Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[imported_tajmahal]

Very amusing point about confirmation bias from someone in her position, and not exactly a surprise that scientists don't favor the party of science denialism, academics the party of anti-intellectualism.

Dr. Curry didn't say it, it was in the article. You really should take the time to read it. In fact there's even some stuff about Moonbeams favorite science writer in it.

 

[agent00f]

In the end this thread served a good purpose. It helped rout out a few individuals who are so enslaved to partisanship to the right and/or idolization of the half-wit turnip that they joined in to provide examples of the sort of mental gymnastics they perform to deny reality and maintain the ideology.

The worst thing about the internet is that you can google any position you want to believe and find something on it that agrees with you, vindicating your ignorance. The internet is a Dunning-Kruger scaffold for these individuals. I've seen it all now. Trump, not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and completely out of his depth when it comes to science; no education, no training, a mediocre mind - proclaims it's a hoax by the Chinese. Someone so tight on his nuts must believe he can't be wrong and tries to actually support it with some google searches. Sad!

From anthropological pov it seems to me a test of devotion. Devotees stack rank the pride/joy of passing above quite a lot.

 

[agent00f]

Dr. Curry didn't say it, it was in the article. You really should take the time to read it. In fact there's even some stuff about Moonbeams favorite science writer in it.

Seems rather obvious she concurs with the point. She concurs with a lot that's convenient to her new job.

 

[xgsound]

I don't understand, what does global warming has to do with politics and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you're republican or democrat?

Global warming is a political concept to redistribute wealth. It is composed only of computer models and theories that should stand the test of time. The "Scientists" that continue to push it have repeatedly been proven wrong as shown by the cartoon below.

 

[agent00f]

Global warming is a political concept to redistribute wealth. It is composed only of computer models and theories that should stand the test of time. The "Scientists" that continue to push it have repeatedly been proven wrong as shown by the cartoon below.

Scientists are so dumb, studying in school for so many years when they could just read cartoons.

 

[Paratus]

Global warming is a political concept to redistribute wealth. It is composed only of computer models and theories that should stand the test of time. The "Scientists" that continue to push it have repeatedly been proven wrong as shown by the cartoon below.

Common mistakes here. The scientific consensus has always been for warming. However there was a lot of research into the cooling effects of aersols in the 60's which led the press to talk about global cooling.

In fact all of those quotes don't seem to be from any of the formal papers on climate but from pundits in the press.

At any rate the climate models which predicted the ocean oscillations (ENSO, ANSO) correctly also predicted the so called "pause" in mid tropospheric temperatures.

Ice loss and global temperature changes are also increasing per theory as is sea level rise.

 

[agent00f]

Common mistakes here. The scientific consensus has always been for warming. However there was a lot of research into the cooling effects of aersols in the 60's which led the press to talk about global cooling.

In fact all of those quotes don't seem to be from any of the formal papers on climate but from pundits in the press.

At any rate the climate models which predicted the ocean oscillations (ENSO, ANSO) correctly also predicted the so called "pause" in mid tropospheric temperatures.

Ice loss and global temperature changes are also increasing per theory as is sea level rise.

You must be one of those dumb scientists.

 

[piasabird]

If you build a city in the florida keys all the way up to the edge of the water, then you have to expect some high tides. The recent full moon, i.e. super-moon was when the moon was the closest to the earth in 18 years. So the tides were probably reacting to the increased gravity from the moon. Oceans rise and fall through the centuries and also dust falls from space all the time. Just think of all those meteors the burn up going through the atmosphere. All that dust kees falling on the earth. I dont wish people in Florida an ill will, but any coastal or riverside area could be prone to flooding like the flood of 93 in the central area around the Mississippi river valley.

 

[piasabird]

When we pump water from aquifers that water goes into the ocean increasing the volume.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's amazing how much smarter these climate change deniers here are than say, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, or Stephen Hawking or anyone listed here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

 

[piasabird]

In some areas where there is droughts and floods they are using underground water storage tanks instead of clean drinking water to do things like wash cars and water plants and lawns. In Germany they can purchase a 5,000 gallon water storage unit and bury it in the ground and pump it out when needed. This both accumulates water and is a way to absorb heavy rains to prevent flooding.

 

[Grooveriding]

Come on, it's just a Chinese hoax and because of too many people washing their cars.

 

[Paratus]

When we pump water from aquifers that water goes into the ocean increasing the volume.

Well let's take a closer look at this idea and see if it holds water.

Lets for the sake of argument assume that all worldwide water consumption comes from aquifers and all of it goes back into the ocean.

(We know that's false because water goes back to the aquifers and much of the worlds water comes from sources other than aquifers but it gives you the benefit of the doubt and makes finding information easier.)

From what I could find world water consumption is in the area of 4.5billion m^3. Convert to weight - 4.5Gt (billion tons)


From NOAA:

by M Tedesco - ‎Related articles
Dec 7, 2015 - Ice mass loss of 186 Gt over the entire ice sheet between April 2014 and April 2015was 22% below the average mass loss of ...

So 186Gt/4.5Gt = 41.3

So Greenland by itself contributed 41.3 times more water to sea level rise than the maximum our water consumption could.

If you build a city in the florida keys all the way up to the edge of the water, then you have to expect some high tides. The recent full moon, i.e. super-moon was when the moon was the closest to the earth in 18 years. So the tides were probably reacting to the increased gravity from the moon. Oceans rise and fall through the centuries and also dust falls from space all the time. Just think of all those meteors the burn up going through the atmosphere. All that dust kees falling on the earth. I dont wish people in Florida an ill will, but any coastal or riverside area could be prone to flooding like the flood of 93 in the central area around the Mississippi river valley.

What you are missing is the frequency of tidal floods are increasing.

They didn't build the city where tidal flooding occurs.

You should read The Siege of Miami
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

Of course it's not just Miami Beach that's having tidal flooding other costal cities are as well because sea level keeps going up, (as predicted).

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Seems rather obvious she concurs with the point. She concurs with a lot that's convenient to her new job.

What new job? Seriously, between you and Paruts

Common mistakes here. The scientific consensus has always been for warming. However there was a lot of research into the cooling effects of aersols in the 60's which led the press to talk about global cooling.

In fact all of those quotes don't seem to be from any of the formal papers on climate but from pundits in the press.

At any rate the climate models which predicted the ocean oscillations (ENSO, ANSO) correctly also predicted the so called "pause" in mid tropospheric temperatures.

Ice loss and global temperature changes are also increasing per theory as is sea level rise.

Thank you for cutting and pasting all this crap. Who doesn't believe "The Union for Concerned Scientists" ? lol

 

[agent00f]

What new job?

She's pretty much the most skeptical scientist with any relevant credentials (and even she knows climate change is real, and used to write to that effect), so she gets paid to play the face of "teaching the controversy". You know, that last mechanic who'll always tell you might be nothing wrong with your car for dummies who really need to hear that, for a fee.

Btw, how's trying to figure out how confirmation bias works here, ie people desperately to hang onto anything they can get.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

She's pretty much the most skeptical scientist with any relevant credentials (and even she knows climate change is real, and used to write to that effect), so she gets paid to play the face of "teaching the controversy". You know, that last mechanics who'll always tell you might be nothing wrong with your car for dummies who really need to hear that, for a fee.

Again, you claimed she has a new job. What new job?

 

[agent00f]

Again, you claimed she has a new job. What new job?

Getting paid to go on TV as celebrity scientist and making you feel good about ignorance.

 

[Paratus]

What new job? Seriously, between you and Paruts

Thank you for cutting and pasting all this crap. Who doesn't believe "The Union for Concerned Scientists" ? lol

No problem. Although as a you are a physics denier these really aren't for you. They are really for folks reading the thread who maybe on the fence.

I can use you to. You'll quote denier websites and unsupported facts that feel right. Followed by ad hominem attacks. Which lets me easily debunk them with science and data from respected sources like NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC. It's pretty easy to see which side is correct and which isn't at that point.

Although if you ever have a legitimate question about the climate that I can answer I'm more than willing to explain it to you.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No problem. Although as a you are a physics denier these really aren't for you. They are really for folks reading the thread who maybe on the fence.

I can use you to. You'll quote denier websites and unsupported facts that feel right. Followed by ad hominem attacks. Which lets me easily debunk them with science and data from respected sources like NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC. It's pretty easy to see which side is correct and which isn't at that point.

Although if you ever have a legitimate question about the climate that I can answer I'm more than willing to explain it to you.

Thanks, i have a degree in Geology and have never argued the physics of greenhouse gases. Nice lie btw, but the Union of Concerned Scientists? Seriously guy.

 

[Jaskalas]

In case anyone was curious, we may had just turned a page on Global Sea Ice.
And not a positive one.

 

[Paratus]

Thanks, i have a degree in Geology and have never argued the physics of greenhouse gases. Nice lie btw, but the Union of Concerned Scientists? Seriously guy.

Feel free to clearly state your position then. If it's in line with the peer reviewed literature I'll recind my comment if that even matters to you.

(I can pull plots from NASA or NOAA if you want?)

Edit just for you:

 

[agent00f]

Thanks, i have a degree in Geology and have never argued the physics of greenhouse gases. Nice lie btw, but the Union of Concerned Scientists? Seriously guy.

If you've ever had to survey lit then it should be painfully evident that every field has people at the tails which outside motivated thinkers are attracted to. Judith Curry is pretty obviously one of them.

 

[dank69]

Thanks, i have a degree in Geology and have never argued the physics of greenhouse gases. Nice lie btw, but the Union of Concerned Scientists? Seriously guy.

Sorry, but this had to be done:

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Just one question Paratus. Who knows more about climate science, yourself or Dr. Judith Curry?

 

[First]

Just one question Paratus. Who knows more about climate science, yourself or Dr. Judith Curry?

lol.