Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/06/2011 8:06:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Because they tend to look at facts more objectively?”
####
....and are the ones who will actually PAY for the easy life these academics, bureaucrats and “scientists” will enjoy as a result of the furthering of this Commie mythology.
I’d be interested to see how he defines “conservative”.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
"Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:"
That article explains why no Hot Spot has been found.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
That article kills any thought of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? The rise in sea level in the last 100 years is almost exactly the same as the average over the last 40,000 years caused by the inter-glacial period we are in.
I'm a skeptic of man made global warming because of several reasons.
1. The earth is billions of years old and has warmed and cooled over that period.
2. All of the data in these models is over a period from 20 years to 140 years. That's not long enough for an accurate trend.
3. The sun, followed by volcanoes are the biggest indicators of climate change.
Funny...I, along with most of my friends are “conservative white males”.
None of us believes in the AGW bull Obama.
Coincidentally, all of us have master’s degrees or higher (mostly higher) in actual academic subjects, such as mathematics, physics, EE, chemistry, etc.
Go figure.
And, in other news, research has found that steers are easier to control than bulls.
and to think, we are paying to subsidize hundreds and hundreds of grad students on campii all across the fruited plain to sit there and churn out drivel like this every day...
Sociology is an art, not a science.
And we all know who most “artists” voted for in 2008.
I am the root cause of all of the world’s problems.
I am a white, middle-aged, American male.
Because they have to pay the bills?
The comments about this article at SA are interesting.
I posted the following comment there:
“Scientific American”, a once great institution, is now just another leftist hack web site. There appears to be almost nothing “scientific” about this article or even about SA itself any longer. Just more leftist blathering and more attempts at dividing people into classes based on skin color and gender and then attacking unfavored classes.
BTW, what on earth is the relevance of one’s gender and skin color to whether a scientific THEORY may be correct or not? Did it matter to the ultimate truth whether it was conservative white males supporting or opposing the prevailing theories demolished by Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Lister, Priestley, Alfred Wegener, Bessemer, and a whole slew of others?
And, BTW, AGW is just a theory. And a not very well supported theory at that. Why doesn’t SA devote a whole issue to the various evidence and measurements that support and detract from the that theory? And to make the comparison truly objective SA could select two groups of editors responsible for their respective parts: one group from the pro-AGW camp and one group from the anti-AGW camp? In fact, let the two groups propose their own sets of editors.
Of course, SA would never do anything like that, because SA isn’t about science and it isn’t about free discussion of ideas and theories; SA has now simply become a leftist hack tool promoting whatever crackpot “science” is being promoted by the leftists de jure.
Perhaps because white males(rent-seeking sociology professors aside) tend to be better versed in science and technology and are far more likely to see right through Al Gore’s junk science scam. They know that a change of 100th of one percent in a harmless trace atmospheric gas is not a cause for concern let alone a massive redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the nation’s economy.
I dropped my subscription to ‘Scientific American’ when I noticed the unscientific bent of their editorials was showing up in their articles. Looks to me that they have gotten worse.
I would love to ask these 'RESEARCHERS' if they found where the CAVEPEOPLE parked their SUVs, that caused the ICE AGE?
"When you start talking about climate change and the need for major changes, carbon taxes and lifestyle changes, [conservatives] see this as a threat to capitalism and future prosperity," said McCright. "So conservatives tend to be very negative towards climate change."
hey MORONS....it will be a THREAT to our way of life!!! I know you BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERALS can't see that -- because you want the GOVERNMENT to do everything for you -- including wiping your ARSE!!
IMHO, if it were purely a study, then he would have used a phrase
such as "...skeptical of the claims of AGW...", or maybe "theory"
instead of "claims", etc.
Lemme guess - ‘cause we’re racist, right?
National Geographic is 10Xs as bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
