Being the simple mind I am, I tend to prefer simple evidence based explanations. And that's not a conclusion I haven't considered or written off. I simply don't buy that the contrived, contorted (dare I say gerrymandered?) policies that put a bare majority in government are in fact genuinely held conscientious ideological beliefs (nor do genuine conservatives in government apparently). It strikes me as more likely that this is malice for malice's sake because that's the common thread that seems to tie a very jumbled ideology together. But I have trouble reconciling that with there actually being that many people out there who believe, "well I don't have it, so you shouldn't either". To that end, maybe they're right to suggest it's my naivete is contributing to our current situation. It's not that I don't know what red America's about, nor that I haven't spent time there. In fact, that very much informs my disbelief that people carry this much malice or are even willing to overlook it for the sake of political expediency. There's a certain irony that the liberal metropolises so decried by those who feel left behind are the the ones where children move to when they leave their parents behind. Never mind that the gerrymandered chickens will come home to roost with a fury after the 2020 census with likely fatal consequences for anything resembling the current (or for that matter Mit Romney) GOP...if Justice Kennedy doesn't beat them to the punch.
so I clicked on the opening post's link and saw this. what are you disputing sig. Are you arguing the earth is warming outside natural variability... if so produce the peer reviewed paper. Are you arguing man man co2 is causing warming... if so produce the peer reviewed paper. When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded. Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers. Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex? I can. It will look something like this. Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years. Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult. And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields). In other words, nobody is denying that climate changes, nobody is denying that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees C in the last 150 years, while only a handful deny that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has the power to influence temperatures. What they are saying in their different ways is that “global warming” – as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions – is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk. Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say. It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate) Li et al., 2017 It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation Yndestad and Solheim, 2017 advertisement Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods. Tejedor et al., 2017 The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina) Belohpetsky et al., 2017 It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation Park et al., 2017 According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Lim et al., 2017 Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity Modern climate in phase with natural variability Conroy et al., 2017 20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models Verdon-Kidd et al., 2017 Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff). Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate Viterito, 2017 This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979. Huhtemaa and Helama, 2017 [M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism. Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate Blaauw, 2017 This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory Munshi, 2017 …No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. Reinhart, 2017 Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real Blackall, 2017 The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news. Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017 Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers. Ahlström et al., 2017 We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections. Zhou and Wang, 2017 Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus” Renewable Energy/Climate Policies are Failing Janković and Shultz, 2017 [A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality Heard et al., 2017 While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Emery et al., 2017 The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit. Qiao et al., 2017 BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China. Wind Power Harming the Environment Frick et al., 2017 Our resultssuggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America. Liu and Barlow, 2017 The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%. Vasilakis et al., 2017 Numerous wind farms are planned in a region hosting the only cinereous vulture population in south-eastern Europe […] […] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction. In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science. Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming. CONSENSUS? WHAT CONSENSUS??
I knew if a waited a bit , the forces of reason would emerge. And where did I ever say I was PRO POLLUTION? This is the problem with the left. If you say you're against affirmative action , they ask you why you're pro slavery ....
No one said you were. But, I don't think you read it that way nor interpreted it that way. I think this is a textbook dodge of legitimate questions. The bait on that hook is rancid and unappealing. So, what's the end-game in casting doubt on climate research?
Well since you clearly couldn't be bothered to even read the thread, let alone a single paper referenced in the Breitbart article, it doesn't appear that you're engaging in honest dialog here, sorry.
Come on, Soes. I've seen you lurking--I know you've seen this. Answer the question, what's the end game? TRIGGER WARNING: The following post contains references to facts and appeals to reason that may trigger distress in some readers. My sincere and heart-felt apologies, @SoesWasBetter. The last thing I meant to do was offend. Please know that I mean this not as a personal slight against you, but that this is my own shortcoming. I know that the wounds I've caused you are not likely to heal soon, and I offer this not as an excuse, but as an explanation. I hope this brings you some comfort and that you can forgive my trespasses against you. I was raised in a time when Republicans were proud to explain their conscientious views and discuss the academic theories and factual evidence underpinning them. In hindsight, I wonder if this pride was sincere or contrived in order to conform to dated societal expectations. I know now that as a society we have moved on and have a better understanding that facts and reason can cause discomfort and are inappropriate to bring to modern discourse. But I'm also a fallible human being prone to mistakes, and I sometimes fall to my nostalgic views of the past, and perhaps a past that never was, when we were free to offend the delicate sensitivities of those who wished to form opinion and belief unburdened by uncomfortable thoughts of fact or reason. I know this is inappropriate, and I'm trying to learn; but I admit it's a struggle. You see, back then the concept of a "safe space", as I now understand it, for ideas easily challenged by fact or reason would never have occurred to me. Looking back, my behavior seems crass and cruel knowing what I know now. And I'm now embarrassed by the person I was then--and for the occasional outbursts of truth to which I am still prone. I'm a bit of a dinosaur, but I'm trying to adapt to the new reality. It just seems like a surreal brave new world to me. I will need some time to adjust.
" I know that the wounds I've caused you are not likely to heal soon" lol, I declare unconditional victory.
I guess pointing out the logic that unconditional victory requires unconditional surrender would be further cruelty on my part. I'll settle for a declaration of what your end-game is.
Well done. You've constructed and defeated a straw man, and didn't even have to resort to uncomfortable facts or logic. I understand your victory in your own mind, but for the sake of everyone else present, will you indulge me? What's your end-game?