Democrats imagine they are very smart and sciency, for embracing the global warming scam.
More than 70 percent of Democrat-leaning voters, for example, say human activity is driving global warming – a fact overwhelmingly supported by scientific study. Among Republican-leaning voters, by contrast, just 27 percent believe climate change is being driven by human-generated carbon emissions instead of natural forces.
Democrats, Republicans Disagree on Energy, Global Warming – US News
Journalists make dim-witted declarations like that, without understanding the political bias behind what they are saying.
One the strongest predictors of belief in the global warming scam is employment in the public sector – the other is that those who believe tend to be most gullible (tell them a graph is global warming and they suddenly start believing it predicts warming whereas if they are told it is stock market prices they are suddenly pessimistic with the same graph)
When I was working on my final year project for an engineering degree I received a small amount of funding to by a few bits of hardware which helped me prove the concept of what I worked on (remote machine diagnostics and performance monitoring through the use of self healing mobile wireless networks – not an easy mouthful !)
I was told that if I could include an environmental aspect to the project then the university could get extra funding for me, due to the climate change issues.
I suggested that anyone can already make wireless weather monitoring devices and that they were used daily anyway. But i could tell that disappointed some of my senior lecturers because they felt you should get as much as is on offer, whenever possible.
I made sure that I asked if I did not pursue the additional funding would it in some way affect my chances of being awarded a first….they confirmed that it didn’t make a difference to my final mark whether I took it or not, and by all accounts it did not.
It just seems all too easy for students to be carrot teased into putting an environmental spin on otherwise climate unrelated projects.
Sadly, I was a Democrat most of my life and failed to see earlier that the Democratic Party supported the use of science for propaganda purposes.
Let me fix that:
“More than 70 percent of Democrat-leaning voters, for example, say human activity is driving global warming – a fact overwhelmingly supported by Democrat-funded propaganda.”
So peer-reviewed science is a complete fraud because it is “democrat-funded!”? Do you cranks realize that most of Earth Science is done outside the US which means that no “democrats” or “republicans” were involved in the process??
Does cfgj realize that nations and national academies of science were united into a giant, worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific (UN)Truths” after WWII, on 24 Oct 1945 to prohibit public knowledge of NEUTRON REPULSION – the source of energy in cores of galaxies, ordinary stars, some planets and all atoms heavier than ~150 amu (atomic mass units)?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Introduction.pdf
Sorry but you sound like you might be suffering from delusions.
And you sound like you are suffering from perpetual IGNORNACE.
Your every post reinforces this fact..
Typo, cfnt = IGNORANCE
cfgj
Look up the meaning of the word ‘Intelligentsia” and you will find that is exactly who is leading you around by the ring in your nose that you don’t realize is there.
I do not deny the science. Publications do count.
You deny science because if you didn’t you would be a skeptic.
“I do not deny the [Bible]. Publications do count.”
You display a fanatic’s slavish devotion to your cause.
If you substitute “Bible” or ‘Koran” whenever you say “Science” or “Peer Reviewed Publications” then you might realize how much you sound like a religious fundamentalist.
Whenever given a chance to display any basic understanding of AGW or scientific method in general, you resort to:
It’s in the [Bible]. I believe it. It is the inerrant word of [God].
Published study.
Psych-ops operations have maximum effect with people who:
– have little education
– accept information uncritically
– benefit from the proposed change
– want to believe the propaganda
– do not wish to understand their own motivations
How many check marks to you have?
97% of the climeopathy papers published in the US are pee reviewed in the US. (I say pee reviewed because the editor has a new puppy).
Are there US-only journals??
Global warming is an American fad, Russia and China laugh as assholes like you and Al Gore.
Peer-review has been proven time and again that is is an incestuous and corrupt system and thus it is bad science.
Bullshit, it’s by far the best system in existence, even with its flaws. According to science AGW is a problem.
I always thought that the best science was produced through observation, experimentation, replication of results etc. But here your telling me that all it takes to produce the best scientific results is to get a couple or few of your buddies that happen to have Dr. as a title in the same or a related field and that’s the best science of all! who’d of thunk it!
Bullshit, [Islam is] by far the best system in existence, even with its flaws. According to [the Koran] [educating women] is a problem.
cfnt… your continued IGNORANCE of all things to do with science is really quite hilarious.
You keep proving that you just HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE !!!
Peer – Review is a VERY NEW SYSTEM designed to benefit the publishers. That is it was to keep publishers from ending up with egg on the face.
Not one scientific group has come out with a statement in support of CAGW. There are literally thousands of skeptical papers.
Peer review has nothing to do with science. It has to do with journals. The journal has the paper reviewed for publication. TESTING and REPEATABILITY are the basis of science. Peer review doesn’t mean a damn thing if it’s not repeatable.
Nicely said and very true.
FALLACY: Appeal to Authority
However since you have already invoked Appeal to Authority lets see what the papers say.
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Abstract
……This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.
…… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.….
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers
Science Magazine “Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight,” — science publisher Vitek Tracz
This one is the worst: Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration
Out of Sight, Out of Mind,
Blogs are now performing the important tasks of scrutinizing papers and conclusions often finding gross mistakes.
Only 6% of scientists are self-identified republicans according to this decade-old study:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
Hey cf, I really wish you’d stop using the word “scientists” when we are talking about climopractors and climupunturists. It’s like using the word “musicians” to describe The Fray.
I assume that statistics covers all scientists, who are a notoriously liberal and secular bunch. Conservatism is more seductive to dumber folks (but not all conservatives are dumb, don’t get me wrong).
If you were persecuted for being of the wrong political persuasion and your salary increases and promotions depended on being the ‘right’ political persuasion wouldn’t you keep your mouth shut?
I lived in Boston and worked for a mid size corporation. If you were not a liberal and not a catholic you could kiss your raises goodbye. The catholics got 10 to 25% raises and the token black, the token jew and the token female noncatholic (me) got 0.5% raises. (The department secretary carpooled with me and was very talkative and irate over the situation.) We also never got company paid educational courses and the last pick for vacation.
There is all sorts of discrimination.
I agree, cfgj, that communist and capitalist scientists, as well as Republican and Democratic scientists, have deceived the public for the past seventy years by
1. Changing the internal composition of the Sun from
_ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945, to
_ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946
2. Changing textbook definitions of nuclear stability from
_ a.) Low values of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWII, to
_ b.) High values of Weizsacker’s average nuclear binding energy after WWII.
Both changes are FALSE, i.e., the changes were made to deceive the public!
How the hell could anyone keep the composition of the Sun a “secret”?
The top of Earth’s atmosphere and the top of the Sun’s atmosphere is mostly H and He, elements #1 and #2.
These are the two lightest elements.
If you study this one page summary, you can answer your own question: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Introduction.pdf
I for one hate the politicization of global warming science, it should be able to stand or fail on its own, based on objective, standard, scientific method. Certainly, not determined by a trillion dollar left wing power grab, backed by obvious falsehoods and a blatent Government funded disinformation campaign.
For a group that claims to hate politicization of climate science, this blog is nearly uniform about hating all things liberal. Face it, this particular blog is primarily about bashing political opponents of conservatism. And that is perfectly fine, as long as you don’t pretend that it is science. Any hint that a poster isn’t fully onboard with Obama bashing is met with derision and ridicule, here. That, my friends, is Politics with a capital P, not science with a small s.
No Mogur. This blog bashes the psuedoscience and recognizes that 97% of the make-believe science is just politics. So we bash the politics.
The same people who occupied Wall Street are the morons driving the global warming hoax, but they’ve gotten their hands on all the money they couldn’t find on Wall Street, by taking control of academia.
We hate falsehoods and propaganda and robbery and serfdom.
I for one can not stand The Bush, The Shrub or the Twig. I consider McCain completely looney tunes, Mit Romney a corporate raider with a smile and I am not fond of Reagan either. I did have hopes for Obama. I hoped he would heal the last of the racism and help farmers against the Ag Cartel. I hoped he would kick the Banksters in the nuts.
BOY was I wrong!
He jumped right in bed with Monsanto and the CEO of GE, the guy who has single handedly shipped more jobs off shore than any other CEO. What does Obama do? He makes him JOBS CZAR?? It would be hysterically funny if our unemployment wasn’t headed for 25%.
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1435845509
With 25% of those employed either directly employed by government or having jobs depending on government (accountants, OSHA safety officers…) That leaves just 50% of the working age folks to carry the entire burden of producing the wealth than feeds, clothes and houses everyone.
Your problem is we haven’t fallen for the propaganda, we refused to be Grubbered like the rest of the low information types.
Tough titties.
And I can’t stand Gore, Moore, and many of the arrogant scientists that hide behind their ‘credentials’. The fact that we both hate opportunistic attention whores from any political spectrum does NOT belay the fact that this blog is about politics, not proper scientific vetting of the evidence. To dismiss the peer review process with a wave of the ‘they’re all leftist comrades’ wand reminds me of the “I led three lives” TV series. (If you are under 60, google it.)
Gail… I love your posts. I truly do. I am not even in your particular political spectrum, but you are fair, honest, and have integrity, so I love how you bring information to the thirsty, including me. Can’t you understand that not all pigs at the trough are greedy freeloaders. There are some fairly well-heeled dandies slopping there as well. There is never “all freeloaders” or “all needy”. We need reason to sort out the difference.
Gail,
I am like you, really am not very fond of either party. All the Republicans can seem to do is regugitate tired old prattle from 30 years ago and the Democrats seem downright dangerous. Trump is the only one who seems interesting to me, at least he seems real, whether you agree with him or not. But I ususally have to hold my nose when voting for President.
Andy
This blog is primarily about the science, but because the science is so simple and so easy to understand that a smart 8th grader can figure it out, and it’s very obvious that the people who are promoting the fake science are politically motivated, and are generally science imbeciles, this blog contains a lot of politics. There really isn’t a whole lot of science to talk about without feeling like you’re beating a dead horse.
1. CO2 levels were higher than they are now for 99.98% of earth’s history, most often many times higher, and everything was fine. That includes ocean pH levels.
2. Life is based on CO2, which belongs in the air, and is not pollution. It is currently near the acarbonoxia level for plants and nowhere near a harmful level for animals. (I made up the word acarbonoxia. Pretty cool word, huh?)
3. Government scientists lie about temperature data, sea level rise acceleration, and everything else, which they would never have to do if their science were valid.
4. The greenhouse effect is entirely caused by H2O except at the poles and in the mid to upper tropical troposphere “hot spot”, all of which would be warming alarmingly if CO2 rise were a problem. They aren’t.
5. Modern warming has been going on since the end of the LIA and is now back to average Holocene levels. Man-made CO2 had nothing to do with it.
6. There are about 120 more of these.
mogur,
I am well aware people come in all flavors and moral codes and I have many friends of the more liberal persuasion including a real sweetie who is a communist.
It is the predators and parasites I have problems with and unfortunately since their morals are, shall we say fluid, they have zero problem stabbing people in the backs and climbing over bodies. This generally puts them at the top of the heap in most situations especially if they are also charismatic. This means the political class of all flavors is in the predator category as are many CEO….
……
Is this a politically flavored blog?
Yes but you can not separate CAGW from politics since
Tim Wirth pulled out his bag of tricks in 1988 to fool Congress into believing in CAGW. Since Clinton signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 12/06/92. Since Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8? scandal.
Appendix A of the present Report (the AR5) even states this where it says.
More recently you have Christiana Figueres, who was trained by Al Gore (see WIKI) and was appointed as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Jan. 2015:
She said:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution”
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.
Ah, geez, get yourself a room, AndyDC. You’re blowing the floor. Do you conservatives have anything other than ‘focus on my bowtie, you are getting sleepy…’
mogur2013
If a person refuses to recognize that the CAGW scam is run by government dollars for reasons of justifying changes in commerce and thus society so the government has more control over each, then I guess they would have an opinion similar to yours.
No rah, he already recognizes it, and approves of it. People in favor of socialism are the ones who will be looking for government jobs. And once they get government jobs, 97% of them agree with government global warming and agree with their peers who review it.
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
RAH, Mogur
It all depends on whether your view point is that the individual should serve the State or whether the State is there to protect the rights of the individual. It really is that simple.
If you believe the State should be served by the individual you have Sparta: