The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ptarmigan on October 12, 2015, 09:20:59 PM
-
Lindsey Graham Challenges Republicans: ‘Tell Me Why’ You Deny Climate Science
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027254703
Lindsey Graham is a liberal at heart who calls himself Republican.
applegrove (68,409 posts)
Lindsey Graham Challenges Republicans: ‘Tell Me Why’ You Deny Climate Science
Lindsey Graham Challenges Republicans: ‘Tell Me Why’ You Deny Climate Science
by Natasha Geiling at Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/12/3711587/lindsey-graham-no-labels-climate-change/
"SNIP...............
Today, during a convention in New Hampshire hosted by the bipartisan group No Labels, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took a moment to differentiate himself from the rest of the GOP field by talking about climate change.
As one of the only Republican presidential candidates to repeatedly bring up climate change in the press and during campaign stops, Graham began by asking the audience if anyone there believed climate change was real. Nearly half of the attendees raised their hands and applauded.
“I do, too,†Graham said. “So here’s the trade-off. For those of you who believe climate change is real, you’re gonna have to deal with a guy like me who will push a lower carbon economy over time and in a business friendly way. The great trade-off is energy producers and environmentalists in a room trying to find, over a 50 year period, a way to go to a lower-carbon economy while in the meantime responsibly exploring for fossil fuels that we own and trying to create alternative energy in every sector of the economy.â€
Graham’s assertion that climate change must be solved in a business-friendly way — a position that includes support for continued fossil fuel extraction — elicited a call of “Keep it in the ground!†from one audience member. An analysis of global fossil fuel reserves published last January in Nature found that, in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, the vast majority of existing fossil fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground.
................SNIP"
Warpy (84,979 posts)
1. Guess those floods in SC made him a believer.
Now all those Republicans are going to have to raise taxes to fix the damage. Uncle Sugar will contribute only so much. The rest has to be matched by the state.
malaise (133,652 posts)
2. Ding ding we have a winner
Nothing like reality
Reality does not exist in the left. :mental:
NV Whino (18,872 posts)
3. Could this be Lindsey Graham making sense?
zazen (2,319 posts)
4. scary times when Lindsay Graham or Rand Paul are the "reasonable" candidates
Seriously--when I think of which of the Republican candidates I could stomach as much as W., which is setting the bar lower than I had ever thought possible--those are the only two who aren't seriously stupid or seriously deranged (or both).
Even the two of them are terrifying prospects as president, but at least Lindsay Graham is reach-able, on some days. Paul appears to have read some books and formed opinions, kind of like a smart but misguided high school student whom you're assuming will grow out of it during college.
Rand Paul is a flake.
-
I believe in climate change. I just don't believe man has the effect on it that dumbass liberals do. It will be a real hoot when in about 5 years the sun goes into a minimum like it did back in the 1600's. Gonna love to see them explain that one.
Me? I'll be sitting next to my pot belly stove all warm and toastie. It gets below zero? I'll throw another lump of coal in it.
-
IMO, the proper and best answer to Graham's stupid "challenge" is:
I don't answer fools who ask me if I've stopped beating my wife!
-
I believe in climate change. I just don't believe man has the effect on it that dumbass liberals do. It will be a real hoot when in about 5 years the sun goes into a minimum like it did back in the 1600's. Gonna love to see them explain that one.
Me? I'll be sitting next to my pot belly stove all warm and toastie. It gets below zero? I'll throw another lump of coal in it.
"Winter is coming"...
-
applegrove (68,409 posts)
Lindsey Graham Challenges Republicans: ‘Tell Me Why’ You Deny Climate Science
Because the "97% of scientists agree" number you Enviro-NAZI's constitute 75 out of 77 scientists who are all in on this hockeystick scam.
It's NOT 97% of all scientists.
-
Who goes to Ms. Lindsay's stump dumps besides curious metrosexual hipster douchetools?
-
Because the "97% of scientists agree" number you Enviro-NAZI's constitute 75 out of 77 scientists who are all in on this hockeystick scam.
It's NOT 97% of all scientists.
It's nice to remind them of the push-poll they base this 'consensus' on.
- 10,257 "earth scientists" asked to answer a two question online poll.
about 3,000 or so respond to the poll. - Then 'inexplicably', the pollsters toss out all results from scientists who have had less than half of any papers they had written published by leftist approved sources.
- Leaving only 77 respondents, of which 75 agree.
Don't believe me, DUmmies ? Read the study for yourselves. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
- and buried at the end of the study, are these two tidbits.
The two areas of expertise in the survey
with the smallest percentage of participants
answering yes to question 2 were
economic geology with 47% (48 of 103)
and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36)
Yeah, the people who study weather for a living are not convinced of climate change. So why the hell are you ?
And the last tidbit ?
The challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues
to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists
-making it clear that the point of it all is to convince the ignorant masses that we are about to boil the planet. - including politicians -
So DUmmies... You are all worshiping the results of a push poll with an agenda. What do you think of that ?
-
We will tell you why we deny man made global warming when you can tell us what the correct temperature of the earth is.
-
H-5 HFB! Where do pols get this idea that the Earth's climate is static? From crisis-mongering "scientists" begging for "research" funding?
-
H-5 HFB! Where do pols get this idea that the Earth's climate is static? From crisis-mongering "scientists" begging for "research" funding?
It comes from the same class warfare mentality that tells them that the economic money pool is static and never expands...therefore if someone is getting rich...it means they are stealing that extra money from someone else.
Everything to the Libs is static...never expanding...never decreasing...their whole thought process on everything is done in a vacuum.
-
I'll start worrying about man made global warming when they can tell me how we caused a similar temperature rise on Mars. :whistling:
-
A desperate bid for airtime from Tail-End Charlie.
Like Perky, I don't deny climate change, or even that humans have an effect on it. I deny that the hysteria and special interest bonanza currently going on is actually "Science."
-
I'll start worrying about man made global warming when they can tell me how we caused a similar temperature rise on Mars. :whistling:
Or what happened to the well documented mini ice age in the 1500's.
-
A desperate bid for airtime from Tail-End Charlie.
Like Perky, I don't deny climate change, or even that humans have an effect on it. I deny that the hysteria and special interest bonanza currently going on is actually "Science."
I just once would like someone to answer this "consensus" BS with the statement "At one time, a consensus among scientists believed that the earth was the center of the universe. It was accepted and taught as truth, and it was wrong. At one time, a consensus among scientists believed that Man was not related to apes. It was accepted and taught as truth, and it was wrong. At one time, a consensus of scientists believed that all matter was made up of varying proportions of earth, air, fire, and water. It was accepted and taught as truth, and it was wrong. Now, let me ask you, what evidence would falsify your theory of climate change? If there isn't any amount of evidence that you'd accept, then you don't have science, you have a religion."
-
Can someone check my math on this?
Anything without records is only speculation. With core samples of ice, trees, whatever you can only speculate as to the temperature based on that evidence. The only way that we can know it for certain is if someone writes it down. I don't know how long people have been keeping track of temperature, but let's just assume it was immediately after the first writing system was invented which I believe is circa 5500 BC.
Let's go with the earth being the 4.54 billions of years old that science claims.
Now let's put this information onto a somewhat to scale timeline. We'll let the center of the Golden Gate Bridge be 0 or the beginning of the earth. The east end of the Williamsburg Bridge in New York would be the approximate location of right now on the timeline. That's a pretty long timeline. To find out where the first writing system began on the timeline you would need to turn around and walk approximately 26'.
If you were going to make a journey from New York to San Fransisco would you plan the entire trip based on the first 26 feet of travel?
-
I am willing to bet fifty dollars (canadian) that Linsey Graham pulls a Jeffords or Specter in early 2017.
-
I believe in climate change. I just don't believe man has the effect on it that dumbass liberals do. It will be a real hoot when in about 5 years the sun goes into a minimum like it did back in the 1600's. Gonna love to see them explain that one.
Me? I'll be sitting next to my pot belly stove all warm and toastie. It gets below zero? I'll throw another lump of coal in it.
The only good thing about global warming would've been if the seas rose enough to permanently inundate all the hippy dippy dumb ass West coastal pud people.
-
Can someone check my math on this?
Anything without records is only speculation. With core samples of ice, trees, whatever you can only speculate as to the temperature based on that evidence. The only way that we can know it for certain is if someone writes it down. I don't know how long people have been keeping track of temperature, but let's just assume it was immediately after the first writing system was invented which I believe is circa 5500 BC.
Let's go with the earth being the 4.54 billions of years old that science claims.
Now let's put this information onto a somewhat to scale timeline. We'll let the center of the Golden Gate Bridge be 0 or the beginning of the earth. The east end of the Williamsburg Bridge in New York would be the approximate location of right now on the timeline. That's a pretty long timeline. To find out where the first writing system began on the timeline you would need to turn around and walk approximately 26'.
If you were going to make a journey from New York to San Fransisco would you plan the entire trip based on the first 26 feet of travel?
Another point that pisses me off, is that they are talking about 1/10s or even 1/100's of a degree change from year to year. How long have thermometers been accurate to measure anything close to that? Maybe they could estimate the temperature to the 1/10 100 years ago, but how accurate and how worried were they about being super accurate?
-
Another point that pisses me off, is that they are talking about 1/10s or even 1/100's of a degree change from year to year. How long have thermometers been accurate to measure anything close to that? Maybe they could estimate the temperature to the 1/10 100 years ago, but how accurate and how worried were they about being super accurate?
It's like most of the things they support. First, decide the outcome you want. Then take a sledge hammer to the figures in an attempt to make it work. I don't have a science degree, but I did take enough physics and chemistry classes to know that's not exactly how science is supposed to work.
-
Can someone check my math on this?
Anything without records is only speculation. With core samples of ice, trees, whatever you can only speculate as to the temperature based on that evidence. The only way that we can know it for certain is if someone writes it down. I don't know how long people have been keeping track of temperature, but let's just assume it was immediately after the first writing system was invented which I believe is circa 5500 BC.
Let's go with the earth being the 4.54 billions of years old that science claims.
Now let's put this information onto a somewhat to scale timeline. We'll let the center of the Golden Gate Bridge be 0 or the beginning of the earth. The east end of the Williamsburg Bridge in New York would be the approximate location of right now on the timeline. That's a pretty long timeline. To find out where the first writing system began on the timeline you would need to turn around and walk approximately 26'.
If you were going to make a journey from New York to San Fransisco would you plan the entire trip based on the first 26 feet of travel?
Liberals would. The whole fairy tale of AGW or Man made global warming that has been pushed by the IPCC along with their infamous hockey contains data that depends on one pine tree for all of the tree ring growth prior to 1421 AD. You read that right. Just one tree.
-
Can someone check my math on this?
Anything without records is only speculation. With core samples of ice, trees, whatever you can only speculate as to the temperature based on that evidence. The only way that we can know it for certain is if someone writes it down. I don't know how long people have been keeping track of temperature, but let's just assume it was immediately after the first writing system was invented which I believe is circa 5500 BC.
Let's go with the earth being the 4.54 billions of years old that science claims.
Now let's put this information onto a somewhat to scale timeline. We'll let the center of the Golden Gate Bridge be 0 or the beginning of the earth. The east end of the Williamsburg Bridge in New York would be the approximate location of right now on the timeline. That's a pretty long timeline. To find out where the first writing system began on the timeline you would need to turn around and walk approximately 26'.
If you were going to make a journey from New York to San Fransisco would you plan the entire trip based on the first 26 feet of travel?
The first, sort of accurate, system for measuring temperature, using a standardized scale was invented less than 300 years ago.
A network of weather stations numerous and sufficiently widespread to be called a global network, has been around for, possibly, a century, and has gaps due to events like World War 1 and World War 2.
Indirect means of "measuring" temperatures before the invention of standardized thermometers are based on assumptions that may or may not be correct.
Warmistas talk in terms of tenths and hundredths of a degree Celsius, but instruments of that degree of accuracy are far more recent than Gabriel Fahrenheit.
The first means of somewhat accurate measuring the extent of ice in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and various glaciers were satellites placed into orbit in 1979.
Putting this all together, mankind's ability to take the measurements to observe Earth's climate only does back about three centuries. High accuracy instruments are much more recent. Having the global network in place to use the term "global" meaningfully only goes back about a century (possibly much less), with gaps. Ice cap measuring capability is less than 40 years old.
IOW, Warmistas do not have the data necessary to be making the claims they are making. They are like little boys playing with themselves in the bath and excreting from the wrong body orifice.
-
If you were going to make a journey from New York to San Fransisco would you plan the entire trip based on the first 26 feet of travel?
If Warmistas made it through the Tenderloin and across the Bay Bridge they'd get lost in the MacArthur Maze, exit into Oakland, and get mugged.
-
Can someone check my math on this?
Anything without records is only speculation. With core samples of ice, trees, whatever you can only speculate as to the temperature based on that evidence. The only way that we can know it for certain is if someone writes it down. I don't know how long people have been keeping track of temperature, but let's just assume it was immediately after the first writing system was invented which I believe is circa 5500 BC.
Let's go with the earth being the 4.54 billions of years old that science claims.
Now let's put this information onto a somewhat to scale timeline. We'll let the center of the Golden Gate Bridge be 0 or the beginning of the earth. The east end of the Williamsburg Bridge in New York would be the approximate location of right now on the timeline. That's a pretty long timeline. To find out where the first writing system began on the timeline you would need to turn around and walk approximately 26'.
If you were going to make a journey from New York to San Fransisco would you plan the entire trip based on the first 26 feet of travel?
There are actually some pretty clever methods of analysis in figuring out past climate, not necessarily temperature by itself. One of the better-known ones is tree ring analysis, which by overlapping the patterns in living trees with samples in artifacts can trace back several thousand years, which doesn't necessarily tell you that much about temperature but more about growing conditions, such as the combination of sun and rainfall. Less well-known, ice cores from glaciers and ice caps can go back tens of thousands of years and the microbubbles in the ice can be analyzed to determine atmospheric composition, like what the percentages of oxygen and carbon dioxide were during periods of before, during, and after the ice ages...however that produces a correlation, the causation part is a lot sketchier. Another method that does get a good picture of temperature ranges is examination of pollen grains in sediments, which can also go back thousands of years, pollen grains are damn' near indestructible, they are distinctive for different species of plants, and the temperature/humidity ranges in which particular plants flourish or fail are pretty well established.
-
Could someone tell me what the odds would have to be for any given event that is supposed to unfold over decades or centuries to have only detrimental long term impacts and zero beneficial ones?
-
I just want them to explain to me the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm period and how humans impacted it.
Also explain to me why Al Gore's predictions haven't come true. He told us the ice would be all but gone at the North Polar Ice Cap.
(http://www.sott.net/image/s10/203454/large/1409435267461_Image_galleryIma.jpg)
The earth's climate changes, has since the earth has been around. It's a little arrogant IMO to think that man can actually control it.
-
Could someone tell me what the odds would have to be for any given event that is supposed to unfold over decades or centuries to have only detrimental long term impacts and zero beneficial ones?
I think the left is worried about climate zones flip-flopping. Hot, arid areas may eventually become greenbelts and the current places where most crops are produced may turn arid. They're being selfish scrunts.
-
A different gloBULL warming thread but if you want to see how religious it all is to the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027260667
Response to StrongBad (Reply #37)
Thu Oct 15, 2015, 02:25 PM
Star Member geek tragedy (51,127 posts)
42. No, that's a lie on your part. A complete fabrication you pulled out of your ass.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=79C0E71D8F381CFD5963059264CE3062.c1
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
You are simply lying when you state that only 25% of scientists think that human activity is causing global warming.
Lying. Lying. Lying.
Not expressing a contrary opinion.
Just lying.
The numbers are 96-97%. 25% explicitly stating it, and another 75% implying it. You are simply lying about what "implicit endorsement" means. Lying.
Anyone who reads this thread, who understands the English language, and who can do basic math, can easily see that you're lying in order to carry water for the Koch Brothers et al.
Not expressing a contrary opinion.
Lying.
You can almost see the tears and spit. :rofl:
-
From that second thread and everything you could wan`t to know about the DUmp and the left.
Response to StrongBad (Original post)
Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:41 PM
Squinch (9,701 posts)
152. This thread is just one more brick in the wall of proof that DU has jumped the shark.
This is actually a discussion here, and the OP hasn't been locked.
Hey, kids! Didn't the New York Post say something about how SUV's are good for the environment? If Rupert says it, then it MUST be true!!!l~!!
Very sad indeed.
-
The first, sort of accurate, system for measuring temperature, using a standardized scale was invented less than 300 years ago.
A network of weather stations numerous and sufficiently widespread to be called a global network, has been around for, possibly, a century, and has gaps due to events like World War 1 and World War 2.
Indirect means of "measuring" temperatures before the invention of standardized thermometers are based on assumptions that may or may not be correct.
Warmistas talk in terms of tenths and hundredths of a degree Celsius, but instruments of that degree of accuracy are far more recent than Gabriel Fahrenheit.
The first means of somewhat accurate measuring the extent of ice in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and various glaciers were satellites placed into orbit in 1979.
Putting this all together, mankind's ability to take the measurements to observe Earth's climate only does back about three centuries. High accuracy instruments are much more recent. Having the global network in place to use the term "global" meaningfully only goes back about a century (possibly much less), with gaps. Ice cap measuring capability is less than 40 years old.
IOW, Warmistas do not have the data necessary to be making the claims they are making. They are like little boys playing with themselves in the bath and excreting from the wrong body orifice.
I had a similar discussion with a liberal nutbar on Facebook a few months back. The bottom line is that what we know about the climate and any variations versus the time period between ice ages amounts to nothing more than statistical noise. He then went on about ice cores, and CO2 levels contained within being lower than than they are now, and I reminded him that CO2 is water soluble, and doesn't remain CO2 forever - even in ice.
He never replied - thus endeth the discussion. :rofl:
-
There are actually some pretty clever methods of analysis in figuring out past climate, not necessarily temperature by itself. One of the better-known ones is tree ring analysis, which by overlapping the patterns in living trees with samples in artifacts can trace back several thousand years, which doesn't necessarily tell you that much about temperature but more about growing conditions, such as the combination of sun and rainfall. Less well-known, ice cores from glaciers and ice caps can go back tens of thousands of years and the microbubbles in the ice can be analyzed to determine atmospheric composition, like what the percentages of oxygen and carbon dioxide were during periods of before, during, and after the ice ages...however that produces a correlation, the causation part is a lot sketchier. Another method that does get a good picture of temperature ranges is examination of pollen grains in sediments, which can also go back thousands of years, pollen grains are damn' near indestructible, they are distinctive for different species of plants, and the temperature/humidity ranges in which particular plants flourish or fail are pretty well established.
DAT, I agree with pretty much all of what you said; however, I still feel that anything prehistoric is speculation. Perhaps accurate. Perhaps not so accurate. I'll try to explain my position. A scientist can go out tomorrow and cut down a tree. He can examine the growth rings of said tree. He can pull the recorded climate data for that area. Then he can go cut down another tree from another location and examine those growth rings. He can, once again, pull the recorded climate data for that area. He can do the same several times in several area, and after those comparing climate conditions and growth rings he can deduce that if you see characteristic "x" in the tree ring it corresponds with climate conditions "y". The problem is that just because "y" causes "x" today it does not necessarily mean that "y" caused "x" 10,000 years ago.
On a similar note, growing up I enjoyed eating oysters. I ate them prepared in many different ways. Based on that evidence it could safely be deduced that I am not allergic to oysters. Around age 12 something happened. Any time I ate oysters, no matter how they were prepared, I'd break out in hives and swell up everywhere. For several years I tried to eat oysters. Every time it was the same reaction. Hives and swelling. Based on that evidence it could safely be deduced that I am indeed allergic to oysters so I stopped eating them. Then when I was 20 years old I was dating a girl who wanted me to eat oysters. She knew I was allergic so I'm suspicious that she was curious about the swelling part. Being young and stupid I ate some for her. To her regret nothing happened. I've eaten oysters now for about 30 years without any problems. Based on that evidence, it could safely be deduced that I am NOT allergic to oysters. Once "y" didn't cause "x". Then "y" did cause "x". And then "y" didn't cause "x".