Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[mercury14]

First of all poll after poll have shown that the univ. are bastions of liberalism. That is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.

You're looking at it all wrong. Universities and their scientists tend towards being liberal because people who think scientifically are rarely Republicans. Science rejects right-wing thinking. The vast majority of Republicans think evolution is a fairy tale.

Only 6% of scientist are Republicans.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

68% of Republicans reject evolution, 28% more than Democrats
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx

As far as the debate goes it's over AGW, NOT whether the surface temperature has increased or notl

Okay well two things.

1) I'm not disagreeing with you here.

2) There are still plenty of conservatives who argue that temps have not increased - or that temps are actually cooling. The right wing talking heads are eager to host folks with this opinion

 

[mercury14]

*chuckle*

Put up or shut up, Ishmael. You have no credibility in the discussion until you back up this utter crap you posted in your thread. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32

Ish chooses to hide from this post.

 

[HAL_9000]

Same thing as always:

Skeptics: The Earth is too big for mankind to ever have a noticeable effect!

Believers: Mankind has created many whole-Earth effects. Van Allen belts come to mind from high altitude nuclear bomb testing experiments. Then there's that pesky ozone layer. Not to mention the overall worldwide atmospheric CO2 concentration levels.

Oh well, this short film explains it all:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX9O4xDW0Kc&feature=related

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Alway slander instead of Science.

In December of 1966, Lynn White, Jr. (1907-1987) delivered a controversial speech in Washington, D.C. entitled "The historical roots of our ecological crisis." White charged that Christianity "bears a huge burden of guilt" in helping to foster the present-day "out of control" degradation of the environment. White singled out Western Christianity as being primarily responsible for the wedding between science and technology that has left a devastating ecological scar on the modern landscape.

Modern science was solidly built upon a Judeo-Christian theological foundation, with Catholic Scholastic monks leading the way at first, after which the Lutherans took over. Both Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) were Lutherans. It must also be remembered that Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo (1564-1642) challenged the semi-pantheistic Aristotelian view of the universe, not the biblical one, something which is almost always completely misunderstood and misrepresented with regard to the Copernican revolution. The Catholic Scholastics often gave too much deference to Aristotle. On the other hand, however, both Galileo and Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) were strong Catholics. Even Isaac Newton (1642-1727) later performed his scientific studies for the glory of God. With such a crew of Christian scientists coming out of the academic halls in Europe for several centuries, Lynn White, Jr. glibly notes that "the technological superiority of Europe was such that its small, mutually hostile nations could spill out over all the rest of the world, conquering, looting, and colonizing."

Indeed, the famous dictum of modern science, that "knowledge is power," was coined by the Protestant Francis Bacon (1561-1626). This idea of knowledge as power runs completely counter to the classical Greek conception of knowledge as contemplation, being strongly based upon the Christian ideal where theoretical knowledge must be applied. The new Baconian science demanded experimentation and verification that went above and beyond theoretical knowledge. Lynn White, Jr. adds that such assumptions were much more pronounced in Western Christianity than in Eastern Christianity: "the Greek saint contemplates; the western saints acts. The implications of Christianity for the conquest of nature would emerge more easily in the western atmosphere."

Lovers of philosophy, the ancient Greeks had very little interest in developing applied modern science as is practiced today. It was the Old and New Testaments, which time and time again stress the practical import and value of knowledge, which helped form the basis for applied modern science. Moreover, since people believed that God created the universe, this made nature not only tangibly real and rational, but also something worthy of serious investigation. In other words, the Christian scientist expected to learn from nature precisely because he assumed that God intelligently designed it. Once the assumption of God's intelligent design is removed from nature, it becomes very difficult to understand just exactly what scientists are intending to learn these days. Neither can they explain why it is that they have indeed learned so much from nature. The Darwinian descent of man fully submerged into a purposeless natural world of unintelligent outcomes has only compounded this problem further. Contrary to popular opinion, a mixed up post-Christian, postmodern world is anything but a good foundation upon which to build an epistemological basis for scientific knowledge.

Further, the Judeo-Christian God is also separate from world which He created. This is extremely critical. Since God is transcendent above the natural world, to study nature and tinker with her secrets is not an act of irreverence. As such, surprisingly enough, it was the Judeo-Christian worldview which removed the superstitions of the pagan universe and opened wide the door of scientific investigation. Here is precisely where Lynn White, Jr. strongly complains that "by destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects."

The fact that man was made in God's image further established the inherent connection between Christianity and modern science. Man's reasoning capacity was assumed to be one of the primary characteristics of being made in God's image that sharply separated him from brute nature.

The great concern today, therefore, is not that Christian theology will ruin science with anti-scientific ideas like so many fear, but whether modern science can continue to have a genuine future if all of its foundation stones have been removed -- especially if they have been replaced with green ones. As Lynn White, Jr. showcased throughout his speech, the green movement has little regard for the scientific revolution precisely because it associates that movement with Christianity's dominating view over nature. Christianity has allegedly ransacked the ecology of the planet with a heavenly imperialistic worldview which has had little sympathy for the feelings of plants, animals, and indigenous peoples.

Lynn White, Jr.'s answer to help resolve the environmental crisis is even more revealing: "more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink the old one." In other words, environmentalism is not nearly as scientific as many would presume. The fact that many of its proponents are modern-day pantheists is further evidence of what Lynn White, Jr. may have had in mind. Modern environmentalism is therefore just as much a religious philosophy of man and nature as it is a science. Conservationist Paul Sears wrote in 1964 that ecology was a subversive science and that it was quickly becoming the favorite child of the sciences. Such favoritism has since inserted many green biases into the modern science department.

Greens are well aware of the fact that in order for the environmental movement to carry any weight in modern society, it must have its scientific credentials. Joining hands with Naturalism and Darwinism against Christianity, they therefore have infiltrated the modern science department and clothed themselves with every manner of scientific jargon imaginable in order to give all the appearance of an authoritative discipline.

This subterfuge has also allowed the greens to criticize Christianity from two directions at the same time. On the one hand, Western Christianity has allegedly created the scientific revolution that has raided the ecology of the planet. On the other hand, since many Christians refuse to bow to Darwinism, Christianity is also considered anti-science. This incongruent criticism should cause much more pause about the relationship between Christianity and science than is typically given. Darwinism does not have a monopoly on science. What's more is that if leftists are so into science, then why have so many of them embraced the environmental movement, which is loaded with Romantic, anti-scientific views?

Modern ecology appears to be attempting to return to the "sciences" of the Greco-Roman world, replete with all of its pagan hesitation and superstition, yet dressed up in holistic scientific language that forbids many of the consequences of the scientific revolution. This is the heart of Romanticism and holism, not science per se. Such a holistic atmosphere is not conducive to the original assumptions of the scientific revolution that made that revolution such a powerful force in the modern world. Furthermore, if science is inextricably bound up with modernity, then what will science look like in a postmodern world? Thanks to the green movement, that particular question has already been answered.

Mark Musser
The American Thinker

The backside of this slander is that it ignores the truth; the far right Evangelicals are every bit as green as the far Left.

It's one of the things they share in common, "The Return of the Primitive."

 

[Saint Peter]

Alway slander instead of Science.


Mark Musser
The American Thinker

The backside of this slander is that it ignores the truth; the far right Evangelicals are every bit as green as the far Left.

It's one of the things they share in common, "The Return of the Primitive."

Tell that to Galileo.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Tell that to Galileo.

I heard it from my devout rw uncle, the Mormon Rocket Scientist...

 

[trysail]

So you're saying it's not science unless it's an experiment?

No research is possible without an experiment that's reproduce-able?

Not even basic or pure research?

Nah, I think we should accept every hypothesis without respect to reproducibility, replication, data disclosure, methodology or verification ( just like climatology, c. 1970-2006 ).

 

[seamus221]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/

Another Fake study, yet NASA never told us what its research team in space found about our planet...cuase were fine and these Eco nuts are just the newest cult for fools to walk the earth in need of a fake cause to give meaning to their empty life and heads!!
I got beer,pussy and a paycheck I want to drink, fuck and spend my money fuck the GREEN TARDS, enjoy life they hate that!

 

[Peregrinator]

Alway slander instead of Science.


Mark Musser
The American Thinker

The backside of this slander is that it ignores the truth; the far right Evangelicals are every bit as green as the far Left.

It's one of the things they share in common, "The Return of the Primitive."

This is the same thing as calling Libertarians anarchists.

 

[Peregrinator]

Nah, I think we should accept every hypothesis without respect to reproducibility, replication, data disclosure, methodology or verification ( just like climatology, c. 1970-2006 ).

Name an area of science that's under more intense scrutiny or has more people or harder working people trying to discredit it.

 

[Dazzle1]

Just another example of Republican anti-intellectualism. According to so many Republicans all universities are liberal bastions. And even if the research is done at an independent agency, well the scientists that work there probably went to Berkley or MIT and were brainwashed by liberal professors, right?

This isn't a valid question. The university that does the research doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they produce quality, peer-reviewed research. If they produce politically altered crap it will not find a serious publication or survive the peer review process.

__________

No it is not anti intellectualism it is just not taking someone's work at face values.

I would trust a business sector scientist ethics over academia's in most cases.

The former has to prove results instead of just achieving tenure.

Republicans and Independents are far more open minded than Democrats

 

[Peregrinator]

Another Fake study, yet NASA never told us what its research team in space found about our planet...cuase were fine and these Eco nuts are just the newest cult for fools to walk the earth in need of a fake cause to give meaning to their empty life and heads!!
I got beer,pussy and a paycheck I want to drink, fuck and spend my money fuck the GREEN TARDS, enjoy life they hate that!

Consider cutting back on the beer just a tad.

 

[Peregrinator]

Just saw this a few minutes ago:

Global warming, simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20 000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyze with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments.

The study by Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, goes 14 000 years further back in time than previous studies have done."What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective", he says.

Björck has gone through the global climate archives, which are presented in a large number of research publications, and looked for evidence that any of the climate events that have occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 20 000 years ago could have generated similar effects on both the northern and southern hemispheres simultaneously.

It has not, however, been possible to verify this. Instead, he has found that when, for example, the temperature rises in one hemisphere, it falls or remains unchanged in the other.

"My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level", says Björck.

As an example, let us take the last clear climate change, which took place between the years 1600 and 1900 and which many know as the Little Ice Age. Europe experienced some of its coldest centuries. While the extreme cold had serious consequences for agriculture, state economies and transport in the north, there is no evidence of corresponding simultaneous temperature changes and effects in the southern hemisphere.

The climate archives, in the form of core samples taken from marine and lake sediments and glacier ice, serve as a record of how temperature, precipitation and concentration of atmospheric gases and particles have varied over the course of history, and are full of similar examples.

Instead it is during 'calmer' climatic periods, when the climate system is influenced by external processes, that the researchers can see that the climate signals in the archives show similar trends in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

"This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe. In these cases we can see similar effects around the world simultaneously", says Björck, who draws parallels to today's situation. The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently changing very rapidly. At the same time, global warming is occurring.

"As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today's global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth's carbon cycle. This is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system."

Svante Björck's results were published this summer in Climate Research.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/read/no...esult_of_climate_change_for_20000_years-80141

Primary source: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v48/n1/p5-11/

 

[trysail]

Name an area of science that's under more intense scrutiny or has more people or harder working people trying to discredit it.

Until McIntyre and McKitrick started asking questions, it's now plainly and painfully obvious that nobody was requesting data, verifying methods, replicating or attempting to reproduce a damn thing.


Andrew W. Montford
"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

 

[patrick1]

You're looking at it all wrong. Universities and their scientists tend towards being liberal because people who think scientifically are rarely Republicans. Science rejects right-wing thinking. The vast majority of Republicans think evolution is a fairy tale.

Just a reminder from across the pond that this right-wing anti-science thing is much more pronounced in the USA than say in Western Europe. Here's a study of belief in evolution, comparing countries:

http://rifters.com/real/articles/Science_Public_Acceptance_of_Evolution.pdf

Patrick

 

[Peregrinator]

Until McIntyre and McKitrick started asking questions, it's now plainly and painfully obvious that nobody was requesting data, verifying methods, replicating or attempting to reproduce a damn thing.


Andrew W. Montford
"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

This is demonstrably untrue.

 

[coastal-boy]

This is demonstrably untrue.

of course it is untrue. We have 2 very large on-going acidification studies proceeding in our lab right now...you would NOT believe the daily documentation we must do...we even have to record the fridge temp 3x a day. But hey...you can never convince a skeptic they are wrong.

By the way...it takes between 40-50 years for the CO2 in the oceans to cycle through the deep currents before they come back up in upwelled water...that means the upwelled concentrations we are observing today matches perfectly with the atmospheric conentrations when grandma and grandpa were alive and banging each other.

 

[richard_daily]

Until McIntyre and McKitrick started asking questions, it's now plainly and painfully obvious that nobody was requesting data, verifying methods, replicating or attempting to reproduce a damn thing.


Andrew W. Montford
"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

You side-stepped the question.

 

[thør]

of course it is untrue. We have 2 very large on-going acidification studies proceeding in our lab right now...you would NOT believe the daily documentation we must do...we even have to record the fridge temp 3x a day. But hey...you can never convince a skeptic they are wrong.

I'd hope you're using a datalogger.

 

[coastal-boy]

I'd hope you're using a datalogger.

that is not permitted...fucking thermometer in alcohol, recorded by hand...signed...dated...by those of us whom have passed the Homeland Security Evals only...don't you feel safer?

 

[thør]

that is not permitted...fucking thermometer in alcohol, recorded by hand...signed...dated...by those of us whom have passed the Homeland Security Evals only...don't you feel safer?

I trust Campbell Scientific much more than anyone doing hand logging.

 

[garbage can]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/

Why would the Berkeley team examine 1.6 billion temp reports to prove a point that they already believe....Global warming??

 

[mercury14]

Alway slander instead of Science.


Mark Musser
The American Thinker

The backside of this slander is that it ignores the truth; the far right Evangelicals are every bit as green as the far Left.

It's one of the things they share in common, "The Return of the Primitive."

Pretty sure you shouldn't be using the American Thinker as your source for science.

 

[Sean]

Why would the Berkeley team examine 1.6 billion temp reports to prove a point that they already believe....Global warming??

Science may as well be voodoo as far as you're concerned.

 

[coastal-boy]

Why would the Berkeley team examine 1.6 billion temp reports to prove a point that they already believe....Global warming??

The databases already existed...just a matter of writing the code to do the analysis...maybe a week...tops

Turn the computer on and come back in a month. Easy publication in a top end journal. Why didn't the naysayers do the same thing to "prove" themselves right? Wouldn't it be cool to have at least 1 publication in a peer-reviewed journal?