Heartland Institute Building Anti-Science Curriculum

[Fabio]

Conservatives are brainwashed by talk radio & faux news to challenge AGW because it goes against all the polluters who finance their party and Evolution because it challenges the extremely narrow reading of the Bible so dear to their evangelical base.
If Green Energy companies bankrolled the GOP, AGW would become the 11th commandment :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://news.yahoo.com/incompetent-people-too-ignorant-know-175402902.html

If only we knew ourselves better. Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills, including climate change denialism. "Many people don't have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don't realize how off their evaluations might be," he said.

Moreover, even if a person has come to a very logical conclusion about whether climate change is real or not based on their evaluation of the science, "they're really not in a position to evaluate the science."

Let me repeat - the only science things the wingers challenge are
- AGW
- Evolution

Clealry this has nothing to do with science - and everything to do with ideology.

 

[Herm]

for starters i would be curious what the resident conservatives\climate sceptics
on this forum would say?

I would like to see models that fit historical patterns well, and then can be trusted to predict the future reliably.. I have faith that science will eventually do that given some time/patience. It may turn out AGW is as dire as Alarmist predict but I doubt it. How long will fossil fuels last anyways?

Many conservatives are non-religious and do believe that evolution is correct..

 

[klapauzius]

for starters i would be curious what the resident conservatives\climate sceptics
on this forum would say?

I would like to see models that fit historical patterns well, and then can be trusted to predict the future reliably.. I have faith that science will eventually do that given some time/patience. It may turn out AGW is as dire as Alarmist predict but I doubt it. How long will fossil fuels last anyways?

Many conservatives are non-religious and do believe that evolution is correct..

The big problem is that the historical patterns are no good indicators, a human influence as we have seen in the past 200 years is a one time event in the history of the planet...as far as our records go.

But you would not deny that the current rise in Co2 is caused by humans?
And the physics behind Co2 going up and temperatures rising is also well established.

I think the only thing open to debate is what this rise in temperatures will mean for us.

If it turns out to be really bad, we will not have the luxury to wait for this experiment to conclude to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[BRBarian]

How long will fossil fuels last anyways?

Long enough to make the world basically unlivable. It won't be long until CO2 reaches 500ppm. At 600ppm with an increasingly acidic atmosphere, you can expect to see millions of deaths (mostly elderly and very young).

There's plenty of sequestered carbon that we can dig up... enough to make all of us very sick.

 

[Herm]

The big problem is that the historical patterns are no good indicators, a human influence as we have seen in the past 200 years is a one time event in the history of the planet...as far as our records go.

Thats true, but it would increase the confidence that the models are accounting for everything. There might not be enough data to do this.

But you would not deny that the current rise in Co2 is caused by humans?
And the physics behind Co2 going up and temperatures rising is also well established.

thats all established science.. no disputes there.

 

[Fabio]

Herm,

you concur that the rise of CO2 is our fault and that it causes rise in temperature.
So, where is the debate ?!?

But you would not deny that the current rise in Co2 is caused by humans?
And the physics behind Co2 going up and temperatures rising is also well established.

thats all established science.. no disputes there.

 

[Fabio]

And yet all the GOP presidential candidates (except Huntsman) do not.

Many conservatives are non-religious and do believe that evolution is correct..

 

[klapauzius]

Taking Herm as an n=1 sample, it seems that we ("progressives" and "conservatives")
agree on the man-made Co2 increase and thus man made temperature increase?
So the debate really is about how bad this will all be for us, right?

Since this is a one time global experiment which will take hundreds of years to
roll back, if we dont like the outcome, I wonder what is wrong with erring on the side of caution?

There are many other reasons to curb Co2 emitting 19th century technology anyway.

I think that the whole climate change denial really comes from the groups that have
monetary interest in it.

 

[AndyH]

Taking Herm as an n=1 sample, it seems that we ("progressives" and "conservatives")
agree on the man-made Co2 increase and thus man made temperature increase?
So the debate really is about how bad this will all be for us, right?

Since this is a one time global experiment which will take hundreds of years to
roll back, if we dont like the outcome, I wonder what is wrong with erring on the side of caution?

There are many other reasons to curb Co2 emitting 19th century technology anyway.

I think that the whole climate change denial really comes from the groups that have
monetary interest in it.

Exactly! The 'debate' is an artificial construct - always has been. It was created and continues to be fanned by groups such as Heartland with funding from those that want to keep polluting. The rest of the world - especially those parts slowly sinking into the ocean - look at us like we're absolutely crazy! From the outside it looks like denial from U.S. - who until recently was the world's #1 polluter.

Thank heavens China has taken the pollution lead - now maybe the denial logjam can break and we can get back into 'fighting' China to reduce emissions... :? :roll:

 

[AndyH]

Was that not covered by suggesting that the Dr. believes the earth is older than 4 billion years?

It's not clear exactly what she believes. I've listened to two of her shows, and it really isn't clear...

Where she is completely correct is that the non-religious have been pushing a denier's agenda onto the Christian community... to make it part of Christian dogma. She's pulling hard against that.

Not sure if she's pulling hard against it, or simply pointing out the insanity of the situation. Either way she's wearing the target.

Edit... I finished this gent's book a week or so ago - it really shows the wide gap between what people think is happening and what's really happening in a broad range of areas. I think the video fits here for a number of reasons.

"Folks, this ain't normal"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eja5HNAKg7Y[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

for starters i would be curious what the resident conservatives\climate sceptics
on this forum would say?

I would like to see models that fit historical patterns well, and then can be trusted to predict the future reliably.. I have faith that science will eventually do that given some time/patience. It may turn out AGW is as dire as Alarmist predict but I doubt it. How long will fossil fuels last anyways?

Many conservatives are non-religious and do believe that evolution is correct..

Thanks for this, Herm. Let's see if I can understand the main points: 1. Climate models don't yet track reality so we need to give science more time, 2. AGW likely isn't as bad as alarmists predict, and 3. Why worry - we'll likely run out of fossil fuels before the climate gets bad anyway.

Close?

1. The models aren't good enough.
Today's models work amazingly well and have been both back-checked to 1900. Predictions from older models have proven accurate for today's climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

2. AGW really isn't bad.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

3. It's the alarmists that are the real problem.
IPCC: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm
Al Gore: http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
Alarmists: Good thing those coal miners didn't trust those yellow birds some government bureaucrat forced them to take into the mines...

4. We're almost out of fossil fuels anyway.
Climate lags CO2 injection by about 40 years. This means the ~1° C change and the climate instability we've seen to date was caused by the ~4 billion tons of CO2 emitted to about 1972. We've dumped about another 5 billion since then that aren't reflected in today's climate, and we're on track to reach 20 billion metric tons by 2050.

If the temp gain is linear (I don't expect it is, so this should be an absurdly low estimate), and if 4 billion tons is worth 1° C, then we're in for another 1°C rise from what we've already emitted, and another 3-4° C from our emissions thru 2050. And that 'kindergarten climate model' completely ignores any compounding caused by loss of ice, loss of trees, or anything else.

The pathology of climate denial is a different science entirely - and if we had psychiatrists that could work on a national level, the rest of the world would have us wearing huggy-coats and sucking on heavily medicated daiquiris! :twisted:

 

[klapauzius]

As AndyH pointed out, a big problem is the slow and delayed response...I think its educational basics, that if children do something wrong, consequences should be immediate and directly related to the wrong-doing.

Mother Nature is just a terrible parent...how would you feel for being punished 40 years AFTER you got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

 

[AndyH]

Mother Nature is just a terrible parent...how would you feel for being punished 40 years AFTER you got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

What - Mother Nature actually expects us to pay attention after we show up?! :lol:

 

[klapauzius]

Mother Nature is just a terrible parent...how would you feel for being punished 40 years AFTER you got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

What - Mother Nature actually expects us to pay attention after we show up?! :lol:

Just a figure of speech..The world does not care whether we even exist or not, which means
that the typical human idea of "us" destroying the environment (or "nature") is really dumb.
It will become just less suitable (or unsuitable ) for us to live in, that is all

 

[AndyH]

Mother Nature is just a terrible parent...how would you feel for being punished 40 years AFTER you got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

What - Mother Nature actually expects us to pay attention after we show up?! :lol:

Just a figure of speech..The world does not care whether we even exist or not, which means
that the typical human idea of "us" destroying the environment (or "nature") is really dumb.
It will become just less suitable (or unsuitable ) for us to live in, that is all

Absolutely - sorry that it's so challenging to move from serious/concerned to humor.

Maybe we can talk 'climate destabilization' from an ego- and legal-centric place? On the ego side - I want to live a full natural life that's not ended by an AGW factor - and I want my son to have that same opportunity. That means I'm concerned about the climate out to at least 2100AD/CE. That's all the ego I can come up with right now.

From a (lay [and probably kindergarten]) legal standpoint, if another's rights stop at my nose, and if I believe in ultimate freedom, then everyone on the planet is free to crank up the CO2 and heat as far as they want - as long as it only affects them. And that's a problem. So - we need domes. The deniers and (most) corporations get to live, work, and play in the domes - like a string of Biosphere domes all linked together. They get the genetically engineered grains, the e. coli laced meat... Let them have a good old time! But stay the heck away from the rest of the planet's air, water, and food supply...

In other words, the opposite of the movie "Silent Running" ... sorta.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0[/youtube]

Not too likely, is it?

 

[BRBarian]

You know... 5,000 years from now, when historians review 10,000 years of recorded history, we could be listed as the worst generation in the entire 10,000 years of human history. In terms of damage done, we're the champs (so far).

 

[padamson1]

Joel Salatin - I'm going to buy this guy's book. I like what he's espousing in this video clip, seems like he's got the big picture down.

Hmm. Didn't see the subsequent posts. Silent Running what a classic, Bruce Dern a an enviro-pyscho instead of just a plain pyscho.

The whole AGW denial argument defies logic...

 

[Herm]

1. The models aren't good enough.
Today's models work amazingly well and have been both back-checked to 1900. Predictions from older models have proven accurate for today's climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

so all we have to do to settle the doubters for good are some future predictions.. glad we all agree.

 

[AndyH]

so all we have to do to settle the doubters for good are some future predictions.. glad we all agree.

O. M. G.

Herm - I've made an appointment for you at US Submarines in Vero Beach. They're PROS at making airtight and water tight habitable spaces (submarines, underwater habitats, etc.). They're starting on your dome this week. Let them know where you'd like your retirement home to be placed.
http://ussubmarines.com/habitats/index.php3

Yes - it's perfectly fine - just keep breathing.

What? Oh - you'll need power in there - it's just a small coal plant.

No - it's plant food! Really - it's fine!

We'll take up a collection and get you a couple of plants (they'll grow like CRAZY!) and get you a good WiFi connection.

Take care.

edit...bloody 'unintended consequences'...

Hey Herm! You'll be the safest guy in Florida if you choose to have your dome there! Forget about the boat we talked about in the Volt thread. :lol:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbF_YlxbA3c[/youtube]

Tick tock...is there anybody in there?

 

[Stoaty]

so all we have to do to settle the doubters for good are some future predictions.. glad we all agree.

Herm, have you ever considered reading the links that Andy left?

Or perhaps reading the 2009 report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

"On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, the U.S. Global Change Research Program is pleased to
transmit to the President and the Congress this state of knowledge report: “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States.” This report summarizes the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States,
now and in the future.
As our nation strives to develop effective policies to respond to climate change, it is critical to have the latest and best
scientific information to inform decision making. More than a year in the making, this report provides that information.
It is the first report in almost a decade to provide an extensive evaluation of climate change impacts on the United States
at the regional level.
An expert team of scientists operating under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, assisted by
communication specialists, wrote the document. The report was reviewed and revised based on comments from experts
and the public in accordance with the Information Quality Act guidelines issued by the Department of Commerce and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;