The U.S. Military with no reliable Satellite data over hotzones soon? Say it isn't so!!

I am a scientist, and a Republican, and anyone who says climate change science is all about politics is clueless. As a conservative Christian myself - the Fox News snap was just a joke. The point is that anyone getting their "facts" from anything that doesn't show up as a result in http://google.com/scholar is looking at the wrong source. I'm sure Joshua's experience as a storm chaser does not give him one tidbit of information about the science of climate change - yet he makes an offhand comment like that which just makes him look foolish. That's the part that cracks me up!

Did you know that President Bush (the first) was the first to acknowledge climate change, and that Republicans spent much of the 90s leading the charge on that issue? Since they started it, who really is behind this "conspiracy" you speak of?

And what does any of this have to do with satellite observations from the Chinese?

(PS I am a real meteorologist, as in one who does day-to-day forecasts. Any resemblance to an academic is only because I read academic sources for my factual conclusions, not the WSJ editorial pages.)
 
For your information, have you not seen my signature, I am no rank amateur but a high trained forecaster, ten plus years in the Navy and civilian worlds, plus an undergraduate at Mississippi State. I don't watch cable news at all. I find it hard to believe that you are a conservative as man made climate change is the narrative of the left.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.
 
I don't see signatures so I wasn't aware. That makes me feel a little worse - you have a science background, yet refuse to look at science factually? Climate change isn't a political issue. The response to climate change - that's political.

PS You may have missed my edit... Man-made climate change was originally the platform of the Republican party. As evidence increased for that being true, Al Gore got involved, and then the Republican party put politics ahead of data and decided they were against it. Man-made climate change is the narrative of science, not left/right.
 
The results at http://google.com/scholar are not politically driven. They are research driven. Two different things (in most cases, obviously not 100% - but clearly it would not be smart to throw away all science in all fields because there are some bad apples.) Thankfully climate change is an area where someone who could prove that man had no impact could become a gazillionaire! Oil companies and energy suppliers would hire that person in an instant and give celebrity status!

As of now, that hasn't happened.

By the way, there are still scientists who says that smoking not only can't cause cancer, but in many cases can be good for you. Are you willing to accept that as a counter-perspective and start teaching kids how to smoke in the 3rd grade because the science isn't 100% settled?
 
What Rob said in the past few posts. Every time Joshua makes another post it is easier to see who is arguing on the basis of politics and who is arguing on the basis of science.
 
Excuse me, John. If folks like yourself and Rob are unwilling or unable to see the truth, that anthropogenic climate change is a political issue, then who is the one that is deluded. Answer me this, John and Rob, if all other realms of science are welcome to the ideas of a counter perspective, what makes climate change so much different? The entirety of the "settled science" nature of it smacks of delusion, narcissism, and a borderline psychosis. If we were to treat Einstein's theory of General Relativity, or Darwin's theory of natural selection and of evolution in the same light of man-made climate change, then any new information that would change or add to those widely accepted ideas would be treated as refuse, to be thrown out.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.
 
Counter perspectives are fine. But please, present them in the scientific literature. A thousand Fox News (or any other media outlet, for that matter) stories are far less convincing than one carefully designed scientific study as far as I am concerned. Arguments without supporting evidence are just politics, and in the case of climate change, there has been far more of that kind of thing coming from the deniers than from the scientists who have built formidable evidence that 1) a rapidly warming climate is reality and 2) human activities, primarily the use of fossil fuels, are contributing to that climate change.
 
As John noted - there's nothing in climate change that is immune from counter perspectives. Those perspectives have been attempted and shown lacking so far. If some physicist publishes a paper that says a large wall through Kansas will stop tornado formation, do we have to accept that? If I say "That is not valid science" is it because I'm deluded, narcissistic, and suffering from psychosis? Or is it because that theory doesn't pass the science test?
 
I've been reading the back and forth. The climate has always been changing and always will. It's hard to deny that. What everybody is talking about is global warming. The earth was going through a warming period and now has flatlined for the better part of two decades. Exactly what did that? NOBODY knows for sure. .Obviously, we have a long way to go before we can predict what the temps will do in the future. If we were to that point, then the dire predictions and climate models would have been right. With so many variables and how they interact with each other, it will be a long time before we humans get to the point where we can accurately say whether earth will warm or cool in the future.
I believe man contributes to a small degree to the changes in our climate. I also fear another ice age more than I fear global warming.
 
Actually many of the dire predictions have been correct. The ones that make the news are on the extreme end, and not part of the consensus. If you look back at some papers from the 90s, many of the things they expected have occurred.
 
rdale said:
Actually many of the dire predictions have been correct. The ones that make the news are on the extreme end, and not part of the consensus. If you look back at some papers from the 90s, many of the things they expected have occurred.
Click to expand...

Please list them. Links to relevant papers or articles would be helpful
 
The thing that I would add is, I do not deny that there is climate change occurring but I would love to know from the supporters of the anthropogenic sort to what quantifiable number is that. I can with no certainty deny changes in our climate whether natural or man made as I could deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Does human activities have an effect? Sure they do. What I have a problem with is the notion that it is all caused by human activity. In all of the discussions I have had over the years, I have yet been able to a percentage of this change that is due to anthropogenic causes, it seems that they are unable or unwilling to answer to it.


Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.
 
Last edited:
Gosh gang, my whole point (and yeah, I took a few broad brush swipes at things politically, and the global warming crowd... not apologizing for that) is ensuring our guys and gals have what they need to do their jobs on the modern field of battle. Have a great weekend! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top