Hitler, a follower of Marx, used all sorts of propaganda from so called science. Eugenics was all the rage in those days and was favored by the Progressives in the west. Hitler took it it to its logical conclusion and the left then distanced themselves from Hitler even calling him right wing. Well that and the fact that he attacked their beloved Soviet Union who most felt a closer political alliance to. Hitler may have gotten the bomb if they didn't discount "Jewish" science.
Schools have been largely taken over by the left and much of their agenda is provided as science to the young. I think most people can think of examples of the brown shirts or children being indoctrinated and then used to push the agenda of the state.
Alarmists rarely provide scientific arguments. Instead, they try to convince people of a consensus. They rarely provide limitations to their knowledge and acknowledge what is fact and what is theory. They mock conservatives, particularly successful women and minorities (eg. one JA above mocking Palin's legs) while they pretend to be for women and minorities. In fact they are only for leftist women and leftist minorities. They seem to believe that minorities aren't smart enough to succeed unless they are led by them. They pretend that the First Ladies of their candidates are the smartest women in the world and they treat them in a way that can only be equated to worship. They equate intelligence with how far left they are and stupidity with how conservative. They are so brainwashed and mind numbed, they really believe they know all sorts of things they are clueless about. I could go on and on about the idiosyncrasies of the left.
The rants about Marx by both the asker and the pretend geologist are (as always) pretty revealing.
AGW is a very large issue that will take political involvement to fix and a lot of money, hence the reason many denier buy into all the conspiracy theories, they don't want to pay, which is why you get all the reference to their back pocket.
None of this really affects the science, it is quite solid, despite the best efforts of deniers to create controversy, It's is pretty much university accepted by the science community, because they look at the published science, not denier blogs.
Science by it's very nature detests faking, lying and conspiracy, science has a solid history of dealing harshly with anyone found to be doing this.
The laughable theory that Al Gore or any industry could buy of "all" scientists shows the level deniers will sink to to try and push their nonsense theories, but almost as if they are trying to destroy their own weak case denier have now created so many conflicting conspiracies they have become a spent force believed only by the brain dead.
I'm sure if you looked hard you could find a few scientists near retirement or in unrelated fields who you could 'payoff' to make claims but sadly that describes the small number in the denier camp all to well.
P.S. For those interested
the quote from James Spann "American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist"
Which is denier code for TV weather man, like Watts not a meteorologist at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Spann
Then we have Tom McElmurry a meteorologist, well he used to be a USAF meteorologist but that was in the 50's,
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
he pushes the usual denier tripe that our politicians can easily be bought by the "kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts" this is where denier piffle falls apart because if our politicians could be bought so easily then the oil industry would have done that and we would hear nothing about AGW from politicians.
"One only need to go meteorology to prove you claim false. Ha! Ha! I won't even take the time to go to the rest." if this is a reference to the above Spann & McElmurry, what meteorology does he think he going to, a quote from some one who was never a meteorologist and someone who has not been a meteorologist since the early 70's. wow sagebush is easily swayed by nothing it seems, while he happily ignores the opinion of large bodies of meteorologists who's public position on AGW is a matter of public record.
But lets take his advice and "go meteorology"
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climat...
Now I'm sure he will try some witty retort but given he used AMS as a credibility check for James Spann, it will be funny seeing him now try to discredit them, but that's denial for you.
"Is it happening", "how is it happening", "what is it likely to do next", and so on are scientific questions, with scientific answers. Science is the best place to look to figure out things like "how much warming is going to be caused by a given amount of CO2 emissions", or "How much would CO2 emissions be reduced if we did (X)".
What to do about AGW is a political question. But I strongly believe that we should give preference to arguments that *acknowledge what's actually happening*, instead of doing the debate equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La, la, la, I'm not listening"...
It may be that the best political solution is not any of the "liberal" favorites, like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. It may be that the best solution is something like the more conservative-friendly notion of nuclear power plants. It may even be that the best solution is adaptation rather than prevention. It is probable, however, that we will need more than one approach to solve such a large and pervasive problem. And the first step is for people like you to stop pretending that it's not actually occurring.
It is science related. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Can you see anything in the above links that are political, or do you just have ad homs, and claims of lies that you can't prove.
Thanks for letting me know; you just have ad homs.
Really. Can you quote one line from "Das Kapital" or "The Communist Manifesto" which Hitler or any leader of the Soviet Union actually made into policy? Or one policy of Nazi Germany or the Soveit Union which no one had thought of long before? Or did Al Gore let Karl Marx borrow his time machine to give his philosphy to the Pharaoh's mentioned in the book of Exodus, or the Roman Empire or the Spanish Inquistion or even to Robespierre, wh led the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_...
The truth is that Karl Marx (or is it Karl Maxx) was a utopian idealist, who believed that the workers should overthrow the government in order to bring about a perfect world. But for you, "Communist," "Marxist" and "socialist" are just words you use when you want to call somebody names.
That explains your IQ.
Judging from what you say about James Hansen, you are an expert in denigrating individuals.
Jim Z
What are two things that these men have in common?
Vladimir Lenin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Le...
Joseph Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stal...
Nikita Khrushchev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khru...
Leonid Brezhnev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brez...
and Konstantin Chernenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_...
1. They were former leaders of the Soviet Union.
2. None of them were followers of Marx.
Someone you don't agree with =/= a follower of Marx.
edit
Strike Yuri Andropov, who wanted Gorbachev to succeed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Androp...
I believe you are quoting me. For people like you or jim z, it is all about politics. To me, as a physicist, it is about physics.
When people talk about "solutions" to AGW, there certainly will be political aspects to it, in addition to the physics. I want people to disconnect the physical problem from the possible political solutions. Let's agree on the scientific reality of it, and then we can move on to discuss whether or not we need to mitigate or prevent it.
If people don't have sufficient background in science to actually understand the science, why are they trying to convince us that the science is wrong? As I said before, if you don't understand things like Stefan's Law, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, thermodynamic equilibrium, heat flux or what the difference is between clouds and water vapor, you certainly don't have the scientific background to render a judgment on the reality of AGW.
And I don't buy into the "I'm ignorant of science, but I have common sense" argument. You don't need common sense, you need scientific sense--time and time again it's been demonstrated that those are not the same things.
EDIT for your "points": Perhaps a bit embarrassingly I took virtually nothing but science and math courses at the universities which I've attended--did that make me political? The places where I've taken my college courses are: San Diego State University, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, University of North Dakota, and the USDA Graduate School. As for Will Happer, he has his opinion, but most physicists don't share it. I've spent a long career in physics, and in addition I"ve studied atmospheric science. I'd be willing to bet I've taken more classes in atmospheric science AND in physics than Happer. I'm talking graduate level physics, by the way, not physics for poli sci majors. I'd be willing to bet I've published physics and climate papers more recently than Happer has, also.
As for Al Gore, he is not MY "high priest." I have never voted for him in my life, didn't care much for his movie, and have never read his books. You've probably paid a lot more attention to him than I have. I have no idea why he fired Happer, but it sounds like Happer is not up to speed on modern climate science, so incompetence could have been a reason.
By the way, you've got Happer on your side, but the American Physical Society, which has 50,000 members (including me) does not agree with you. Neither does the American Geophysical Union, which has more than 60,000 members. If you think that the meteorologists agree, think again, both the American Meteorological Society (14,000 members) and the Royal Meteorological Society (3000 members) disagree with you and Happer. You might try and find some other physicists beside Happer--one against 100,000 or so isn't very good odds.
Further EDIT: James Spann is a TV weatherman and is certified as such by the American Meteorological Society--he is NOT a scientist. He is essentially certified to read the National Weather Service forecasts without mangling them too badly.
Tom McElmurry is a minister that used to forecast weather in the Air Force, about 40 years ago. He is certainly no scientist either--these days he is basically a religious nut-job that tries to sell his end-of-days books.
Perhaps if you knew more about science you could actually come up with actual scientists, rather than retired bureaucrats, TV weathermen and doomsday fanatics.
Discussions and debates surrounding AGW are definately political. The term AGW is very much political.
Some science is hidden within this subject however as the sceince develops the concept of AGW is proving to be on VERY shaky ground. It is a known FACT by any and ALL scientists that CO2 on its own is NOT capable of doing what AGW proponants say. For AGW to be real they need positive feedbacks capable of driving a runaway heating situation.
The problem they have is that the science does not support their predicitons. Science does support the basic concept that CO2 does NOT work alone. Science does support the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However science also demonstrates that CO2 levels have been much higher in our past. Science also shows that these higher CO2 levels did NOT cause the runaway heating effect many claim it will do now.
For these reasons I believe that AGW has become far more political than scientific.
AGW is most definitely political, Alarmists are alarmists, in 2007 it was brought to numerous government officials attention that the world is not warming anymore. AGW scientist, simply replied just wait a few more years, and now here it is 2013, and the world is most definitely not warming and now the general consensus among AGW advocates is that the world is warming, and not only is it warming, the warming is accelerating. Science has proven many times in past few decade that climate sensitivity has been too high in the climate models and that disastrous global warming caused by CO2 emissions is almost impossible, but still the belief in the consensus view is correct even though the data is screaming that it is not. That is not science, that is political or even a cultists approach. Continuing to chant the prophesy of computer simulations that are known to be faulty is just plain stupid. Science doesn't take the modern instrumental record and paste it onto a proxy data-set that has the LIA and MWP intentionally smoothed out (Hockey Stick) and use that as the basis for the claim that global temperatures are higher now than anytime in the last 1000 years, and the rate of warming is unprecedented, that is called malice.
For denialists it's an entirely political issue. For the more intelligent it's a scientific issue
What type of idiot is going to say physics isn't political? That' "BS" : For the brain dead Alarmist DA's
This isn't about the purity of pristine science, if one thinks that way just say Bah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_P...
AGW is Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming it is science related term referring man made impact on environment only. It may refer to a political scenario like a political decision creating a political unrest condition globally.
We had a comment on this site, "Geez, physics is not liberal or conservative, it's SCIENCE."
I think that statement is true, by itself. But that person was equating AGW to Physics. Back to the raw question, "Is AGW political or science related?"
I very highly doubt there's a huge conspiracy going on in The Scientific Community
and it doesn't take much to understand The Fossil Fuel Industry doesn't want AGW to be real.
http://ncse.com/climate
It was originally science, but along the way it became hijacked by politics, with Thatcher, Gore and the IPCC, even now Obama is using climate science for political means.
It was a sad day for science when scientists allowed politics to take over.
Science. Politician's may use AGW in a way where they support or reject it. It has been dragged through the communistic or socialist mire by DA deniers who use it as a political statement. but only by those who make the accusations.
The research is in science journals. Climatology and Paleoclimatology are sciences.
Just the latest left wing fad for those misfits in society to get stuck into.
Ban the Bomb.
Live in a yurt.
Eat raw turnips.
Smoke dope.
LSD makes you free.
