Posted by Tina
Obama had the audacity to say it out loud. His intention was to fundamentally transform the United States of America. But the truth is that has been the exact intention of the Marxist that made the Democrat Party their venue of participation in American politics for seventy years. They bring with them the desire to make America a socialist state wherein the government has ultimate control of all sectors of life…education, energy, healthcare, retirement, food production, manufacturing, even leisure and travel. They have already succeeded to a great degree in indoctrinating young minds in our schools but the implementation of Common Core will ensure that for future generations The United States of America will never again be the land of the free.
Hernado Today reports that education has been controlled at the state level but that language in Common Core would change that to create national standards that include moral and civic indoctrination:
…This program would nationalize education against the constitutional provisions that prescribe this responsibility to the states. The founders realized that giving the function of educating citizens to the federal government would eventually be used politically, to mold the minds of children by defining moral values and beliefs of the populace while enlarging their power.
Control at the local level means that parents can be part of the decision making about how students are taught. An example of federal extremism being foisted on children is noted in the article above:
In Skoke, Ill., fourth-grade classes were taught on work sheet lessons that government is equal to the family, according to the lesson. It sets the rules and takes care of people’s needs such as food, education and health. There have been other schools using students to sing the praise of our current president, preaching acceptance of previously perverted behavior and reciting collectivist slogans to convince students that government exists to take care of them.
Morality should be taught in the home. Our country has always respected the differences in moral standards that our citizens hold and managed at the same time to recognize those differences while establishing tolerance in the schools through the use of the golden rule. This program would replace parents as the ultimate moral authority in their children’s lives and make government controlled schools that authority:
CCSS expedites the process of making government schools a vehicle for propagandizing students. The centralized government would be able to “teach” moral relativism, fairness, political correctness, multiculturalism, tolerance for the progressive agenda and bigotry for the traditional moral values. These Marxist/progressive concepts are changing the culture to welfare dependency.
Citizens with school aged children who object to Marxist indoctrination should consider home schooling or one of the alternatives to public education. If that is not an option make your objections known at the local level. Freedom loving parents, parents who want their children to learn to think for themselves and want to maintain the authority for teaching moral values at home, should know that parents across the nation are winning this fight at the local level.
Whether you currently have children in school or not you do have a dog in this fight. Our beloved country will never be the same if we allow this final takeover of education by radical Marxists education activists to exist as the only educational option for young minds. The fight continues on many levels and in many ways. It is imperative that we keep the flame of liberty alive by preserving the ideal of independent thought in whatever way that we can.
Most textbooks are influenced by Texas as they purchase the most. Might take a look at the new Louisiana textbooks. They are so far from reality. math is bad, dinosaur and man lived together, most slave masters were nice ect.
I prefer real facts and to fix things. The new books are being created not from the left but from an extreme faction of the right in our political system
Independent Voters prefer real facts and solutions. No left or Right influence will fix anything.
Re: “They bring with them the desire to make America a socialist state wherein the government has ultimate control of all sectors of life…education, energy, healthcare, retirement, food production, manufacturing, even leisure and travel.”
Yep
WAKE UP AMERICA!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dde_1374573750
Dewey…everybody is crazy except you, right?
You were misinformed, apparently, about Louisiana text books at least according to the National Center for Science Education:
How incredible that some people are afraid of a concept that seems foreign to them but is accepted by millions and millions of people world wide. In fact there are also scientists among them who see a design factor in everything on earth down to the tiniest (discovered) particle.
Darwin’s theory has not been proved and the evolutionists have yet to show bones that demonstrate transitions from species to species…what they have is mankind adapting to his environment.
Nobody has suggested religious training but only information to make students aware of the theory of intelligent design.
Children should be exposed to all kinds of ideas and theories so that they can learn to think for themselves. There is nothing to fear, unless our educational system is determined to be known as agents of indoctrination.
Good video Harold.
People who rely on their Christian faith have through the decades noted signs signaling the end times. Jokes and movie characters have poked fun of these so-called crazies.
Some people are noting these prophecies from the Bible again today but one difference now is that for the first time Christians are being asked to forsake their beliefs or be killed.
There is no question that many of the people who run our education system and write or choose the material are non-religious Marxist types and they are some of the most closed minded, have to be right people.
I say again…what are they afraid of?
I’m not worried about this at all. Especially for high school. Mostly because in Chico, the teachers don’t work hard enough to adopt a new curriculum and they can’t even be bothered to follow state standards. This is one more scam and corporate giveaway to the curriculum producers who want to junk the stuff they just convinced us to buy a few years ago, and start all over again using new materials ($$$) and taking all new developed tests ($$$) and send the teachers to the new trainings ($$$).
Have you bought your raffle ticket to save the high school sports programs yet? Because our schools have no money (-$$$)
Princess: “I’m not worried about this at all.”
Yeah, because you’re not insane. I mean, how mind-poisoned do you have to be to write, let alone believe, a paragraph like this:
“CCSS expedites the process of making government schools a vehicle for propagandizing students. The centralized government would be able to “teach” moral relativism, fairness, political correctness, multiculturalism, tolerance for the progressive agenda and bigotry for the traditional moral values. These Marxist/progressive concepts are changing the culture to welfare dependency.”
This is literally gibberish. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a bunch of buzzwords meant to scare a certain type of person.
But it’s wonderful that conservatives are now flat-out admitting they don’t want fairness taught in schools.
Chris just because you don’t understand it and cannot relate to it doesn’t mean it is gibberish.
That PC closed mind of yours is so locked in you haven’t the ability to consider that “fairness” in a liberals mind is a healthcare system that gives special treatment to some groups or businesses earning the big bucks and not to others. Fairness is taking money from someone who works to give it to someone else who is able bodied but doesn’t work. Fairness is creating a credit card for food stamp recipients so they don’t have to experience the stigma of not earning their keep…even when they are able bodied and spend the money on coke and lottery tickets. Fairness is transferring the responsibility for the family from fathers to government. Fairness is creating dependency in people because it translates to votes so that when young women think of a welfare check as her salary it’s not considered unusual…never mind thoughtless and lacking in any moral or civic grounding. Fairness is encouraging children in school to learn about Islam but making Christians students feel like second class citizens. I could go on all night but I won’t.
We are very familiar with the liberal progressives concept of “fairness” and it is totally ignorant and anything but fair. Fairness to a liberal is all about social control and redistribution. Gibberish!
Happily, Common Core teaches students the importance of citing their sources, so maybe in the future we won’t have so many doctors who either don’t know how or don’t care enough to do so. Nowhere in that essay does Dr. Maglio give any evidence for his wild claims. Why should he? He’s got an audience ready and willing to accept anything that plays on their fears.
Tina: “We are very familiar with the liberal progressives concept of “fairness” and it is totally ignorant and anything but fair.”
Boy, are we ever. Did you hear about the new video series produced by our government on “American Muslims … and the general ignorance about what Islam is.”
You can bet no video about Christianity or Judaism would have been done and their would have been a loud protest on the division between church and state.
Since Jews have always been under attack and now Christians are too I do believe to keep things fair and equal a similar film for all religions should be produced and promoted by our government.
———-
National Park Service produces videos praising Islam:
A series of videos produced for the National Park Service shows American Muslim students blaming hatred against their faith on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The videos also promoted Islam as a pioneer in women’s rights and addressed a “general ignorance about what Islam is.”
“Islam within itself, Islam itself means peace,” the government video states. “Islam brings nothing but peace if you truly look into it.”
The video was posted on the website for the Women’s Rights National Historical Park. It was filmed at the AnNur Islamic School in Schenectady, N.Y. by a National Park Service intern.
According to the park’s website, the three-part series features children as they “discuss their experiences and challenges with negative Muslim stereotypes and assumptions.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/23/national-park-service-produces-videos-praising-islam/?intcmp=latestnews
That audience is made up of a lot of parents that have witnessed liberal indoctrination in the schools first hand because they have children attending school.
Common Core as a concept was supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I can’t defend the Republicans, like George and Jeb Bush, that have contributed to this national takeover. I can offer information for consideration and will continue to do so trusting in your ability to absorb and decide for yourselves.
The following might be of interest:
Rachel Alexander of TownHall:
(Same tactics used to pass Obamacare…secrecy!)
The webpage Truth in American Education posted the following:
Eagle Forum:
And from the grass roots, The Mommy Lobby (Catchy title)…the byline is: “We Tuck the Future in at Night!” The webpage list mommy concerns about Common Core.
The larger point is that this is another example of the agenda to control every aspect of our lives from a central planning national government that progressives are determined to establish as a permanent Democrat majority in authority.
RE Tina: “Chris just because you don’t understand it and cannot relate to it doesn’t mean it is gibberish.”
Amen
Ahhh..with that I will say, “Goodnight!”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Tina: ““Executive Order 13423” is a presidential mandate that all government agencies become “sustainable” entities. It promotes controversial scientific ideas and purports them as factually accurate in a way that could unduly influence students.”
This is not true. Global warming is not a “controversial scientific idea.” It is a controversial political idea. There is no scientific controversy regarding global warming. There is only a political controversy.
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/09/23/ccss-common-core-marxist-propaganda-program-indoctrinate-americas-children/#sthash.dKl5OCXO.dpuf
Chris: “Global warming is not a “controversial scientific idea.”
That is the stupidest thing you have ever said!
Just because you don’t understand the controversy doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The global warming movement with its propaganda arm in politics AND Academe is also extremely controversial.
“Just because you don’t understand the controversy doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
On the contrary, we completely understand that unhappy segment of the population that will not allow scientific fact to inform their political world view.
What to do with them? Not a clue.
Libby you have just proven yourself to be totally uninterested in science and completely devoted to climate alarmist that have been shown to exaggerate findings, dominate and control publication and peer review (also a form of grant control), created the “consensus” myth, worked to disallow and discredit credentialed scientists with evidence that disputes the so-called “consensus” science, and forsaken the scientific method for ideological and political activism!
Consider:
Hello Al Gore and the leftist environmental organizational activists!
Tina, what I said was factually true. 97% of climate scientists believe AGW is occurring. That is a fact. That is not a scientific controversy.
I repeat: There is no scientific controversy about global warming. There is only a political controversy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Thanks Jack!
Here’s more! A February 13, 2013 article in Forbes, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis,” clarifies the matter:
The necessity for conservative backlash and the ensuing revealed alternate opinion was because of the leftist politization of the “opinion” or “agenda” scientists!
Let’s not pretend you haven’t played the game, Chris.
Tina,
I have responded to that article on this site before. The study in question focused on one groups of geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, Canada. No climate scientists were polled. As the study clearly states, the results cannot even be taken as a representation of all geoscientists and engineers, let alone all scientists. You should read the comments below the article, many people called the author out on his misrepresentation. The title, “Study Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical…” is simply a lie. The study did not conclude that, and could not possibly have concluded that based on their findings.
Tina, it is disingenuous of you to allow yourself to launch critiques against scientists who don’t share your viewpoint when you so frequently cite articles which clearly misrepresent scientific data. How about we make a deal: when you learn to read scientific studies, rather than inaccurate articles misrepresenting said studies, then you can critique the vast majority of scientists. Does that sound fair to you?
Amen Chris!
A constant rant of prepared statements seem to flourish round these parts.
Americans need to drop the crap, realize allot of media is corrupt, and talk about subjects using actual facts, learn from each other, and agree to disagree on some issues.
It should also be noted that most of scientists and engineers polled for that study work in the oil industry. The study anticipated that there would be a bias among respondents against AGW; the point of the study was not to determine if they agreed with the consensus view, it was more about the specific answers given by each group of respondents. And the majority of respondents actually did say that some degree of global warming is occuring. Again, Tina, you’d know all this if you’d read the actual study, but you have no interest in doing that.
Chris yours is a covert, snide, deceptive ruse. No thanks.
I don’t make deals with authoritarians who continue to support liars and manipulators bent on destroying businesses, that push politically for punishing taxation and regulation that has destroyed jobs and economies around the world, and that push the indoctrination of children so they can continue to obtain government grants, dominate politically, and/or make a fortune peddling a fraudulent “carbon credit exchange” scheme that rivals the most evil Wall Street scheme you can think of.
You can take that critical eye of yours and turn it toward the so-called scientists (some of them physicians…how’s that for unqualified “scientist”?) who have been the signatores of the global warming hoax.
How about you turn that critical eye on the fraudulent, agenda driven articles that have pushed junk science as “settled” science? Hockey stick anyone?
Einstein wrote/said that if a single scientist disagreed with his theory then there was an obligation to continue to do research. Global warming scientists have ignored or dismisses the findings and opinions of highly respected, credentialed scientists from many climate related fields in complete defiance of this honorable method. I have posted the findings and opinions of some of them AND cited their credentials.
As far as I’m concerned you are out of line and seriously in need an attitude adjustment.
500 Scientists Refute Global Warming Dangers – WND
Petition:
See also this Forbes article which suggests:
Tina, that petition was signed six years ago. Folk gather data, they learn, they change their opinions … well, some folk do.
Like Chris has said, at this point: “There is only a political controversy.”
And the political controversy is between people who want to take responsibility for remedial actions and people who care only about preserving their own comfort.
Libby is it comfort their preserving? I think its far more than that. Some of the GREEN changes demanded place the US at an severe economic disadvantage while other nations have almost no impact, yet they are some of the more gross pollutors. We can’t afford to give up too much of our economy to a world that is eager to eat our lunch. Our status as a world power is being challenged on so many levels we need to be careful what we do here.
Tina, you once again posted an article here that clearly misrepresents a scientific study. The title is a flat-out lie. Instead of acknowledging that fact, you come back with vague, unsupported accusations against scientists who disagree with you. That is unjust and unconvincing. You need to acknowledge and correct your specific error before launching into an attack on someone else.
As I’ve pointed out, you have no qualifications and no credibility to make the accusations you’re making when you CONSTANTLY post articles that misrepresent scientific studies, and you admit that you don’t know how to read the actual studies themselves. It is amusing that you think asking you to know what the hell you’re talking about before you go on a rant about it is somehow “authoritarian,” but apparently that’s the culture we’re living in now.
Chris I can see no reason to take your word for anything. You also have no credentials whether or not you have “read” reports and although you like to present yourself and your sources as if you are a final, ultimate authority, I find your behavior ridiculous.
“You need to acknowledge and correct…”
You need to back off.
“…and you admit that you don’t know how to read the actual studies…”
Correction! You made the accusation and I said nothing. I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that I do not have the credentials to argue the science…I have said nothing about my ability to read. I do however have the authority to post opinions from those in positions of authority who happen to disagree with your opinions and the science you believe is “settled”.
“It is amusing that you think asking you to know what the hell you’re talking about”
Rarely do you ask and, more often than not, you give orders (see example above). I do not appreciate your tone or your attitude. You are a guest here and I think you should respect that if not me.
I have explained to you more than once that I trust our readers to decide for themselves if something posted by you or by me is true.
You have the power to post what you believe is the truth….do it. If it is true it should be sufficient to convince our readers AND make me look foolish.
I find it amusing that you choose me as an object of derision about truth when in fact the entire global warming hoax has been based on exaggeration, manipulation of findings, and outright lies from the beginning:
Top Ten Science Based Predictions That Didn’t Come True is posted at WUWT. Number one is a doozy:
In 2010 Maxim Lott at Fox News posted the following quote:
There are seven more posted at that link.
Here are a couple other opinions by “experts”:
Another couple of oldies but doodies:
People take the things these so-called experts say seriously. They then press for action from the government. In today’s world that activism and the resulting taxation and regulation has caused extreme, unnecessary harm. My purpose in posting dissenting opinions and evidence is balance.
Chris: “It should also be noted that most of scientists and engineers polled for that study work in the oil industry.”
A lot of those people have degrees and experience that give them a hell of a lot more authority to speak than have you.
Being in the oil industry is only an automatic indication of ignorance if you are among those who demonize opponents with differing opinions rather than recognizing they have something to contribute.
Rule number 12, I believe, of the Saul Alinsky manual for leftists.
Libby I appreciate the attempt at diplomacy but at this point it isn’t, “…only a political controversy.” It is also the abuse of science and the integrity of the science community!
Scientists faked the hockey stick and influenced the science community, the politics, and the narrative in media for a good long time. Others fabricators have followed. Consensus was built on lies.
I will give you leftists this…it take incredible cheek to go on the attack when prominent warming scientists have been proven wrong…or found out.
Here’s another favorite untruth issued by a famous glo-warm scientist:
Tina: “Chris I can see no reason to take your word for anything.”
But you don’t HAVE to take my word for it. I told you to look at the comments on that article–nearly every single one points out the obvious inaccuracies in James Taylor’s piece. You can verify those inaccuracies for yourself; you don’t have to be a scientist to see how Taylor misrepresented the study. You just have no interest in doing so.
“You are a guest here and I think you should respect that if not me.”
I respect the truth. When I see people showing profound disrespect for it, as you do when you post articles such as James Taylor’s and then refuse to acknowledge the critiques against them, I get rankled.
“I have explained to you more than once that I trust our readers to decide for themselves if something posted by you or by me is true.”
But most of your readers won’t look any further to verify whether Taylor’s piece was true. You didn’t even do that yourself; you read his claims and automatically believed them, even though we’ve discussed that exact same study before and I’ve shown you it doesn’t say what he claims! Why would you trust your readers to do more work than you, the blogger, has done?
Your readers trust you, and you are misleading them.
“A lot of those people have degrees and experience that give them a hell of a lot more authority to speak than have you.”
Tina, I never questioned the credibility of the scientists polled in that study. I merely said there was an expectation of bias given their industry. And again, the majority of respondents DID agree that some global warming was occurring, so why would I try to discredit them? The study shows the exact OPPOSITE of what James Taylor claimed.
“Scientists faked the hockey stick”
The problem is that you literally have no way of knowing that. You believe it because certain people have told you that, but you’ve believed and repeated so many other things that aren’t true about global warming here that it is clear you lack the ability to objectively analyze the actual data. You are just parroting what you’ve heard. This is the second time in a week you’ve linked to an article misrepresenting scientific research; how many more times do you have to be shown you are doing this before you realize you just don’t know what you’re talking about?
Chris: “I respect the truth.”
No sir, you selectively play at respecting truth.
“When I see people showing profound disrespect for it, as you do when you post articles such as James Taylor’s and then refuse to acknowledge the critiques against them, I get rankled.”
Ditto!
“But most of your readers won’t look any further to verify whether Taylor’s piece was true. You didn’t even do that yourself…”
It is obvious that you will continue to act as if I, and our readers, much dance to your tune!
Frankly, Chris you are a bore and a bit of a tyrant. You create unnecessary animosity and blog clutter by issuing orders and demands. Making the point that you believe the article is filled with inaccuracies isn’t enough for you. No, no no. no no! You find it necessary to bring up charges and issue homework and then become incensed, and ridiculously self-righteous, when others refuse to be ordered about.
All of this is tiring. Again and again you demonstrate that you are quite willing to defend and support people on the left who have been shown to be liars and manipulators, people who use as their bible a book that teaches methods for intimidation and personal destruction of the opposition, people who refuse to argue the facts but instead engage in personal attack.
“The problem is that you literally have no way of knowing that. You believe it because certain people…”
Certain people? That’s your problem. You run around drawing lines. Anyone who disagrees with what you believe to be true must be managed. You’re not willing to just let it be that there is disagreement. You have to crush the opposition.
That type of behavior is quite typical of indoctrinated leftists. Leftists have no room for real diversity and disagreement. When confronted with even credentialed opinion leftists look for ways to discredit and demean the messenger as a means of crushing all opposition to the cause.
“You believe it because certain people have told you that…”
No Chris I was shown how the hockey stick was created by manipulating data and graphs. I read and understood the explanation. I followed the controversy as it unfolded.
Your arrogance knows no bounds; your ignorance and disrespect for the opinions of others, educated with big degrees or not, may be the cause of it.
I have indulged your behavior thinking that dialogue might produce an epiphany; it appears that has been a fools erand.
Tina: “Again and again you demonstrate that you are quite willing to defend and support people on the left who have been shown to be liars and manipulators,”
Typical. I point out specific inaccuracies in a specific article that Tina herself has posted, and instead of engaging or even trying to defend those specific points, Tina responds with vague accusations that imply I am responsible for everything ever said by everyone to the right of Sarah Palin.
I am then called a “tyrant” for reasonably asking that Tina respond to the specific inaccuracies she has posted here.
I mean, is there anyone here who actually thinks these tactics are convincing?
Join a freaking debate club.
Again, just so we’re clear:
Tina linked to an article titled, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis.” The article repeated the assertion several times that the survey found that a majority of scientists were skeptical of global warming.
That assertion was not, in any way, shape, or form, true.
The study’s own authors had to issue a statement explaining that their work had been misrepresented, and that their results could not possibly have found what a majority of scientists believe, given that they only polled geoscientists and engineers working in a specific industry in Alberta, Canada.
They had to issue this statement because Taylor’s claims had become amplified by the conservative media, and many people like Tina believed his claims even though they were completely removed from reality, because they had no interest in reading the study or doing any further research.
Tina said she posted this article because it “clarifies the matter.” In actual reality, that article served to muddy the waters and spread scientific disinformation.
Tina has yet to address this factual error, and calls me a “tyrant” for pressing her to do so.
Despite her clear misrepresentation of a scientific study, and her lack of any pretense of remorse for doing so, she feels that she is justified in continuing to make vague, unsupported accusations against the 97% of climate scientists who agree that AGW is occurring.
Those are the facts. That’s what happened.
How can anyone take anything she says seriously from this point on?
Chris gave it a valiant try…started by simply stating what he thinks….but he just couldn’t help himself.
It is not pleasant dealing with indoctrinated authoritarians and my first thought was to completely ignore his ridiculous petty gripe. But then I thought no…those of our readers who might be curious about the uproar deserve to see that I am quite capable of understanding what qualified credentialed scientists, and the people who write about them, have to say on the subject of man caused global warming and the politics that is destroying economies, businesses, jobs, lives, and the integrity and reputation of the science community.
I am not a scientist and even if I had a degree in English Lit, I wouldn’t pretend to be one. The following represents a sampling of opinion and information gathered from people who are scientists and people who report on what scientists are saying.
Discover similarities between the notion of “science consensus” held by glo-warmists of today and Lysenkoism, a theory canonized by in the 1930’s under Stalin in Forbes. This bit of history has something to teach us.
Two climate experts debate the question, “Any Global Warming Since 1978″ in Forbes.
CATO takes great exception to the sloppy work in the US government’s “Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment”, highlighting the hysteria:
Read also the opinion of Chip Knappenberger, M.S. and B.A. degrees in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia., also of CATO, regarding the embarrassing latest UN IPCC report:
Die hard researchers can also read CATO’s addendum to the above report here.
Even a Man Made Glo-Warmist from MIT was shocked at the bad math and procedural errors cooked into the Hockey Stick graph:
Read the saga of the Sackettes up in Idaho to see how the radical leftists glo-warm agenda bleeds into government to empower tyrannical bureaucrats.
The Canadian site, Friends of Science has a lot of good information and graphs for consideration. More here and here. The people that started this site were alarmed at the level of propaganda going on in Canadian schools and wanted to create a virtual library of scientific information on this subject for all students.
If the science is so compelling what is all the controversy about? I think we have a right to ask questions, to be skeptical, and to dissent. Apparently our leftist friends do not.
Wow for a second I thought I was reading WW2 propaganda.
The textbooks are being changed by the Koch brothers party Plain and simple.
Tina,
Please address the factual errors in the article you cited which falsely claimed that a survey found “a majority of scientists” believed that AGW was not occurring.
It is hypocritical and dishonest of you to accuse others of lying and spreading false information without first acknowledging the false information you yourself have spread.
When you acknowledge and correct your own factual errors, then you may in good conscience criticize those of others. Until that point, you are being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.
The idea that the hockey stick graph was “faked” is a discredited myth. Numerous independent investigations as well as many further reconstructions have shown that Mann’s graph was very accurate.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html#.UkdieIZQHz4
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
“If the science is so compelling what is all the controversy about?”
Again, the controversy does not come from the scientific community, it comes from politicians and the oil industry. Some scientists have hitched their wagon to denialism, but they are a tiny minority.
” Numerous independent investigations as well as many further reconstructions have shown that Mann’s graph was very accurate.”
So you keep saying.
“…the controversy does not come from the scientific community, it comes from politicians and the oil industry.”
So you are saying that the oil industry as a whole created the science and politics behind the radical environmental message and UN push for regulation that would ultimately harm the oil industry?
That’s quite a stretch, Chris.
Individuals in oil, opportunists in oil, those who are committed Marxists (yes they exist) or those who just sense the lefts momentum and want to protect their investments have joined the parade.
As for politicians the majority of them have been leftists with Democrat Al Gore front and center on the world stage. Conservative politicians have (perhaps naively) made decisions that have given glo-warming radicals vehicle to drive in the parade.
Margaret Thatcher was the first to acknowledge the warming theory in England, Nixon created the EPA, and lightweight Republican Governor Schwarzenegger created a carbon credit scheme, joined by five states.
Prior to the onset of reporting by opposition thinkers on the subject politicians of all stripes believed what we were all being told and campaigned offering the usual lip service to the enviro movement for votes. But to suggest that Republicans have been out front in the MMGW parade would be flat out wrong. MMGW is a leftist parade of scientists, enviro groups, and opportunists. They defend their scheme with the typical leftist tactics of labeling dissenters as crazy, fringe, discredited, etc.
Name a green group and then tell me which party receives the majority of their donations and activist support. If it is political, as in having a political agenda, it has been a movement almost exclusively of the left.
“Denialism” is a word coined by leftist green activists…hello!
Al Gore’s daddy was a big supporter of oil but the son wanted to be President so he turned against “dirty oil” and tied his fortunes to radical environmentalist science…even when they fake their predictions and manipulate their models. There is no honor among thieves…most have likely positioned themselves to make big bucks on the carbon trading market scheme and are squawking because it aoppears to be falling apart.
Follow the money. Al Gore buys carbon credits from his energy gobbling self! That’s how dedicated to the science and the earth he is:
1965 – U.S. President Lyndon Johnson tells Congress: “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through … a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”
2001 – President George W. Bush notes the U.S. National Academy of Sciences says greenhouse gases are rising “in large part due to human activity.” He adds: “Yet, the Academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future.”
Radicals have pushed the political agenda all right but it was pushed from the Marxist left (of which there very well could be a few oil execs) but it is still the radical left!
(apologies for the length of the cut and paste of that 2007 Human Events article but I think this is important)
Tina: “Margaret Thatcher was the first to acknowledge the warming theory in England, Nixon created the EPA, and lightweight Republican Governor Schwarzenegger created a carbon credit scheme, joined by five states.”
Right, which just goes to show how radicalized the modern right has become. A candidate could never survive a Republican primary today on Nixon’s platform, or even Reagan’s.
The obsessive focus on Al Gore does nothing to disprove the scientific evidence supporting the theory of AGW. It is a strawman argument. Al Gore is not a scientist and does not represent the totality of global warming research.
I have asked you to address the actual science, starting with acknowledging the misrepresentation of science you promoted by citing that James Taylor article, and you won’t do it. You won’t engage the relevant facts at hand and when you do try and cite scientific research, you misrepresent it.
No, actually it shows how radicalized and looney the left has been for decades. The leftist use conservation as an excuse to push for political redistribution of wealth, power and control.
People in leftists politics today like to think that conservatives/Republicans are greedy beastly people who care nothing about conservation and for money would purposely destroy the planet killing everyone and everything in the process. Since they also narcissistically imagine themselves as the saintly hope for mankind’s survival any actions, like Nixon’s creation of the EPA, can seem like agreement with the lefts radical agenda. It was not. There’s no excuse for Awnuld’s support of the carbon credits scheme. As a businessman he has to know that it represents a terrible job destroying, company destroying, useless radical redistribution solution that will do nothing to preserve the planet. Perhaps he was motivated by problems in his marriage…
The “obssesive focus” on Al Gore is about the politics that uses the GW issue for power, domination, control, personal gain, and redistribution of wealth. You made a big point that the argument is political so what’s the problem?
Some have averred that the politics has been driven by big oil (read greedy capitalists on the right) but Al Gore, radical leftist Democrat, has been the poster boy at the forefront pressing for extreme legislation and regulation to “save the planet” and support of U.N. solutions.
Our readers (and the duped) should know big oil CEO’s are not all Republicans/conservatives…Al Gore’s dad was a big pal of lifelong Democrat oilman
Armand Hammer.
“I have asked you to address the actual science”
I am not qualified to do anything but present for consideration the opinions of those who are qualified to address the science. There is disagreement in the science world whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.
Someone who certainly seems to have the background and authority argues the notion of “settled science” here. I comment on only that which, as an untrained lay person makes sense to me:
The earth environment seems like a complex system to me.
The article goes on but that’s more than enough, at least for most of our readers, to demonstrate that both the politics and the science are not settled…at least not in every mind.
I submit that no person or scientist on the glo-warming left is willing to “engage the relevant facts” or discuss or debate the science in any responsible way. Duh! They have proclaimed that the science is “settled”, the argument is over, and that’s that!
I have ignored your demands purposely because of the blatant disrespect you continue to display. It is you I resist; you and your arrogant, authoritarian demands.
As most of us on the right know arrogance is rife in the leftist MMGW/GW movement.
Tina: “I have ignored your demands purposely because of the blatant disrespect you continue to display. It is you I resist; you and your arrogant, authoritarian demands.”
Again I have to protest: It is not “arrogant” or “authoritarian” to ask someone to correct a lie. And even if I were all of those things, that would hardly justify your decision. You are basically saying that you refuse to correct something you know is not true because the person asking you to do so is being a big meanie. That is beyond immature and irresponsible. Another person being rude is not an excuse for you to be dishonest.
Tina: “There’s no excuse for Awnuld’s support of the carbon credits scheme. As a businessman he has to know that it represents a terrible job destroying, company destroying, useless radical redistribution solution that will do nothing to preserve the planet.”
Or…maybe he knows it won’t do any of those things? You’re talking about a plan that was first introduced by the first Bush administration. This idea was previously embraced by both liberals and conservatives. You’re proving once again how radical the right has become.
“Perhaps he was motivated by problems in his marriage…”
Classy.
The American Thinker piece by Claude Sandroff starts off sounding like genuine skepticism rather than denialism, pointing out that the science is not settled on global warming, and that the standard of proof in science is very strict. Good points, but in other articles Sandroff totally contradicts himself, and states as fact that man-made global warming does not exist. To Sandroff, the science IS settled, just in a different way. He is being disingenuous and employing a double standard, criticizing the majority of scientists for viewing AGW as “settled” while at the same time believing that his own views are settled. He also relies heavily on the work of Dr. Roy Spencer, a creationist who believes that climate change can’t happen because God said so. Oops. How arrogant of me to point that out.