Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
The key word of Rushes POV on the subject of Libs funding a "scientific" study that leads to a "SUGGESTS" in order to condone legislation to control our habits.
I HATE Rush concerning Globalism, but I agree with him on this issue.
NOBODY is going to pass tax-sucking, life-controling legislation on me because a "scientific" study "SUGGESTS".
Yes, I know Rush gives NO details about the study.
That his MO; he NEVER details the opposition.
I hate pollution, but stop telling me every two years to change my lighting fixtures.
Last edited by USCitizen; 05-11-2012 at 12:10 AM.
You should always have an informed opinion, so after I inform you, please feel free to express my opinion...USCitizen
If Rush could come up with a counter argument for the results of the initial study other than mocking sarcasm then I might give him a chance but at the moment it's a radio show host arguing against a scientist on a scientific subject and I know who my money is on to be right in that scenario.
What, a bet that Rush knows more about science than a scientist?
Oh right, so you'll happily tar the entire scientific community because some things were done badly will you? We have hundreds of studies that point towards climate change being man made and you concentrate on and put all your faith in the few that disagree or the odd misdeed. It's strange how the most ardent claims of scientists being biased are from the right and those who think everything is peachy and we should just keep using fosil fuels rather than changing towards a more efficient and less polluting alternative.
I also assume that you think Rush has no political affiliation and that he's not doing exactly what you're accusing the scientists of doing in misleading the public to get what he wants.
Here is how the top climatologists in the world said it works:
1. they are hired by the government to do some legitimate study, say wind speed changes across a region.
2. they report their legitimate findings on wind speed (in the technical part of the report that no one reads).
3. A politically motivated bureaucrat writes a politically motivated "summary" of all these reports that the actual top climatologists in the world never see nor do they agree with.
4. The top climatologists in the world have their names on reports where the summary is AGW is real.
This process happens, as you've pointed out 100's of times. Perhaps you are also unaware of various email scandals (more than one) that PROVED other scientists hid the global warming decline, falsified data or failed to conclude where the data took them - to refute AGW? Why do you supposed they would do that by the way? Better chance of more funding. Scientists know who butters their bread!
Perhaps you are unaware of the "scientist" in one IPCC report claiming the snow capped mountains of the Himalayas would be gone by 2005? The scientist turned out to be an economist. Perhaps you are unaware the IPCC never retracted the report or explained how they credited a non-field scientist with such a outlandish claim?
Perhaps you are also unaware of so many AGW predictions that have already proven false, e.g., Polar caps melted by 2008, coastal region under water by 2010, animal extinctions, world unrest, food shortages, dramatic increases in cancer and hurricanes increasing in frequency and intensity, and on and on and on?
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
-- Patrick Henry
It doesn't say that it lead to their extinction, it says that it was an important factor in WARM climates.Mesozoic sauropods, like many modern herbivores, are likely to have hosted microbial methanogenic symbionts for the fermentative digestion of their plant food . Today methane from livestock is a significant component of the global methane budget . Sauropod methane emission would probably also have been considerable. Here, we use a simple quantitative approach to estimate the magnitude of such methane production and show that the production of the greenhouse gas methane by sauropods could have been an important factor in warm (emphasis added) Mesozoic climates.
You can read the whole article for yourself: http://download.cell.com/current-bio...ermediate=true
Rush uses one example of researcher misconduct as an excuse to dismiss the preponderance of scientific data that supports the facts that:
1) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up with a strong correlation to the start of the industrial era.
2) CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas
No one has a computer simulation that shows that continuing to increase CO2 will not lead to an increase in average global temperature. Computer simulations aren’t perfect but they are pretty good. Look at the simulations for hurricane forecasts for example. The simulations are not all in perfect agreement but we don’t see simulations where the hurricane goes in a completely different direction. We also have:
Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround' - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - NBCNews.com
As I watch Rush expound on how expert he has become in global warming science, it is obvious that he’s the dinosaur fart stinking the place up.
Don't let Rush filter the information for you. He is not interested in you knowing THE truth. He just wants you to belive his truth (and that is a lower case "h"). He is selling his political agenda while lamenting that everyone else is corrupted by their political agenda. The facts and physics are there for you to come to your own conclusion. Don't take Rush's word for anything.
Like I said, Rush relies heavily on the stupidity of his fans. If his fans weren't stupid enough to believe outright lies, he likely wouldn't have his job.