Why do liberals believe in junk science?

Question

http://newsbusters.org/node/10750

Answer 1

I helps them blame America for the worlds' ills.

Answer 2

There are a few main questions you must ask yourself.

Is human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the one and only cause of global warming? If you answer yes to this question, you are a moron. There is significant historical evidence that the climate of our world is not static and is in fact dynamic and always changing. This comic ray idea along with other natural processes can explain changes in the global climate in the past. This is the reason for stuff like the ice age. Human activity alone cannot explain climate change.

Does human activity impact the global climate? If you answer no here, you are a moron. We release thousands upon thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. While we are doing this, we are changing the way our world controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by removing thousands of square miles of rainforest annually. The net result, more CO2 in the atmosphere, which will lead to an increase in global temperatures and a change in the global climate.

Which of these two causes, natural or human, can we control? We clearly have no control over the number, energy, or type of cosmic radiation that is incident on our atmosphere. We also cannot control any of the natural processes that could lead to global climate change. We can however, control our own activity and take steps to reduce our impact on the global climate. This would mean taking steps to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we need to burn and can be done two ways, conservation (use less) or innovation (find new sources of energy).

I will not outright dismiss the cosmic ray idea, but I do assure you that the science behind global warming is sound. A combination of human activity and natural processes is likely to blame for the change in the global climate and there are easy steps we all can take to lessen our own impact and reduce the effect of human activity.

Answer 3

Junk science is the deliberate falsification and misrepresentation of evidence. While junk science is commonly used by charlatans with dubious credentials to promote dietary supplements, it is extremely rare among scientists with legitimate credentials. The term junk science is not applicable to points of view that you do not agree with, if honestly arrived at on the basis of evidence.

I read the underlying scientific papers. The authors are credible, but the news article goes beyond the conclusions of the scientists. The basic supposition is that cosmic rays modulate cloud cover on earth. More cosmic rays = fewer clouds = net warming. The variation in solar radiance is too small to be a factor in radiative forcing; the sole hypothesized effect is a change in albedo. The authors can show a correlation between solar activity and cloud cover for approximately one solar cycle (10-12 years) and properly conclude that more study is warranted. The problems that I see are:

1. A physical mechanism linking cosmic rays to cloud formation is not proven. Further study may elucidate some complex link, but until that link is found, the correlation is no better than coincidence.
2. Alternate explanations for the correlation must be considered. Human activity is known to produce aerosols (smog). The cloud cover results may correlate equally well with a reduction in SO2 emissions from power plants, and the subsequent atmospheric distribution. The implementation of the US Clean Air Act is concurrent with the data set. Another coincidence?

The authors of the cosmic ray hypothesis are aware of these problems and have plans to address them by collecting more and better data. The validity of their hypothesis will be settled on the basis of experimental evidence. This is the scientific method in action, not junk science.

Answer 4

Your making a judgment call that can't be backed up. Not all "Liberals" do believe in Global Warming.
It is my wish that all who bandy the word "Liberal" around would look it up in the dictionary. I have & find it to be a pretty good label, not something wrong, evil or untrustworthy. All good meanings. Find another word to use that more aptly applies to what you are trying to discredit.

Answer 5

Cosmic rays cause global warming??? Oh come on, next thing newsbusters will report is that Alien creatures from Mars and Europa cause global warming with their laser death rays.

Answer 6

Does this look like something "cosmic rays" could do?
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9601/mexico_smog/city_smog.jpg

Or this?
http://www.engelhard.com/images/Product/smog%20in%20the%20city.jpg

How about this? Is this just junk science?
http://healthandenergy.com/images/smog_in_the_city.jpg

Is this the kind of environment you're defending? What species ARE you?

Answer 7

Why do cons never believe independently verified scientific probability of hundreds of scientific teams? In this case 90%. Yet they point to one scientist, and one who may agree as proof it's all a fabrication? Is this an example of cons lack of rigorous thought - ala Rush Limbaugh?

Answer 8

because they go to college to get degrees in things like English and Political Science when all you need is spell check to not fail out.

Answer 9

haha, you dum dum. If you read it. It's say it is " Combating Liberal Media Bias"! You just made yourself and other Conservs look stupid. haha! I bet those conservs are going to leave dumb messages about liberals and not even read the link. HaHa! you guys are so stupid. haha you make this site funny.

Oh, and to go along with msi_cord, I am also a physics student who wont rule out that idea. Even if it is from a CONSERVATIVE website.

Answer 10

lisa b,did you just say anthropologists are racist? LOL! Holy Bigfoot!