Rand Paul for prez

Yep, even many big oil companies admit it is happening: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html
They don't all agree on the sources and causes. AGW doesn't mean all the weather in the world will be warm. It also doesn't explain why you have one extra hot summer. AGW means the global mean temperature is increasing, most likely due to a rise in GHG, which mankind is contributing to. Honestly, there aren't many scientists in the world denying it is happening at all. They key opponents on the side of big oil just try to push blame away from humans. Politicians like Rand Paul don't help either side. They focus on the AGW side of the CO2 debate, and completely ignore all the other reasons we should be reducing these emissions.

 

Unfortunately, you can't have a political debate without addressing all the talking points. Science, health, social issues, and foreign policy are always going to be debates.

 

data that is suspect....

 

Please present peer reviewed data to show how that independent study contains data that is suspect. The study was even paid for by the Koch Industries, who generally lobby against this stuff.

""Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.""

Again, you will not find many scientists that disagree that warming is occurring. There are a few groups that still deny man has influenced it, but the fact that it is happening doesn't seem to be very debatable anymore.

 

sorry man. as soon as this issue became political it lost its objectivity as a scientific. What happened with the data in East Anglia, PSU and NASA? hmmm...Picking data to fit an agenda is NEVER good science and it only takes one instance to cast doubt.

How many people are making careers out of this issue in Big Enviro and universities everywhere? Tell me they don't have a vest interest in this being a manmade cause?

 

I am not debating based on politics. I am saying it is happening and presenting independent peer reviewed studies to show why I side with scientific consensus. You are claiming the data is questionable, but presenting no counter data. The only political part of the whole thing, at least for me, is the fact the idiots like Rand Paul speak in absolutes on the issue, while never reading a single study on the subject. I can admit that there are some bad seed scientists out there. I can even admit that a few are paid off to skew data in studies. However, when almost all of the scientific community agrees something is happening, and presents multiple studies to back up these claims, I am going to have to side with scientific consensus. Have you actually sat down and read any of these studies? You should do it. You would find that even though the data aligns with the hypothesis, to the point where there is real conclusive evidence, the researchers don't speak in absolutes. These aren't politicians trying to sell some system of belief. They are scientists trying to present data to help explain what is going on in a very complicated system. I urge you to spend more time reading real research. Here is just a small taste...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270.full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/full/408184a0.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full

 

again, what good is it of the data is manipulated??????

This issue has 3 main things going against it:

1. chicken little--First we heard the global cooling apocalypse of the 70s that became warming but then the warming predictions failed to materialize.

2. local perceptions--You are asking people to radically change their lives based on forecasts for many years out by similar people who cant get 3-day weather forecasts correct.

3. Daa cooking scandals--These have cast way too much doubt on pretty much any research and showed at least some climatologists to be biased.

 

guys lets just move on to other topics. this is now an official global warming debate and the one thing my Environmental Science degree taught me is this is the only thing that matters about global warming:

 

Scientific consensus also said the world is flat.
Most of the studies published are solely "observational"; they are not controlled, or have lousy controls. Core studies are nice, but you need to do them on other Earths where we do not live to show a significant "p" value. Do you have 100 Earths we can use?? No.
Having said that, are we contributing to climate change? Sure, we are influencing levels of CO2. Whether it will have the disastrous effects proclaimed by Gore et al is highly doubtful.
The Earth had plenty of eras or epochs in which the climate was way hotter than any of the climate models presented, and we are still here.
There are many reasons to keep a clean Earth other than what the chicken littles are screaming about. It makes for a pleasant life; who likes paddling up to a bunch of turds and remnants of a butcher house floating at the break (Bridges, PR)? Not me.

 

In what weird world did you live in where scientific data showed that the earth was flat? Even early scientists knew the earth was round. There is proof that the earth was discovered to be round back to around 500BC. Are you honestly claiming the scientific method today is in any way closely related to that of research pre-500BC?

 

True, much like my poli sci degree(s) tell me that people will use ANYTHING to gain power Back to Rand. I saw a poll yesterday that had him beating Hillary in Iowa

 

But I don't think there were 200,000,000 people living on coasts at those times.

 

Again, you are making huge allegations with no proof to back it up. The studies I presented don't have manipulated data. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1029/2005JD006290/full
1. We have known about global warming for over 100 years: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
There was no global scientific community consensus for global cooling. http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html

2. Local weather is not global climate change. No one is predicting forecasts. These aren't meteorologists with a BS degree from some random college. These are experts on climate models, who are researching and reporting a trend of global mean temperature increase. They are not telling you if it is going to be 65F and sunny next week. They are showing, based on models and surface temp data, what the global mean temperatures look like over a period of time. Then other researchers are predicting the consequences of rising global mean temps. This is all aside the data we have showing increased ocean acidity, another issue coming directly from increase atmospheric CO2. No one has to radically change their lives, and not one of these researchers are claiming we should shut down the global infrastructure. It is simply data, that can point to a need to increase efforts to clean up energy production and transportation. I work in the automotive industry. Do you think I want to lose my job?

3. What scandals? When there is plenty of independent research, the only doubt tends to be cast by people who are just looking to deny that something is happening. If you have data and research to prove the consensus is all wrong, you should present it.

It is this simple...
If the scientific consensus is wrong, we spent some extra money on emissions control on vehicles and pushed alternative energy for the wrong reasons (which there are plenty of reasons to push this).
If the scientific consensus is right, the planet may see mass extinctions and large scale loss of human life.

 

I don't see Rand winning it. Both parties want a figurehead\mouthpiece, i.e. someone easily controlled and will toe the party line. Reagan was the last prez the Reps had that was anything of a maverick, and he still toed the line most of the time. Dems had that love\hate thing with Slick Willie. They loved that he could sell sneakers to a snake, but hated that he went rogue at times.

Dubya\Obammy were "perfect" for each party, in the sense they just did\do what they were told.

We don't vote for a president, we vote for a party, despite how its presented.

 

There also isn't proof that ocean acidification was a major issue in those times. As a surfer, this is major concern. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.full

 

And the whole "the earth has heated and cooled before so all this is bunk" argument is, well, bunk.

It's like saying a Shelby Cobra goes 0-60 in 2.8secs and Prius does it in 3 days, but they both go 0-60 so its the same.

 

You are evading the main point of my post. That is, the studies, are poorly controlled reducing them to "observational" status, and it is that which leads to the argument. Studies are not conclusive; debatable.
If you apply today to the NSF with an abstract proposal to investigate climate change and DO NOT star you will support the warming of the climate--you will receive NO FUNDING.
If you apply to the NSF with the same study seeking to SUPPORT the climate change hypothesis, you get all the money you need.
The decision is made by scientists, not government.
The large body of data is biased.

 

That is irrelevant to the studies design, which was my point.

 

The studies are not all just observational. I really think you need to research this a bit more.
Here is a small nugget: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-method-proves-climate-change-is-real/
There have been computational models, carbon balance research studies, chemical atmospheric analysis, etc. We aren't just reading thermometers.

 

Long time ago, I read many of the studies. Most were poorly designed. I wish I could find the references, but I can't. Data collection was good, interpretation of data likewise. But controls were abysmal; nothing to compare them to. Observational.