the actual theory which they purport to be arguing against...

 

Funny isn't it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tb0lU7SbvKE/Sa5OMmNk-yI/AAAAAAAAAbU/S-XqcxctvlI/s400/winterblunder-x.gif

 

must be why they changed terminology/tone

[tshile]

Funny isn't it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tb0lU7SbvKE/Sa5OMmNk-yI/AAAAAAAAAbU/S-XqcxctvlI/s400/winterblunder-x.gif

 

must be why they changed terminology/tone

There's actual reasons for it.

But one side just likes to wave their arms around and scream. It makes it easier to argue when you just make up everything about the topic.

My favorite is...

 

If you can't absolutely probe that 100% of the effect of climate change is real and man made then we should do nothing.  Knowing that good scientists rarely (almost never) speak in absolutes and that if the man's contribution is 5, 10, or 30% and that happens to be the amount that tips us over the edge well we should do something about it.

 

It's like those who complain that a proposed spending cut won't erase the entire deficit and therefore it's meaningless.  Pennies add up for good or ill.

Yup.

Failure to understand the issue. It's a real problem with the one side.

I've said it a few times - the conversation the actual researchers are having is a different conversation that what political junkies are having.

We seem to be the only 'western' country that has this denial problem though. I was in Europe when the IPCC's report was released in September of 2013. The way it was covered there (maturely, with adults, that actually understand science/research) made me quite embarrassed of us

Edited February 23, 2015 by tshile

[twa]

One side just likes to wave their arms around and scream? 

 

Europe is simply cutting it's own throat....maturely of course

Researchers certainly have a different conversation than those attempting political changes....except those playing politics

[tshile]

One side just likes to wave their arms around and scream? 

Yeah, that's what some people call conjecture.

It doesn't take much looking into the issue to be able to identify when people are and are not doing this.

[No Excuses]

I see twa is still trolling with his usual stuff. It used to be entertaining arguing with him, but now its just sad. 

 

This is a losing fight for the denial side. You can argue against science, or by even claiming that science is on your side, but you know that to be horse****. Over the last two weeks, my undergrad students have been covering climate change and its impact on the ecosystem. I'm happy to report that the millennial generation isn't a whiplashed **** to party rhetoric on this issue (and I'm at a private university with a sizable right wing representation).

 

But it helps that they are being taught by scientists and not by idiots with a blog. 

Edited February 23, 2015 by No Excuses

[twa]

Fortunately young people grow up eventually  , usually after reality slaps them around a bit

[Burgold]

Fortunately young people grow up eventually  , usually after reality slaps them around a bit

Reality? Interesting poor choice of words.

[twa]

Reality? Interesting poor choice of words.

 

we shall see eventually who's reality is real

[Burgold]

we shall see eventually who's reality is real

I hope not, but the truth is we have already seen a lot.

[Hersh]

It really is sad that this country is incapable of doing any long term planning through policies. I don't know if that's a reflection of our politicians that only care about the next election or about the need for instant gratification within the population. Of all the problems that hold America back, this might be at the top of my list.

[tshile]

It really is sad that this country is incapable of doing any long term planning through policies. I don't know if that's a reflection of our politicians that only care about the next election or about the need for instant gratification within the population. Of all the problems that hold America back, this might be at the top of my list.

It's the mentality we have.

Nothing can be addressed until it is a crisis.

We can't even agree on what the facts are... much less a solution. This subject is hardly unique in this regard.

People in this country are too easily manipulated by arguments that sound good. Critical and logical thinking are too much to ask for. All you need is money to fund an ad campaign and put in politicians pockets and all the sudden you have overwhelming support for an idea that has little factual backing.

It's maddening/tiring to watch.

[Hersh]

It's the mentality we have.

Nothing can be addressed until it is a crisis.

We can't even agree on what the facts are... much less a solution. This subject is hardly unique in this regard.

People in this country are too easily manipulated by arguments that sound good. Critical and logical thinking are too much to ask for. All you need is money to fund an ad campaign and put in politicians pockets and all the sudden you have overwhelming support for an idea that has little factual backing.

It's maddening/tiring to watch.

 

No doubt that it is like this on all issues. It also doesn't help that we have one party that says no to pretty much everything except tax cuts for the wealthy or going to war.

[tshile]

No doubt that it is like this on all issues. It also doesn't help that we have one party that says no to pretty much everything except tax cuts for the wealthy or going to war.

The right seems to be stuck in that rut right now, though I think you're being a little over the top in describing them

What's shocking is things like the IPCC are freely available to read, but almost no one bothers. Which would be fine, except the sheer number of people that comment on the issue without reading. Then you have media sites that get away with pushing absurd narratives because they know the vast majority of people will not read the report, so they can just make up whatever they want about the report because those people will never know any better, in fact they will write off any news that runs counter to their preferred news provider's narrative as just biased reporting...

After the report there were "legit conservative news" (as proclaimed by conservatives I talk to) saying things like they avoid the issue of a decline in average temperatures over the last decade... except that's in the report, if you read it you would know that not only do they address the concern but they provide a reasonable explanation that creates an interesting conversation itself.

Or they say things about ice at the poles, without understanding the difference between land and sea ice, salt and fresh water, and the arguments around the entire conversation of ice. If they bothered to read these reports, they'd understand that stuff.

The list is endless. If you read the reports, you see these arguments immediately identify them as ignorant because you cannot say the things these people are saying if you read the reports. You can take issue with their findings, but you cannot make the statements people are making (like: they didn't address the issue when they absolutely did.)

And then you get their audience running around parroting what's being said, completely oblivious to the fact that anyone who's read the report immediately identifies them as a partisan hack ignorant of the actual subject.

And when you try to show them all you get is "Yeah but who wrote that report?!?!?", "What data are they using?!?", and "And what does the other side have to say?!" (even though the reports authors are on the front page, they data is open to critique, and you can read the peer reviews if you put forth any effort) and other idiotic questions, as if they're enlightened or profound questions, when in reality they're just intended to change the topic or attack the idealism of certain people instead of addressing the actual research and its findings.

It's really like a plot from a terrible movie... majority of the scientists on the issue have come together to write numerous reports and hold numerous press conferences warning us of the potential dangers of an issue, and half of our society is like "lol scientists i know more than them because google"

Edited February 23, 2015 by tshile

[twa]

Only half of our society? 

Ya'll must not be very persuasive for some reason......must be their ignorance 

[tshile]

Only half of our society? 

Ya'll must not be very persuasive for some reason......must be their ignorance

When a cornerstone of someone's argument, at any given time, is that a report doesn't explain something that said report explains... yeah, ignorance is an issue.

[No Excuses]

Fortunately young people grow up eventually  , usually after reality slaps them around a bit

 

They understand reality better than you. You know why? Because they are also taught the viability of clean energy sources. So they know the reality of climate science as well as the limitations in place.

 

Because you know, you can acknowledge both without going full retard on this issue.

[Predicto]

the twa troll dance continues

 

 

[twa]

They understand reality better than you. You know why? Because they are also taught the viability of clean energy sources. So they know the reality of climate science as well as the limitations in place.

 

Because you know, you can acknowledge both without going full retard on this issue.

 

Viability except costs and availability of materials, which of course we can simply adjust thru carbon credits ect. and ignoring.

 

ya won me over with your sweet talk and empty promises......now if we could only harness that energy

[tshile]

now if we could only harness that energy

well played

[PeterMP]

Since this thread has migrated from Mike's general idea of suing the GOP to a more general thread, I thought I'd dump this in here:

 

 

 

 

The difference in warming trend through last year and not including post-1998 is insignficant.

 

"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

 

People are going to have to move their year.

 

And just to point out, the satellite date show something different, but that's because they are measuring troposphere temperatures (not surface), and the troposphere responds more strongly to El Nino conditions (where 1998, 2005, and 2010 were all strong El Nino years).

Edited February 24, 2015 by PeterMP

[pjfootballer]

I just want to sue both parties...for being tools and not doing what any of them were elected to do.

Edited February 24, 2015 by pjfootballer

[Wrong Direction]

Since this thread has migrated from Mike's general idea of suing the GOP to a more general thread, I thought I'd dump this in here:

 

 

 

 

The difference in warming trend through last year and only post-1998 is insignificant.

 

"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

 

People are going to have to move their year.

 

And just to point out, the satellite date show something different, but that's because they are measuring troposphere temperatures (not surface), and the troposphere responds more strongly to El Nino conditions (where 1998, 2005, and 2010 were all strong El Nino years).

 

I'd like to see that trend starting in about 1880. No agenda, just curious of observed pattern.