(03-05-2015 02:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Democrats, the supposed “party of science,” are feeling the pressure because increasingly, actual science does not support their political agenda. They’re left with no alternative but to attack the scientists who disagree with them.

And I point out that this has always been the case, from the French Revolution, thru Stalin, Mao, etc.

Leftists are opposed to reality, so they cannot tolerate science.

(03-05-2015 02:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Democrats, the supposed “party of science,” are feeling the pressure because increasingly, actual science does not support their political agenda. They’re left with no alternative but to attack the scientists who disagree with them.

And I point out that this has always been the case, from the French Revolution, thru Stalin, Mao, etc.

Leftists are opposed to reality, so they cannot tolerate science.

Yep, you nailed it.

(03-04-2015 09:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:The New York Times reported that Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics failed to disclose $1.2 million in research funding from fossil fuels sources such as ExxonMobil and the Southern Company. Soon has claimed global warming can be explained, in part, by variations in the sun’s energy.

So how do you combat things like this, then? Honest question.

Why do you need to combat them?

Everybody doing research in this area, on both sides, is getting funding from somebody with a dog in the hunt. Just recognize that and take everything with a grain of salt.

There's truth out there. It's probably not in the heart of any research being done by super partisans on either side, but if you look at the full picture you can probably figure out the truth.

My truth is that it probably harms the planet to be putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere, regardless of fractions of a degree one way or the other. So take all the cost-effective and sensible steps that we can--of which there are many--to resolve the problem. And don't get caught up in the hype game. That's only designed to get us to do stupid stuff.

you always state it better....that is easily the common sense methodology approach.....which only contributes to 'no harm, no foul'.....it also creates jobs....and like any other technology, the implementation cost is reduced over time through investment

if one is not for cleaner alternative energy development, I have nothing for that person in response....it only makes sense relative to how we got to this point in time.....it's what humans do...

kudos and

(03-05-2015 12:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The only skepticism that is being provided are from scientists who are funded by oil interests.

Well duhhhhhh! This is a Casablanca moment. This is a surprise to people? Seriously?

I think a claim like that should be backed up with a little evidence. I've never heard that reported, even in the most liberal media outlets, and one would think that if it were true it would be brought up at every opportunity.

Well Mach?

Sessions had the head of the EPA in front of a committee today. Couldn't even answer simple questions about whether or not past climate change models have been accurate. Th e exchange is on youtube but im on my phone and can't link it. Funny stuff watching the head of the EPA saying 'i dont know' to pretty basic questions over and over again. If the head of the EPA doesnt know, how can anybody here claim that climate change and man made global warming are 'settled science'?

(03-05-2015 06:44 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Sessions had the head of the EPA in front of a committee today. Couldn't even answer simple questions about whether or not past climate change models have been accurate. Th e exchange is on youtube but im on my phone and can't link it. Funny stuff watching the head of the EPA saying 'i dont know' to pretty basic questions over and over again. If the head of the EPA doesnt know, how can anybody here claim that climate change and man made global warming are 'settled science'?

Just one more Obama administration member that would rather die than answer a question truthfully.

Quote:During an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, head of the Environmental Protection Agency Gina McCarthy defended the EPA’s request for an $8.6 billion discretionary budget (a 6 percent increase) for fiscal year 2016, arguing that climate change is a “real” threat and “a science fact,” “not a religion” or “belief system.”

“Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a threat,” McCarthy said. “Climate change is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It’s a science fact.”
When questioned by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) regarding the EPA’s predictions on global warming, however, McCarthy was unable to use the “facts” to her advantage.

The heated exchange went as follows:

SESSIONS: “When we go to our states, the group we have the most complaints about from our constituents—whether it’s highway people, whether it’s farmers, whether it’s energy people—is the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s an [agency of] extraordinary overreach. And you apparently aren’t unaware of the pushback that’s occurring in the real world…

“I’m not inclined to increase your funding 6 percent above. So now you say that we’ve got a crisis and there are dangers out there. Let me ask you this: There was an article from Mr. [Bjorn] Lomborg… from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. Pielke from Colorado, that ‘we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years.’ Do you dispute that?”

MCCARTHY: “I don’t know in what context he’s making statements like that but I certainly can tell you about the droughts that are happening today.” …

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/epa-chief-call...vWxOP:Rg3q

Thanks ERC.

(03-05-2015 06:44 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Sessions had the head of the EPA in front of a committee today. Couldn't even answer simple questions about whether or not past climate change models have been accurate. Th e exchange is on youtube but im on my phone and can't link it. Funny stuff watching the head of the EPA saying 'i dont know' to pretty basic questions over and over again. If the head of the EPA doesnt know, how can anybody here claim that climate change and man made global warming are 'settled science'?

Regardless of the semantics, the importance of what I gleaned from this is that he has been promoted to the "level of incompetence"......walks hand-in-hand with 0....makes sense in the Idiocracy form of 'rule'

I think they've written things regarding this topic....

(03-05-2015 06:49 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:44 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Sessions had the head of the EPA in front of a committee today. Couldn't even answer simple questions about whether or not past climate change models have been accurate. Th e exchange is on youtube but im on my phone and can't link it. Funny stuff watching the head of the EPA saying 'i dont know' to pretty basic questions over and over again. If the head of the EPA doesnt know, how can anybody here claim that climate change and man made global warming are 'settled science'?

Just one more Obama administration member that would rather die than answer a question truthfully.

Quote:During an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, head of the Environmental Protection Agency Gina McCarthy defended the EPA’s request for an $8.6 billion discretionary budget (a 6 percent increase) for fiscal year 2016, arguing that climate change is a “real” threat and “a science fact,” “not a religion” or “belief system.”

“Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a threat,” McCarthy said. “Climate change is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It’s a science fact.”
When questioned by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) regarding the EPA’s predictions on global warming, however, McCarthy was unable to use the “facts” to her advantage.

The heated exchange went as follows:

SESSIONS: “When we go to our states, the group we have the most complaints about from our constituents—whether it’s highway people, whether it’s farmers, whether it’s energy people—is the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s an [agency of] extraordinary overreach. And you apparently aren’t unaware of the pushback that’s occurring in the real world…

“I’m not inclined to increase your funding 6 percent above. So now you say that we’ve got a crisis and there are dangers out there. Let me ask you this: There was an article from Mr. [Bjorn] Lomborg… from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. Pielke from Colorado, that ‘we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years.’ Do you dispute that?”

MCCARTHY: “I don’t know in what context he’s making statements like that but I certainly can tell you about the droughts that are happening today.” …

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/epa-chief-call...vWxOP:Rg3q

I had only seen snippets of that before, talk about complete and utter ownage.

I don't know. I don't know what you're referring to. I can't answer that. I can show you uhhh, ummm, I can get back to you. WOW.

Lib Dem Rep. Raul M. Grijalva Hit With FOIA Request For Records In His Attempt To Intimidate Professors Skeptical Of Global Warming…



What goes around, comes around.

Quote: Rep. Raul M. Grijalva’s investigation into the funding sources of seven professors has triggered a round of Freedom of Information Act requests by two free market think tanks in an effort to learn more about the financial backings of climate professors aligned with the “consensus” or “warmist” school of thought.

At the same time, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has filed a FOIA request with the Environmental Protection Agency asking for correspondence related to climate change from Mr. Grijalva, Arizona Democrat, and three Democratic senators — the same three investigating whether 100 fossil fuel companies and trade associations have funded climate research.

Mr. Grijalva’s probe into academic research funding has been likened to McCarthyism, but Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Christopher Horner said the point of the latest round of requests isn’t that one good witch-hunt deserves another.

Rather, the inquiries are aimed at “reminding those who think it’s a one-way street that, since the congressman seeks only information from people who dare disagree with him, we can do what they do,” said Mr. Horner, who also filed the Grijalva-inspired FOIAs on behalf of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic and the Energy & Environment Legal Institute.[…]

The parallel investigations mark the latest example of bias hunting in climate science, a field coming under increased political scrutiny as the stakes surrounding the global warming debate soar.

Four years ago, meteorologist Anthony Watts coined the term “foilball” to refer to efforts to beat back FOIA requests aimed at rooting out institutional bias stemming from high-profile conflicts at the University of East Anglia and the University of Virginia.

The UVA brouhaha erupted after Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II and the American Tradition Institute began digging into the research funding of professor Michael Mann, a leading “warmist” and creator of the “hockey stick” theory of climate change.

The Virginia Supreme Court squelched Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation in 2012, and the university reportedly spent $600,000 to fight the American Tradition Institute’s FOIA requests in the name of academic freedom. Less noticed was that Greenpeace had asked UVA for funding-related information about climate professor Patrick Michaels, a well-known “skeptic.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...nvestigat/