Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

[expos4ever]

No, it's not "us vs them". It's the liberal vs. everyone else. The liberal politicians love to divide and conquer. To them, if you don't agree with them, here comes the racist card, sexist card, xenophobic card, homophobic card, nativism card, and etc. That's their M.O. And the ironic this is, the Demoncrat's history is filled with KKK and Jim Crow law.

Care to support these sweeping claims with some evidence?.

 

[expos4ever]

To all those who recognize the danger of the conspiracy-theory thinking and muddle-headed arguments of the climate change deniers: You will never convince these people to change - they have already drunk the Kool-Aid. For them to realize the error of climate change denial would be too much of a challenge to their own sense of who they are.

Instead, I suggest we focus on the young and, more generally, those who have not committed to a position on this question. In complement to this, we need to advocate for measures that increase scientific literacy in the general population.

 

[expos4ever]

Those who would deny the broad scientific consensus that climate change is both real and caused by human agency have limited options since they surely cannot make their case based on the evidence. Why not? I suggest the reason is quite obvious - the only ones qualified to render an authoritative opinion on this are duly credentialed scientists. And these people - the real experts - are almost unanimous to the effect that humans have caused climate change.

So what options are left to the deniers? Why, unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory-inspired demonizing smears like this:

The liberal politicians love to divide and conquer. To them, if you don't agree with them, here comes the racist card, sexist card, xenophobic card, homophobic card, nativism card, and etc. That's their M.O. And the ironic this is, the Demoncrat's history is filled with KKK and Jim Crow law.

 

[nChrist]

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

 

[theHighlander]

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda [...]


Congress: Obama AdminFired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans



Still don't think "Climate Change" is not an agenda by the bully liberal government, aka Obama government?

Climate change is natural, what they are talking about is anthropogenic climate change, or man-made climate change which is bogus. I explain this in the video here
where I also explain how natural, real, climate change works and that it's mostly influenced by astronomy and ocean currents - nothing to do with us. Most green house gases in the atmosphere, around 95%, is water vapor and carbon-dioxide is less than a percentage.

 

[expos4ever]

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

From this article:

"The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures. But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data."

Well, I am confident the overwhelming majority of experts disagree.

Given that you and I are not climate experts, please explain precisely why I should believe that the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts are mistaken.

 

[expos4ever]

Climate change is natural, what they are talking about is anthropogenic climate change, or man-made climate change which is bogus.

What are your academic qualifications in respect offering an informed opinion on climate change?

Me? I have none. So I do what most reasonable people do - defer to the experts.

I do not diagnose my own health, I go to see a trained medical professional.

I do not get into the pilot's seat of the jumbo jet, I leave that task to a trained professional.

At the end of the day, denial of human-caused climate change has to be a political argument since the science so clearly tells another story. If the consensus were not so strong, perhaps things would be different.

Remember - a huge fraction of Americans believe the earth is 10,000 years old (or even younger). And this despite punishing evidence to the contrary.

Houston, we have a problem.

 

[expos4ever]

Most green house gases in the atmosphere, around 95%, is water vapor and carbon-dioxide is less than a percentage.

It really seems you are implying that since CO2 is less than a percent, it cannot be a problem.

If so, do I really need to point out the problems associated with such a position?

I will generously assume that you realize that this, in and of itself, is not an argument against the deleterious effects of CO2. After all, would you drink a beverage that was "less than a percent" botulism toxin?

 

[expos4ever]

Most green house gases in the atmosphere, around 95%, is water vapor and carbon-dioxide is less than a percentage.

From "Scientific American":

Claim 1 (from those who deny human-caused global warming): Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.

Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

 

[expos4ever]

More from "Scientific American":

True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.

This is a devastating counter-argument to those who make the argument that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 cannot be a problem because such contributions are dwarfed by natural sources.

It is indeed true that human contributions are relatively tiny. But it certainly does not follow that they cannot be a problem. Analogy: Imagine a bridge engineered so carefully that it will support 100 tons of weight without collapsing but would indeed collapse if 101 tons were brought to bear.

Surely we can understand that the adding of an extra ton - only 1 % of the 100 ton threshold - has devastating consequences.

I politely suggest that a lack of critical thinking skills in the general population - no doubt attributable to poor education standards - makes it easy for overly simplistic counterarguments to the scientific consensus to gain any purchase whatsoever.

 

[nChrist]

Common sense may eventually prevail. Many so-called scientists write or say what they're told to. Why? They know that they will get fired, lose their grants, and/or be excommunicated. So, many of them lie and become good little climate zealot soldiers. In turn, many professors turn their students into good little climate zealot soldiers.

Many try to make fun of those who deny man-made global warming. In reality, the deniers are the real intellectuals.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I do not buy that at all. Common sense would be recognising all the science showing that climate change is real. If one truly understands science and how studies are conducted, one would see that results dictate how the scientist presents them.

What I have read is that much of the climate denial goes back to companies who make money on fossil fuels and the politicians they bought.

 

[expos4ever]

Common sense may eventually prevail. Many so-called scientists write or say what they're told to. Why? They know that they will get fired, lose their grants, and/or be excommunicated.

One hears this facile argument often. The problem is that it backfires on analysis. There is, I suggest, no plausible basis for attributing bias to the vast majority of experts who believe global warming is human-caused. What financial interests would be served by falsely claiming that global warming is human-caused? Surely not the powerful corporations who want nothing more than free licence to continue pillaging the planet at the behest of stockholders.

Another problem with the argument you put forward in your post is that you could make the same claim about any group of paid professionals whose findings you happen to not like. For example, why not suggest that scientist are "bought" in order to propagate the belief that excessive drinking causes health problems?

The very real problem is that there really is no evidence, or even a plausible reason to expect any, that climate change scientists are doing anything other than faithfully going where the evidence leads.

 

[nChrist]

You forgot what the OP was about. Go back and read it.

 

[expos4ever]

You forgot what the OP was about. Go back and read it.

If this was directed at me, my posts are clearly directly on topic.

From the OP:

Still don't think "Climate Change" is not an agenda by the bully liberal government, aka Obama government?

My post are indeed relevant to rebutting this assertion from the OP.

 

[Arcangl86]

What happened sounds more like "Program Director Fired for Trying to Save Own Job."

 

[jsn112]

Care to support these sweeping claims with some evidence?.

Turn on the tv sometimes.

 

[jsn112]

What are your academic qualifications in respect offering an informed opinion on climate change?

Me? I have none. So I do what most reasonable people do - defer to the experts.

I do not diagnose my own health, I go to see a trained medical professional.

I do not get into the pilot's seat of the jumbo jet, I leave that task to a trained professional.

At the end of the day, denial of human-caused climate change has to be a political argument since the science so clearly tells another story. If the consensus were not so strong, perhaps things would be different.

Remember - a huge fraction of Americans believe the earth is 10,000 years old (or even younger). And this despite punishing evidence to the contrary.

Houston, we have a problem.

So..., are you saying that you are not smart enough to do some investigation yourself?

 

[jsn112]

I do not buy that at all. Common sense would be recognising all the science showing that climate change is real. If one truly understands science and how studies are conducted, one would see that results dictate how the scientist presents them.

What I have read is that much of the climate denial goes back to companies who make money on fossil fuels and the politicians they bought.

Sorry, but you just wrote something that you didn't recognize that is contrary to your point and that is: "If one truly understands science and how studies are conducted, one would see that results dictate how the scientist presents them."

Have you seen their scientific methodology? I guess you haven't.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I read quite a bit of the studies actually.

The scientists present climate change as human caused because the science shows that it is.