The Republican race: Five degrees of climate denial

Interesting article, she does a nice job of detailing her five main points.

The Republican race: Five degrees of climate denial Dawn Stover | 9 MARCH 2016 http://thebulletin.org/republican-race-five-degrees-climate-denial9218 Stage 1 denial: The climate is not changing. Stage 2: The climate might be changing, or it might not. Stage 3: Climate change is real, but it’s natural. Stage 4: Climate change is real, but there’s no scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause. Stage 5: Human activities are the primary cause of global warming, but plans to reduce emissions won’t work or are too expensive.
Interesting article, she does a nice job of detailing her five main points.
The Republican race: Five degrees of climate denial Dawn Stover | 9 MARCH 2016 http://thebulletin.org/republican-race-five-degrees-climate-denial9218 Stage 1 denial: The climate is not changing. Stage 2: The climate might be changing, or it might not. Stage 3: Climate change is real, but it’s natural. Stage 4: Climate change is real, but there’s no scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause. Stage 5: Human activities are the primary cause of global warming, but plans to reduce emissions won’t work or are too expensive.
Stage 6: Satan's at work to interfere with capitalism.
Interesting article, she does a nice job of detailing her five main points.
The Republican race: Five degrees of climate denial Dawn Stover | 9 MARCH 2016 http://thebulletin.org/republican-race-five-degrees-climate-denial9218 Stage 1 denial: The climate is not changing. Stage 2: The climate might be changing, or it might not. Stage 3: Climate change is real, but it’s natural. Stage 4: Climate change is real, but there’s no scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause. Stage 5: Human activities are the primary cause of global warming, but plans to reduce emissions won’t work or are too expensive.
Climate is the measurement of the changes in weather. So to say the climate is not changing is to say the atmospheric conditions stay the same all the time. And this is a faults scenario. To promote fault scenarios is bad science at best. Dawn Stover’s writings are political and not scientific. She makes statements like “Republicans don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming". That Republicans are all deniers of well-established science. Which is total BS. The truth is that science is not well-established and the data being quoted and used is turning out to be untrustworthy at best. The computer models have proven that. Bad data in, creates bad data out. The computer model teams are mostly refusing to use any of the old data that all this so called well-established science is based on. Anthropogenic warming is a fact. But how much it is affecting the earth is an unknown fact. Once the IPCC computer models are working, it will become a measurable fact. Everything you say about not using energy will slow anthropogenic warming is true. But you cannot say that if we stopped all use of carbon energy that the oceans would stop rising. Because earth’s history has shown that it happens every 100,000 years over and over again without any anthropogenic warming. Until you can measure the effects of anthropogenic warming you are dealing with the real facts that you know it is happening and affecting the earth in bad ways. But trying to convince people with the good vs. evil method, I don’t think will work. If you have well-established science as claimed, then the science can stand on its own and the people will back the needed changes.
Dawn Stover’s writings are political and not scientific. She makes statements like “Republicans don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming". That Republicans are all deniers of well-established science. Which is total BS.
Are you not paying attention to what is happening in this country? James Inhofe has called global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Lamar Smith is waging a war on climate scientists. Any Republican who publicly admits believing in evolution will lose in the primaries and be looking for a real job.
The truth is that science is not well-established and the data being quoted and used is turning out to be untrustworthy at best. The computer models have proven that. Bad data in, creates bad data out. The computer model teams are mostly refusing to use any of the old data that all this so called well-established science is based on.
If the computer models were wrong the predictions James Hansen presented to Congress 30 years ago would not have been accurate. You keep repeating this lie despite the evidence.
Anthropogenic warming is a fact. But how much it is affecting the earth is an unknown fact.
Open your eyes and look around.
Dawn Stover’s writings are political and not scientific. She makes statements like “Republicans don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming". That Republicans are all deniers of well-established science. Which is total BS.
Are you not paying attention to what is happening in this country? James Inhofe has called global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Lamar Smith is waging a war on climate scientists. Any Republican who publicly admits believing in evolution will lose in the primaries and be looking for a real job. DarronS, you and I differ on how we view subjects. Example, I discard the top and bottom and get to the meat of the general views. You could say the mass view. James Inhofe is at the end that gets discarded. If you want to spend time dealing with minority radical thinking then you will just be spinning you wheels. Then you bring up Lamar Smith. What did he do? He questioned how the certain scientists were conducting their science on taxpayer’s dollars. He wanted the scientists not to operate in secret but to have an open door policy on climate change. He claimed that the scientists were working with political agendas and wanted to view their emails on the taxpayer’s funded programs. He was also working with whistleblowers on the scientists work. What I see that Smith did wrong was to call people “alarmists". That is political, I wish he would have stayed with only the science and kept it simple.
The truth is that science is not well-established and the data being quoted and used is turning out to be untrustworthy at best. The computer models have proven that. Bad data in, creates bad data out. The computer model teams are mostly refusing to use any of the old data that all this so called well-established science is based on.
If the computer models were wrong the predictions James Hansen presented to Congress 30 years ago would not have been accurate. You see repeating this lie despite the evidence. Computer models of what? There are thousands and thousands of pathways with these computer models. I have stated that I let the IPCC handle that program and support the IPCC. So you statement should say that the IPCC is lying despite the evidence, not me.
Anthropogenic warming is a fact. But how much it is affecting the earth is an unknown fact.
Open your eyes and look around.That’s your scientific method?

Mike, I’m not going to waste much time arguing with you. Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt. See Phil Plait’s recent take on it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html
As for the IPCC, you keep saying you support them, yet what you post contradicts that. Just look at the latest summary for policy makers. The very first statement is:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green- house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
As for my "look around" suggestions, much of science is observation. You are intellectually dishonest. For evidence, see your moving goalposts on the climate baseline.
Mike, I'm not going to waste much time arguing with you. Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt. See Phil Plait's recent take on it. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html As for the IPCC, you keep saying you support them, yet what you post contradicts that. Just look at the latest summary for policy makers. The very first statement is:
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green- house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
As for my "look around" suggestions, much of science is observation. You are intellectual dishonest. For evidence, see your moving goalposts on the climate baseline.
You just keep making up stuff, why? My posts are not a contradiction to the IPCC. Of course they are saying there are greenhouse gasses. The whole idea is to measure the amount of anthropogenic heat and create a baseline. A datum line to build the science on. You seem to think that the baseline has already been created. So, I guess the IPCC should save a lot of time and money and shut down. You have solved the whole climate change problem. I have known that man has been damaging the environment for over fifty years now. The problem is to separate the anthropogenic from the natural and be able to measure the difference. Then we have a baseline to work with. You seem to have a lot of baselines. But not one worth the ink it is printed with. The IPCC is still four to five years away from having the baseline. I am backing and supporting the IPCC all the way.
Mike, I'm not going to waste much time arguing with you. Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt. See Phil Plait's recent take on it. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html As for the IPCC, you keep saying you support them, yet what you post contradicts that. Just look at the latest summary for policy makers. The very first statement is:
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green- house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
As for my "look around" suggestions, much of science is observation. You are intellectual dishonest. For evidence, see your moving goalposts on the climate baseline.
You just keep making up stuff, why? My posts are not a contradiction to the IPCC. Of course they are saying there are greenhouse gasses. The whole idea is to measure the amount of anthropogenic heat and create a baseline. A datum line to build the science on. You seem to think that the baseline has already been created. So, I guess the IPCC should save a lot of time and money and shut down. You have solved the whole climate change problem. I have known that man has been damaging the environment for over fifty years now. The problem is to separate the anthropogenic from the natural and be able to measure the difference. Then we have a baseline to work with. You seem to have a lot of baselines. But not one worth the ink it is printed with. The IPCC is still four to five years away from having the baseline. I am backing and supporting the IPCC all the way. More intellectual dishonesty. The IPCC states human influences on climate change is clear, and you keep moving the goalposts on a baseline. I'm not making up anything. Maybe if the IPCC had the benefit of your expertise they'd have a baseline you would accept. Naw. You'd just tell them they don't have enough information. How does it feel to know more about anthropogenic climate change than the world's leading climatologists and still not have your opinions accepted?
More intellectual dishonesty. The IPCC states human influences on climate change is clear, and you keep moving the goalposts on a baseline. I'm not making up anything. Maybe if the IPCC had the benefit of your expertise they'd have a baseline you would accept. Naw. You'd just tell them they don't have enough information. How does it feel to know more about anthropogenic climate change than the world's leading climatologists and still not have your opinions accepted?
You just don’t get it, do you? How can I move the goalposts on the baseline, when the baseline is being created by the computer models and is years away. I don’t make the rules for the baseline. The rules for the baseline is that with thousands and thousands of pathways, no matter what pathways are used, most of the computer models will need to come close to agreeing on the results. So far the results from the computer models have proven one thing. And that is, almost all the old scientific data is wrong. Therefore the goal now is to gather new data and have the computer models match the weather with the new data. After that is done, the past weather data can be created. So far we have thirteen years of satellite data alone to help with the decoding. That is where Lamar Smith and Ted Cruz have stated that the satellite data is not showing any global warming. Frankly I would not give two cents for their theories. It is too early in the program yet to make those types of predictions. We (the world) are still in the stage of putting data gathering satellites in space. We were using the CIA’s spy satellites to help gather data. That got shut down, but now we are putting better data gathering satellites into use. There is a book out called “Climate Change & Satellites" from Thales Alenia Space. A picture can say a thousand words. And these pictures help the public to understand just how much mankind is affecting the earth.

I don’t get it? Anyone looking over your posts complaining about baselines can easily see how you’ve moved the goalposts each time we showed you a baseline. You’ve gone from asking for one graph that shows a baseline, to saying ice core samples aren’t what you wanted to stating there is no legal definition of a baseline. You’ve made up your mind on this subject and will not accept evidence that shows you are wrong, instead digging in your heels and doubling down on your bullshit just like any ideologue.
Now you’ve come down to rationalizing the climate denial of leading Republicans, going so far as dismissing the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as an inconsequential statistical outlier. Let me give you a clue: when a Republican candidate cannot admit believing in evolution without losing in the primaries the party is in full-on science denial mode.
Another hint: anyone who says he supports the IPCC but denies its conclusions is fooling only himself.
Edit: Lamar Smith’s inquiries into the climate scientists’ emails are not a benign attempt to gather information. Click the link I provided and read about the ridiculous demands he is making. As I stated earlier, Smith is on a witch hunt. He chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee yet denied anthropogenic global warming and is doing everything he can to derail climate change research.

I don't get it? Anyone looking over your posts complaining about baselines can easily see how you've moved the goalposts each time we showed you a baseline. You've gone from asking for one graph that shows a baseline, to saying ice core samples aren't what you wanted to stating there is no legal definition of a baseline. You've made up your mind on this subject and will not accept evidence that shows you are wrong, instead digging in your heels and doubling down on your bullshit just like any ideologue. Now you've come down to rationalizing the climate denial of leading Republicans, going so far as dismissing the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as an inconsequential statistical outlier. Let me give you a clue: when a Republican candidate cannot admit believing in evolution without losing in the primaries the party is in full-on science denial mode. Another hint: anyone who says he supports the IPCC but denies its conclusions is fooling only himself. Edit: Lamar Smith's inquiries into the climate scientists' emails are not a benign attempt to gather information. Click the link I provided and read about the ridiculous demands he is making. As I stated earlier, Smith is on a witch hunt. He chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee yet denied anthropogenic global warming and is doing everything he can to derail climate change research.
I may have been sarcastic because of the way you communicate. What I was trying to get across to you was that there is no universally accepted graphs. Not of the type that would hold up in court. Otherwise you could sue for damages. There must be thousands and thousands of lawyers just waiting for scientific proof that would hold up in court. You tell me, if things are the way you say they are. What is stopping you from suing? I don’t believe everything a politician says during an election. You say that Lamar Smith chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Then all his requests should be given to him on a silver plate. Something is terribly wrong if they are not.

Alas, if it were only true that ignorance could be sued away.

<![CDATA[

]>

Mow you're introducing a red herring to the discussion.
No I am not introducing a red herring. If the data you claim is correct, and it is good. Then you should have no problem in any court suing the hell out of the people damaging the earth. But no lawyer is going to take on a case like this without good data. What has happened is that the scientists agree on the earth warming. But disagree on the amount of anthropogenic affects. In law when two sides have experts that disagree. Then you need a specialist in the field brought in that can clarify the disagreement and side with one of the experts. Plus you must have an acceptable method of measuring the anthropogenic affects. This is what the IPCC is doing, creating specialist in the field of climate change and developing the technology for measurement.
It isn't that I say Lamar Smith is chair of the committee, it is a fact. Just because he holds an important position does not mean scientists have to bow before him and accede to his every demand. Smith is a climate change denier taking major contributions from oil companies and is abusing his power.
Oh, yes they do, if they want to continual to receive taxpayer funds. I am telling you that is how things work in the world based upon laws. Smith is just doing his job. They need to stop denying him the data.

The way I understand it, for a lawsuit to be successful, there must be a plaintiff who has suffered damage.
e.g., Scientists in Japan, prior to the devastating tidal wave, could have come up with graphs and charts re: the likelihood/possibility that an earthquake and tidal wave could result in the release of horrific poisonous radiation, by damaging nuclear facilities. But they could not successfully sue nuclear power plants such as the specific Fukushima power plant (that did cause damage), until AFTER the damage was done, and, even then, only if they (the scientists) were the ones who were damaged.
Most of the damage of AGW, remains in the future. By the time there is clear evidence of caused damage, the perpetrators may well be long gone, along with their wealth attained by exploitation. And the potential plaintiffs may be in no position to sue, if they lack the resources to do so, or if they are dead.

The way I understand it, for a lawsuit to be successful, there must be a plaintiff who has suffered damage. e.g., Scientists in Japan, prior to the devastating tidal wave, could have come up with graphs and charts re: the likelihood/possibility that an earthquake and tidal wave could result in the release of horrific poisonous radiation, by damaging nuclear facilities. But they could not successfully sue nuclear power plants such as the specific Fukushima power plant (that did cause damage), until AFTER the damage was done, and, even then, only if they (the scientists) were the ones who were damaged. Most of the damage of AGW, remains in the future. By the time there is clear evidence of caused damage, the perpetrators may well be long gone, along with their wealth attained by exploitation. And the potential plaintiffs may be in no position to sue, if they lack the resources to do so, or if they are dead.
Aside from the obvious to everyone but Mike: I don't have the resources to take on Exxon/Mobile. However, there are youths filing class-action suits to force our government to take action on climate change. They aren't suing the polluters, but instead are trying to force remediation action through the courts.
The way I understand it, for a lawsuit to be successful, there must be a plaintiff who has suffered damage. e.g., Scientists in Japan, prior to the devastating tidal wave, could have come up with graphs and charts re: the likelihood/possibility that an earthquake and tidal wave could result in the release of horrific poisonous radiation, by damaging nuclear facilities. But they could not successfully sue nuclear power plants such as the specific Fukushima power plant (that did cause damage), until AFTER the damage was done, and, even then, only if they (the scientists) were the ones who were damaged. Most of the damage of AGW, remains in the future. By the time there is clear evidence of caused damage, the perpetrators may well be long gone, along with their wealth attained by exploitation. And the potential plaintiffs may be in no position to sue, if they lack the resources to do so, or if they are dead.
I agree with what you are saying. We are pretty much blind right now in our ability to comprehend most of the AWG damage that is taking place. What we do see is alarming. Expect that to change once the computer models are up and running. As far as suing for damages. According to Al Gore’s charts or any charts DarronS has posted, everyone that has a house with air conditioning and a big lawn is having to pay higher electric and water bills because of recorder breaking heat. That’s all the damage you need for a class action lawsuit.