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

[No Excuses]

You sir have offended Texas ....it;s cause he is Hispanic right?

I have nothing against Texas. Hopefully one day it is more Austin and less whatever the hell it is now.

[twa]

I have nothing against Texas. Hopefully one day it is more Austin and less whatever the hell it is now.

 

Austin is a fine place, if it wasn't for all the politicians........and lawyers(but I repeat myself)

[88Comrade2000]

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/

 

 

Al wants to punish the deniers.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rdskns2000

[PeterMP]

If you look at Ted Cruz's statement by entirely stripping it of any context, it's a reasonable statement.

 

But I don't understand why you would want to do that. Context matters greatly on this issue, especially when NASA is given the most federal funding out of any other science agency to study climate change.

 

Does Ted Cruz want to shift that funding to another agency? Does Ted Cruz want to shift that funding to a newly created agency? Or in an ideal Ted Cruz world, is the funding stripped from NASA, as well duties of studying climate science not allocated to anyone else? I don't think you can look at this statement by stripping it off the context and it does matter greatly on who is saying it.

 

With respect to the broader picture, I don't see why this discussion is even necessary when there isn't much to suggest that studying climate science is getting in the way of other missions NASA is approaching. At least, nothing to suggest that it warrants a major systemic change that allocates funding from the largest funding receiver to something already existing or new.

 

Even people that are wrong a lot are occasionally right and people that are right a lot are occasionally wrong, which is why arguing from authority is a logical fallacy.

 

in addition, just because a person has ulterior motives doesn't mean the base argument is wrong.

 

And you do yourself a disservice long term when you don't consider the underlying argument and just look at or for (possible) ulterior motives.

 

And I've already said, a perfectly reasonable response would have been to ask Cruz for evidence.

 

If the person would have said, Senator, I don't know what data you've seen, but from my experience based on our current budget, which in real inflation corrected dollars is much less than it was in through out much of the 1960s and less than in the 1990s, I think we are being very inspirational, and I think our climate research is actually an important component of that.  For example...... (I know of the top of my head that one of NASA's climate scientists recently gave a TED talk so he could have talked about that if nothing else).  I'd be interested in seeing what data you have on NASA being inspiring.

 

That's a great response.

 

But realistically, at some level Cruz is right.  Mission creep has happened at NASA.  Mission creep generally has negative consequences.

 

It might not in this case (which I've also already said in a previous post).

 

But it really doesn't hurt "us" (people that support doing something about climate change) to take a step back and actually consider Cruz's argument.  It ain't like what we've been doing is working really well.  Public opinion polls show that support for climate change is at BEST flat if not down.

 

It is possible that Cruz (unintentionally) actually made a good point.

 

And by simply dismissing it as look at what that "stupid" or "bad" or "evil" Ted Cruz is doing, you miss that opportunity.

 

And by blindly rallying around NASA, like it is some super science agency, and not admitting their faults, you just compound the problem.

 

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet if you asked people what they think about current US government science agencies NASA is only higher than the CDC.

 

Essentially in my life time, the enduring images of NASA haven't exactly been positive.

 

I mean even right now, we can't put a man into space because they botched the post-shuttle transition.

Edited March 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[Larry]

I mean even right now, we can't put a man into space because they botched the post-shuttle transition.

This really isn't the thread for this topic. But I would sincerely love it if you were to start a thread on this topic, with a whole lot more information. (I'm assuming that you have more).

[PeterMP]

This really isn't the thread for this topic. But I would sincerely love it if you were to start a thread on this topic, with a whole lot more information. (I'm assuming that you have more).

 

Well, it is off topic, but I suspect nobody will mind.  I don't have a ton of information on it.  I thought it was pretty common knowledge.

 

I believe that mjah has spoken of it multiple times here.

 

But there's some links:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/us/nasa-to-delay-decision-on-shuttle-replacement.html

 

 

 

http://www.space.com/11363-nasa-space-shuttle-replacement-30-years-anniversaries.html

 

Even if the Space Shuttle was actually a good idea is pretty openly questioned:

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/424586/was-the-space-shuttle-a-mistake/

 

NASA essentially doesn't seem to be able to do anything close to on budget, on time or up to expectations when it comes to putting people into space.

Edited March 17, 2015 by PeterMP

[Jumbo]

I know it's hard at times, given the general level and wide range of reprobates that hang here    (my people), but let's remember to fall back to our typical level of "abusive civility" after we've satisfyingly hurled a couple of the more direct epithets at deserving recipients (a demographic most of us share) in some exchange. 

 

Remember, as my beloved brothers of Firesign Theater made clear long ago, "We're all bozos on this bus."

[Larry]

Even if the Space Shuttle was actually a good idea is pretty openly questioned:

 

Oh, even I am aware of some of the decisions that went into that.

NASA wanted a vehicle with which to build and service the space station. That was always the goal they were working towards.

Congress didn't want the space station. In fact, they were so opposed to it, that they outright forbid the shuttle from having any docking capability at all. (Which is why, for space station missions, they had to add a docking adapter, inside the cargo bay, thus reducing payload weight and size.).

Those famous o rings in the SRBs were also a congressional mandate. All previous solid rockets were cast as a single piece. But supposedly Mo Udal refused to approve funding for the shuttle, unless the solid rockets were not only made by Mirton Thiokol, but had to be made IN UTAH. (Which ment they had to be made in pieces, which ment that had to be connected).

Any way. Off to read your links.

[Mad Mike]

Even people that are wrong a lot are occasionally right and people that are right a lot are occasionally wrong, which is why arguing from authority is a logical fallacy.

 

in addition, just because a person has ulterior motives doesn't mean the base argument is wrong.

 

And you do yourself a disservice long term when you don't consider the underlying argument and just look at or for (possible) ulterior motives.

 

And I've already said, a perfectly reasonable response would have been to ask Cruz for evidence.

 

If the person would have said, Senator, I don't know what data you've seen, but from my experience based on our current budget, which in real inflation corrected dollars is much less than it was in through out much of the 1960s and less than in the 1990s, I think we are being very inspirational, and I think our climate research is actually an important component of that.  For example...... (I know of the top of my head that one of NASA's climate scientists recently gave a TED talk so he could have talked about that if nothing else).  I'd be interested in seeing what data you on NASA being inspiring.

 

That's a great response.

 

But realistically, at some level Cruz is right.  Mission creep has happened at NASA.  Mission creep generally has negative consequences.

 

It might not in this case (which I've also already said in a previous post).

 

But it really doesn't hurt "us" (people that support doing something about climate change) to take a step back and actually consider Cruz's argument.  It ain't like what we've been doing is working really well.  Public opinion polls show that support for climate change is at BEST flat if not down.

 

It is possible that Cruz (unintentionally) actually made a good point.

 

And by simply dismissing it as look at what that "stupid" or "bad" or "evil" Ted Cruz is doing, you miss that opportunity.

 

And by blindly rallying around NASA, like it is some super science agency, and not admitting their faults, you just compound the problem.

 

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet if you asked people what they think about current US government science agencies NASA is only higher than the CDC.

 

Essentially in my life time, the enduring images of NASA haven't exactly been positive.

 

I mean even right now, we can't put a man into space because they botched the post-shuttle transition.

 

Yeah and while you are trying to play nice with Ted Cruz, he will be stripping NASA of funding for earth sciences. Not re-directing it to another agency. He will GUT the most important study of our lifetime.

 

Here's a tip. When budget and allocation of resources is done in response to a need. The most idiotic thing that can be done is to simply call it mission creep and cut the resources. 

 

And do you want to know why I didn't "help" you discuss climate change? Because you are talking to people who don't care about the truth and the only thing you have done is legitimize their argument. Climate change deniers are no better than 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They do not deserve the dignity of arguing their idiotic points. Let them argue with NASA, NOAA, ESA, and the US Military AFTER they explain why they should deserve as much credibility.

 

And if you think Michael Man is the problem, maybe you should look in the mirror.

 

Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit - The Equation

 

Stop blaming scientists to inflate your own ego, and stop codling *** ***** like Ted Cruz who only care about gutting climate science funding. Until you can do that, you are part of the problem.

[Mad Mike]

NASA and mistakes....

 

EVERY organization makes mistakes. Take the funding from NASA and give it to someone else and THEY will make mistakes.  The key is, how you manage mistakes and whether you reach your goal.

 

Hubble Space Telescope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

When finally launched in 1990, Hubble's main mirror was found to have been ground incorrectly, compromising the telescope's capabilities. The optics were corrected to their intended quality by a servicing mission in 1993.

Hubble is the only telescope designed to be serviced in space by astronauts. After launch by Space Shuttle Discoveryin 1990, four subsequent Space Shuttle missions repaired, upgraded, and replaced systems on the telescope. A fifth mission was canceled on safety grounds following the Columbia disaster. However, after spirited public discussion, NASA administrator Mike Griffin approved one final servicing mission, completed in 2009. The telescope is still operating as of 2015, and may last until 2020

 

HubbleSite - The Telescope - Hubble Essentials

 

[No Excuses]

Even people that are wrong a lot are occasionally right and people that are right a lot are occasionally wrong, which is why arguing from authority is a logical fallacy.

 

in addition, just because a person has ulterior motives doesn't mean the base argument is wrong.

 

And you do yourself a disservice long term when you don't consider the underlying argument and just look at or for (possible) ulterior motives.

 

And I've already said, a perfectly reasonable response would have been to ask Cruz for evidence.

 

If the person would have said, Senator, I don't know what data you've seen, but from my experience based on our current budget, which in real inflation corrected dollars is much less than it was in through out much of the 1960s and less than in the 1990s, I think we are being very inspirational, and I think our climate research is actually an important component of that.  For example...... (I know of the top of my head that one of NASA's climate scientists recently gave a TED talk so he could have talked about that if nothing else).  I'd be interested in seeing what data you on NASA being inspiring.

 

That's a great response.

 

But realistically, at some level Cruz is right.  Mission creep has happened at NASA.  Mission creep generally has negative consequences.

 

It might not in this case (which I've also already said in a previous post).

 

But it really doesn't hurt "us" (people that support doing something about climate change) to take a step back and actually consider Cruz's argument.  It ain't like what we've been doing is working really well.  Public opinion polls show that support for climate change is at BEST flat if not down.

 

It is possible that Cruz (unintentionally) actually made a good point.

 

And by simply dismissing it as look at what that "stupid" or "bad" or "evil" Ted Cruz is doing, you miss that opportunity.

 

And by blindly rallying around NASA, like it is some super science agency, and not admitting their faults, you just compound the problem.

 

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet if you asked people what they think about current US government science agencies NASA is only higher than the CDC.

 

Essentially in my life time, the enduring images of NASA haven't exactly been positive.

 

I mean even right now, we can't put a man into space because they botched the post-shuttle transition.

 

I see your point, and even agree with it to a certain extent. But a few things:

 

1. I haven't come across many people who have a negative perception of NASA and I don't think its purely anecdotal. It seems to have a really good reputation in a heavily political town like DC and the surrounding suburbs. Last I read, a survey from Boeing even suggested that the American public is ok with doubling NASA's budget to fund more space exploration. And this might be old (2003) but it seems that NASA has a favorable rating from the public, especially when compared to other federal agencies.

 

http://www.academia.edu/179045/_Public_Opinion_Polls_and_Perceptions_of_US_Human_Spaceflight_

 

Overall there has been consistently good news for NASA and the cause of human space exploration. The public has always, insofar as data exists, accorded NASA a quite favorable rating. This is unusual for most federal agencies, as the low opinion held by the public for such organizations as the Internal Revenue Service,the Environmental Protection Agency, and Health andHuman Services attest.For example, while Americans may not know much about the space program, they have a largely favorably opinion of it—over 70 percent say they have a favorable impression, compared to less than 20 percent that holdan unfavorable impression. And this tracks over the entire life of this particular question, from 1978 to1999.

 

 

2. The last evaluation that I'm aware, where an independent party looked at NASA's missions and objectives, they had a pretty scathing report of its long term objections and mission (National Research Council, 2012) But they placed a decent chunk of the blame on the executive and legislative branches for not having a clear national strategy for NASA.

 

Now for point two, you can say that Ted Cruz is being proactive by initiating a conversation about NASA's mission objectives at the legislative level. And that may be correct. But where I disagree with you is that to me it seems like you are willing to strip Cruz's (and even the Republican majorities) history of climate science denial. 

 

If Ted Cruz comes out and says "I would like to see NASA focus more on space exploration and shift the massive federal funding it receives for climate studies towards the NOAA" then fine. He has me on board somewhat. But his statement was vague and open-ended. Whether this was on purpose, I can't say. But I don't think its wrongfully interpreted as an attempt by a science denier to thwart future work on an issue that he doesn't support.

[PeterMP]

Yeah and while you are trying to play nice with Ted Cruz, he will be stripping NASA of funding for earth sciences. Not re-directing it to another agency. He will GUT the most important study of our lifetime.

And when he actually proposes to gut it, let me know.

And I'll respond accordingly.

 

And do you want to know why I didn't "help" you discuss climate change? Because you are talking to people who don't care about the truth and the only thing you have done is legitimize their argument.

 

And if you think Michael Man is the problem, maybe you should look in the mirror.

 

Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit - The Equation

 

Stop blaming scientists to inflate your own ego, and stop codling *** ***** like Ted Cruz who only care about gutting climate science funding. Until you can do that, you are part of the problem.

How about Richard Mueller (a professor of Physics at Cal Berkeley who spear headed the BEST global temperature series and has published multiple peer reviewed papers on climate change)?

Can he criticize Mann's work? Or is he part of the problem and just trying inflate his own ego?

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Is there a list of climate change researchers where I can't criticize their work and another that are okay?

Is it not okay to criticize Mann, but okay to criticize Judith Curry (a tenured faculty member at GT in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences that has multiple publications related to cimate change)?

http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/

(And no, I'm not part of the problem by criticizing Mann, and I can criticize Mann without thinking he should be sued, and this type of attitude that equates criticizing Mann to suing Mann (or thinking he should be sued or criminally prosecuted) or criticizing Mann to being part of the problem, IS actually part of the problem.)

Edited March 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

If Ted Cruz comes out and says "I would like to see NASA focus more on space exploration and shift the massive federal funding it receives for climate studies towards the NOAA" then fine. He has me on board somewhat. But his statement was vague and open-ended. Whether this was on purpose, I can't say. But I don't think its wrongfully interpreted as an attempt by a science denier to thwart future work on an issue that he doesn't support.

I just want to point out that there is no other science organization listed in your poll. Science organizations frequently poll higher as well as funding of science.

At least in the abstract (i.e. polls), Americans are highly supportive of science. Getting actual action (i.e. contacting Congress) from the US public in support of science has historically been more difficult.

(There is an old West Wing episode about flag burning. One pollster is trying to get the President to support doing something about it, and he's got a whole bunch of numbers that show the vast majority of Americans are against flag burning and even support government action. Another pollster has gone further and yes a whole bunch of Americans feel that way, but it isn't really going to affect the way they vote. Science is sort of like that. People will tell pollsters they support doubling the NASA budget to fund a manned trip to Mars, but essentially nobody is calling their representatives about it.)

When you evaluate an argument, you have to evaluate the argument itself. It is possible, and even likely, that Ted Cruz has an ulterior motive.

But intellectually, you have to be able to take the argument independent of the person (and possible ulterior motives) and evaluate it.

Long term, doing anything else is only going to hurt you and your positions.

And in this particular case (where Cruz hasn't actually called for gutting climate change funding), his argument isn't unreasonable.

I'm not sure he's right, but I'm not sure he's wrong.

And even if you are on the opposite side of the climate change argument of Cruz that's something to consider.

Edited March 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

Republicans Push Climate Change Cuts at CIA, Defense Department - NationalJournal.com

 

Ive got a better idea Peter. Since you suggested it, Why don't you show me ANYTHING to suggest he would redirect funds to any earth sciences program. 

[PeterMP]

Republicans Push Climate Change Cuts at CIA, Defense Department - NationalJournal.com

 

Ive got a better idea Peter. Since you suggested it, Why don't you show me ANYTHING to suggest he would redirect funds to any earth sciences program. 

 

I never said he would or even suggested that he would.

 

This is from my first post in this thread where I mentioned Cruz (I had a post before that on the general idea where I was just talking very generally so on the topic, this is from my 2nd post, but it is the first where I directly address Cruz):

 

"In my experience, responding nefariousness/stupidity with nefariousness/stupidity doesn't have a high rate of success."

 

I'm completely willing to admit that Ted Cruz possibly has some nefarious/stupid underlying idea/objective.

 

It doesn't really matter to my point.  Acting stupid, ignorant, or nefarious in response isn't a good solution.

 

And denying that NASA hasn't had pretty huge issues (i.e. negligence that has resulted in the death of astronauts), that mission creep has happened with respect to NASA, that mission creep generally (not always) is bad, and that politically we don't seem to be any closer to getting anything done with respect to climate change despite decades of strong support from NASA scientists is either stupid, nefarious, or ignorant.

 

I said it could be done.  I've never said or even suggested that Cruz would support doing it.

Edited March 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

are they qualified by your standard to do climate research?....I hear NASA has all the bright folk.

[PeterMP]

are they qualified by your standard to do climate research?....I hear NASA has all the bright folk.

 

Anybody can do climate research.  The research might be garbage and not have much value, and I (or anybody else) might decide that I don't trust or like it.

 

I don't really trust anything that Mann does.  I'm not sure if he's just sloppy, biased, or a some combination of things, but I've seen enough that I don't trust his work.  He can still do his work, but when I need to make an argument in support of climate change I'm not going to Mann's work.  Even people highly associated with him.  If you look at when I've posted about things related to a specific climate model in the past (which I haven't done in a long time now). I've pulled one from a lab in Toronto that isn't at all connected to Mann or even anybody that has published with him.  And that pre-dates the CRU hack.

 

Gavin Schmidt (of NASA) actually seems pretty good to me, but for my liking he's too close to Mann.  At some level it isn't fair, right, or good, but even I fall into guilt by association traps.

 

Mueller seems good and his work seems of high quality.

 

Curry is an interesting case.  If you look at her published work, I don't have any issues with it.  There are no apparent issues.  It seems good.

 

The problem with Curry is she makes stronger (stupid) statements outside of the peer review process then she does in it.

 

At some level, she really does seem to be playing to the (denier) crowd at her blog.  Part of me wants to think (hope) it is an act to try and get deniers to be willing to move on some sort of actions.  That by appealing to them in many cases, she is able to deliver a general message of this is an issue and at least at some point in time something will need to be done.  And that will start to seep in and make them more willing to allow something to happen.

 

And I don't think she properly takes into account the true "costs" of fossil fuels (in terms of defense, foreign policy, national security, and even other environmental issues (all of which we've discussed before)) when making her arguments.  

 

She acts like the only issue with fossil fuels is climate change and therefore she over weighs the benefits of mitigation of CO2 increases and generally delaying action as compared to actual decreases in fossil fuel usage (or at least nearer term slowing down increases).

 

(If the only issue with fossil fuels was climate change, then mitigation makes a lot of sense, but when you throw in the whole big picture problems with being (overly) dependent on fossil fuels that mitigation doesn't really impact (and might actually exacerbate) mitigation makes a lot less sense.)

Edited March 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse. - The Washington Post

 

 

Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when we learned the same about one gigantic glacier of East Antarctica, which could set in motion roughly the same amount all over again. Northern Hemisphere residents and Americans in particular should take note — when the bottom of the world loses vast amounts of ice, those of us living closer to its top get more sea level rise than the rest of the planet, thanks to the law of gravity.

The findings about East Antarctica emerge from a new paper just out in Nature Geoscience by an international team of scientists representing the United States, Britain, France and Australia. They flew a number of research flights over the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica — the fastest-thinning sector of the world’s largest ice sheet — and took a variety of measurements to try to figure out the reasons behind its retreat. And the news wasn’t good: It appears that Totten, too, is losing ice because warm ocean water is getting underneath it.

 

This is climate skeptics’ top argument about Antarctica — and why it’s wrong - The Washington Post

[Mad Mike]

The Only Place It Was Cold This Winter Was The East Coast Of The United States | ThinkProgress

 

 

If you live on the East Coast of the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just released some statistics that may surprise you:

• Globally, this has been the hottest winter on record, topping the previous record (2007) by 0.05°F.
• This was “the 19th warmest winter for the contiguous US.”
• Globally it’s easily been the hottest start to any year (January-February), beating the previous records (2002, 2007) by 0.07°F.
• This was the second warmest February globally, and “slightly below” the 20th-century average in the contiguous U.S.
  • Note: For NOAA, winter is the “meteorological winter” (December 2014 to February 2015).

[twa]

that just illustrates the limits of averages 

[Mad Mike]

Is there an insect buzzing around here?

 

Oh well.... 

 

Scientists: Ted Cruz's Climate Theories Are a "Load of Claptrap" | Mother Jones

[twa]

LOL, nice to see them question the accuracy of satellite temp readings AFTER they become inconvenient.

 

 

The 16 yrs time was fine UNTIL it started showing no warming for some reason.

 

 

Been some funny things going on with surface temps.....it will be interesting to watch flesh out.

[Mad Mike]

Why yes.... I do believe there is an insect flying around here.

[twa]

they are usually found around offal.

[PeterMP]

LOL, nice to see them question the accuracy of satellite temp readings AFTER they become inconvenient.

 

 

The 16 yrs time was fine UNTIL it started showing no warming for some reason.

 

 

Been some funny things going on with surface temps.....it will be interesting to watch flesh out.

 

Ted Cruz is cherry picking the starting year and the data set to make his point.

 

1998 was a very warm year because of a very strong El Nino and El Nino's affect the lower troposphere more than the surface and satellites are measuring lower troposphere temperatures.

 

There is no warming because of a huge peak related to a weather event that specifically affects what the satellites are measuring.

 

There are two satellite temperature series and simply stepping one year to 1999, they both give a positive slope for the trend.

 

And even if I start in 1998, one of them still shows a positive trend

 

Cruz's point is only really an issue if:

1.  You cherry pick which satellite data you are going to use.

2.  You cherry pick which year to start so that 1998 dominates the left part of the graph.

 

And it isn't like the models said the temperature from exactly year 1998 were going to get warmer.

 

If you look at the trend predicted by the models, 1998 is an outlier because it is so high.

 

If you go back to the graph of the model outputs in this post:

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/?p=10160221

 

You can clearly see 1998 is high and at the boundary of what the most models predict.

The models have no problem with there being a really warm year in 1998 and the years that aren't as warm and still being in their margin of error. The models do NOT say pick any given year and from there it will warm.

 

(Based on the satellite data, 1998 is still the warmest year on record, but based on all of the surface data records, it isn't.)

 

There is no great mystery here. Just manipulations and distortions.

**EDIT**

Antartica sea ice is up even though the models have said the trend would be down.

Earlier in this thread I said every variable that I knew of that the models in 1988 would change have changed.

Well, now I know of one that is wrong. The models have said Antarctica sea ice would go down, and it is going up.

However, just in terms of predicting trends since 1988 the models are still doing significantly better than the naive hypothesis of no change.

Edited March 19, 2015 by PeterMP