Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

SimonL said:
My point, again, is that there is no point in not believing in it. Even if it turned up to be a giant scam, what would be the consequences?

"Oh no we learned to use our energy in better ways! We reduced agricultural pollution and now make intelligent and diverse tree plantations instead of monocultures!"

OH NOES!
Click to expand...
Oh no, it's all of load of crap & I don't like fools preaching to me.
 
SimonL said:
I think we just witnessed a giant failure.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to your attempt to bring me around to your way of thinking then you would be correct. ;)
 
Mon Mauler said:
Once leftist universities, politicians and "benefactors" figured out they could use the idea of anthropogenic global warming to increase taxes, increase regulation, increase the size the of government and attack corporations, it started to become in the scientists self-interest to go along with it. These donors and contributors are basically giving money away.

I think this point is supported by the comments made by SimonL as well as reason and logic.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I can't completely disagree with you. But you're creating a big conspiracy that doesn't exist, at least in the mind of a vast vast majority of scientists. I think a lot of my (and some colleagues') cynicism on the topic is mostly directed towards the limited scope of the attention span of the public who has to be sold this one problem in order to fund environmental research. It used to be acid rain, then the ozone layer and CFCs, then global warming... That's what makes it frustrating for me, mostly. The rest of the cynic comments were from professors who wondered why some people still doubted global warming. If they were in some grand scheme, they certainly didn't realise it. I suppose thousands of really intelligent people with Ph.Ds would just get easily fooled like that by some nut job somewhere?...

EDIT: Scientists in universities are indeed like small businesses. They must get grants, they get it where the money is. If the public's attention span is stuck on that one stupid subject all the time, then that's where the non-scientist governmental employees will send the money... That's a sad thing.
 
Mon Mauler said:
Science shouldn't work that way, and I agree that in most cases it does not. However, in this case, that's exactly how it is working.

Perhaps you are not reading the thread.

As I stated before, once the idea of anthropogenic global warming was adopted by the left and pushed because the purported solutions fall in-line with leftist ideals, the integrity of the scientific process in regards to this question was corrupted, probably irreversibly so.
Click to expand...
So, apparently the vast majority of scientists are "leftists", (a term which is infamously vague, and which you have failed to define) or under the control of "leftists"; and this grand conspiracy has forced "rightist" scientists out of practically every major scientific institution?

Wikipedia's "Scientific opinion on climate change" article said:
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

[...]

# 1 Statements by concurring organizations

* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 InterAcademy Council
* 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
* 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
* 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
* 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
* 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
* 1.10 National Research Council (US)
* 1.11 European Science Foundation
* 1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.13 Federation of American Scientists
* 1.14 World Meteorological Organization
* 1.15 American Meteorological Society
* 1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* 1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* 1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
* 1.21 American Quaternary Association
* 1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* 1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
* 1.25 European Geosciences Union
* 1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* 1.27 Geological Society of America
* 1.28 American Geophysical Union
* 1.29 American Astronomical Society
* 1.30 American Institute of Physics
* 1.31 American Physical Society
* 1.32 American Chemical Society
* 1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
* 1.35 American Statistical Association

# 2 Noncommittal statements

* 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
* 2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists

[...]

Statements by dissenting organizations

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.
Click to expand...

And don't even get me started on "probably irreversibly".
 
RedRalphWiggum said:
What do you think is our motivation is for making this phenomenon up?
Click to expand...

I only wonder what your motivation is for making this claim. I know plenty of "Right-Wingers". None of them think it is a leftest plot.

Why do people like you use words like "Right-wingers"?
Why do "Left-wingers" think "Right-wingers" say the earth is only 6,000 years old?
None of the ""Right-wingers" I know think the earth is only 6,000 years old.
The most religious (sp?) person I know is a geologist. He sure as hell doesen't think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I think people like the OP are just as big an idiot as the people they point at.
 
El_Machinae said:
What part of the cause of global warming do you specifically believe to be false? Additionally, can you find two NASA scientists who don't believe in evolution either?
Click to expand...

The scientist (one, not two - Roy Spencer) in the article believes in intelligent design.
 
RomeoTheCat said:
I only wonder what your motivation is for making this claim. I know plenty of "Right-Wingers". None of them think it is a leftest plot.

Why do people like you use words like "Right-wingers"?
Why do "Left-wingers" think "Right-wingers" say the earth is only 6,000 years old?
None of the ""Right-wingers" I know think the earth is only 6,000 years old.
The most religious (sp?) person I know is a geologist. He sure as hell doesen't think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I think people like the OP are just as big an idiot as the people they point at.
Click to expand...
Whatever right-wingers you know are an anecdote, and anecdote is, as they say, not the singular of data. Young-Earth Creationism is overwhelmingly better supported by right-wingers than left-wingers. Left-wingers think that right-wingers say the earth is only 6,000 years old because many loud right-wingers do say that the earth is only 6,000 years old, such as classical_hero and Smidlee right here on this forum.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Whatever right-wingers you know are an anecdote, and anecdote is, as they say, not the singular of data. Young-Earth Creationism is overwhelmingly better supported by right-wingers than left-wingers. Left-wingers think that right-wingers say the earth is only 6,000 years old because many loud right-wingers do say that the earth is only 6,000 years old, such as classical_hero and Smidlee right here on this forum.
Click to expand...

And besides, 40% of Americans are YECs.
 
Death_Machine, what's your opinion on evolution?
 
SimonL said:
Sadly, I can't completely disagree with you. But you're creating a big conspiracy that doesn't exist, at least in the mind of a vast vast majority of scientists. I think a lot of my (and some colleagues') cynicism on the topic is mostly directed towards the limited scope of the attention span of the public who has to be sold this one problem in order to fund environmental research. It used to be acid rain, then the ozone layer and CFCs, then global warming... That's what makes it frustrating for me, mostly. The rest of the cynic comments were from professors who wondered why some people still doubted global warming. If they were in some grand scheme, they certainly didn't realise it. I suppose thousands of really intelligent people with Ph.Ds would just get easily fooled like that by some nut job somewhere?...

EDIT: Scientists in universities are indeed like small businesses. They must get grants, they get it where the money is. If the public's attention span is stuck on that one stupid subject all the time, then that's where the non-scientist governmental employees will send the money... That's a sad thing.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost all you are saying here. In fact, it is these sentiments I was referring to in my previous post.

Just to claify, though, I do not think some grand conspiracy exists on this topic. As I said in my first post in this thread, I do not think the idea of anthropogenic social warming is a plot by leftists.

As you indicate in the above quoted section, it's just the way it is. Scientists are not being 'forced' or 'controlled' into promoting bad science; rather, they are being nudged and persuaded by the motivations I listed in a previous post: money, power, self-worth.
 
Mon Mauler said:
As you indicate in the above quoted section, it's just the way it is. Scientists are not being 'forced' or 'controlled' into promoting bad science; rather, they are being nudged and persuaded by the motivations I listed in a previous post: money, power, self-worth.
Click to expand...

Given that you've hardly looked at the science, and that you're motivated by money (lower taxes, etc.), wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that you're more likely to be promoting bad science?

Obviously, you could be correct. A stopped clock is right twice a day. But on sheer likely-hood, who's more likely to be wrong, the guys who study a problem in detail or the guy who doesn't want to be taxed?
 
Mon Mauler said:
I agree with almost all you are saying here. In fact, it is these sentiments I was referring to in my previous post.

Just to claify, though, I do not think some grand conspiracy exists on this topic. As I said in my first post in this thread, I do not think the idea of anthropogenic social warming is a plot by leftists.

As you indicate in the above quoted section, it's just the way it is. Scientists are not being 'forced' or 'controlled' into promoting bad science; rather, they are being nudged and persuaded by the motivations I listed in a previous post: money, power, self-worth.
Click to expand...

I would never go as far as question the quality of their science, as you do though. I don't think they would fudge their results just to get further grants on the subject, although there's probably A-holes like in every field.

For me, it's some inexplicable "one-topic hysteria" on the part of the medias that messes things up. It's not even a left-wing or a right-wing thing to do this, it's just thinking of the viewers and the public as stupid.

Also the fact that most politicians are lawyers and MBAs doesn't help broadening the scope of science.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Whatever right-wingers you know are an anecdote, and anecdote is, as they say, not the singular of data. Young-Earth Creationism is overwhelmingly better supported by right-wingers than left-wingers. Left-wingers think that right-wingers say the earth is only 6,000 years old because many loud right-wingers do say that the earth is only 6,000 years old, such as classical_hero and Smidlee right here on this forum.
Click to expand...


The "Left-wingers"/"Right-wingers" stuff is . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Same as the "Red State"/Blue State" is.

Here is a map to give you a clue...

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif

So many of you "Enlightened" "Left-Wingers" grasp onto these terms and think you are so much smarter than the general population. Here is a clue.

It turns people off. Same as the "Obama is a terrest" people turn us off.
 

Attachments

  • PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif
    PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif
    440.8 KB · Views: 63
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Estebonrober
Techno feudalism
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Lexicus
Lexicus
T
Am I A Civfanatic?
Replies
7
Views
430
Broken_Erika
Broken_Erika
bene_legionary
Moments of Spontaneity
Replies
1
Views
381
warpus
warpus
Samson
  • Poll Poll
Internet privacy, security, age restrictions, VPNs and backups
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
2K
Samson
Samson
Samson
  • Poll Poll
How do you secure your online identity?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Samson
Samson
Back
Top Bottom