Phantasmal (03-29-2017), Rune (03-28-2017)
"Politicians don’t normally have a handle on the latest science at the best of times, whether they are on the left or the right of the spectrum. However, it’s difficult to argue against the notion that the Republican Party these days are the de facto political organization for anti-scientific rhetoric.
The President of the United States is skeptical of vaccine safety. He isn’t sure about climate change being real either, and neither is most of his cabinet – including the person responsible for keeping an eye on it. Heck, Trump’s not even sure what wind actually is, or what its intentions are.
So what of Republican voters? Is the average GOP voter a very different creature? Do Democrats have a better grasp on science than the Republican part of American society? Well, according to a recent set of surveys from Pew Research, political belief strongly influences scientific acceptance for both Democrats and Republicans – but in two very different ways."
...
"In fact, there was no correlation between scientific consensus acceptance and scientific literacy – partisanship seemed to make scientific literacy irrelevant. Those with almost no background in science responded in much the same way to questions as those with a high degree of scientific comprehension.
For example, only 27 percent of GOPers with a “high” scientific literacy agreed that the phenomenon caused rising sea levels, and only 19 percent agreed that storms are more severe because of it.
So, if you’re a Democrat, you are much more likely to accept scientific facts the more educated you are on the subject. If you’re a Republican, the chances are you won’t give a damn about what any scientist says – with some exceptions."
http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...ing-to-survey/
Phantasmal (03-29-2017), Rune (03-28-2017)
There's facts and then there's alternative facts...
"There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."
Because it's not about the truth. Republicans weigh profits against everything. See the new anti environment, pro coal EOs aimed at bolstering an obsolete energy source.
Say nothing of toxic. They pretend to not believe in the unquestionable truths. They just parrot talking points about 'unproven' blah blah blah, and cash the lobbyists' checks.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Bill (03-29-2017)
In Liberal lala land, only the rich can afford to pollute. As far as the libs are concerned, the poor can go fuck themselves to death if they want cheap energy.
Last edited by Bigdog; 03-28-2017 at 05:29 PM.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
— Joe Biden on Obama.
Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.
D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.
Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".
cancel2 2022 (03-28-2017)
New scientific paper suggests that CO2 residence time in atmosphere is only four years.
"We present a carbon cycle with an uptake proportional to the CO2 concentration.
Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.
The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well reproduced.
Human emissions only contribute 15 % to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
Abstract
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21818116304787
Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Bigdog (03-28-2017)
No mate, I have an honours degree in chemistry, Zippy has a masters in burgerology and Rune has a PhD in bashing metal and bullshitology.
Come to that what are your scientific credentials, I am guessing none? Not many ambulance chasers are scientifically literate.
Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 03-28-2017 at 06:08 PM.
Cancel 2018.2 (03-28-2017), Darth Omar (03-29-2017)
Yes it's true, climate models are not in the least bit trustworthy.
Climate models fail on the test stand
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
20 years ago climate models were celebrated as a huge breakthrough. Finally we were able to reproduce reality in the computer, which had been becoming ever more powerful and faster. Everyone believed that only minor adjustments were necessary, and the target would be reached. But when the computer-crunched results were finally compared to reality, huge unexplained discrepancies appeared.
In parallel, paleo-climatologists produced increasingly robust reconstructions of the real climate development, which served to make the computer problems even more glaring. Month after month new papers appeared exposing the major problems of the climate modelers. Model tests were preferably started in the middle of the Little Ice Age, around 1800, because the warming seemed to fit well with the rise in CO2 emissions.
But if one goes back 1000 years, the model technology falls apart.
In March 2016 Fabius Maximus pointed out the obvious: The models have to be more strictly tested and calibrated before they can be approved for modeling the future.
We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models
[…] The policy debate turns on the reliability of the predictions of climate models. These can be tested to give “good enough” answers for policy decision-makers so that they can either proceed or require more research. I proposed one way to do this in Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate & win: test the models!— with includes a long list of cites (with links) to the literature about this topic. This post shows that such a test is in accord with both the norms of science and the work of climate scientists. […] Models should be tested vs. out of sample observations to prevent “tuning” the model to match known data (even inadvertently), for the same reason that scientists run double-blind experiments). The future is the ideal out of sample data, since model designers cannot tune their models to it. Unfortunately…
“…if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time.”
— Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya,*note in Journal of Climate, December 2005.
There is a solution. The models from the first four IPCC assessment reports can be run with observations made after their design (from their future, our past) — a special kind of hindcast.”
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/r....Kn0A1UhJ.dpuf
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/r...e-models-are-m
ostly-black-box-fudging-not-real-science/#sthash.u4R7mNo1.Kn0A1UhJ.dpbs
Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 03-28-2017 at 06:13 PM.
Bigdog (03-28-2017)
Nothing wrong with climate skeptics publishing their science. Let me know when they break the 10% barrier of those in agreement with them. But your comments have nada to do with the sociological / poly sci study that finds only tribal loyalty dictates the beliefs of Republicans, not science. It makes intuitive sense that conservatives would be. They are rigid, inflexible and grumpy. They have little else to do all day aside from taking Bill O'Reilly memoranda to heart and preventing people from leaving dog poop on their front lawns. Surely you know they type.
ZappasGuitar (03-29-2017)
Bigdog (03-28-2017), Cancel 2018.2 (03-28-2017), Darth Omar (03-29-2017)
Bookmarks