Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[thereisnospoon]

"What would you think if your government didn't believe in gravity? If your senator alleged that, because they couldn't see it, perhaps it didn't exist. To many, this might seem absurd—the science is enough to know that it's real."

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress

"Almost 30 years ago, a NASA scientist named James Hansen pleaded with Congress, under the Reagan Administration, to accept the evidence and do something about it. "It is already happening now," Hansen said before a Congressional committee in 1988."

"Fast-forward three decades, and the United States is facing one of its most anti-science Congresses in history. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives have gone on-record to denounce climate change as a hoax. Others have proven through their votes that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not a priority. And still, some state representatives claim to believe in human-made climate change, but consistently support policies that would erode initiatives to combat it."

The colors used here are no mistake. The alignment between a representatives position on AGW and his political party is almost perfect. And you can see many instances of the same reasoning you'll find here on this forum, in the halls of our Congress. The most common answer seen from our representatives is that the Earth's climate has always been dynamic and that the changes over the last century and a half are simply Mother Nature at work. Unsurprisingly, that reasoning is as easily refuted as all the rest. Of course the Earth's climate is dynamic, but through its very long history, that dynamicism has resulted in changes orders of magnitude slower than the changes we are witnessing now. And the various variable factors that naturally control our climate: ex solar irradiance and orbital mechanics, indicate that we should be cooling now. But, of course, we are not.

So, once again, would you vote for a representative that didn't believe in gravity? What if he thought we were all actually held down by magnetism or by wee demons trying to drag us to Hell? Would you vote for a senate candidate that believed the Earth was flat, that humans had never traveled to space, much less the moon? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who believed that modern medicine was an evil to be eliminated from modern society? The belief that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is a natural climatic change (or a lie constructed by thousands of corrupt scientists) and that human GHG emissions have no involvement, is just as false and just as dangerous.

Oh please.
Climate change is a political religion. Nothing else...It's horse crap....Conspiracy theories= free entertainment

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your claim that AGW is on the same plain as the law of gravity is obvious horseshit. The rest of your post is a waste of band width.

The percentage of scientists who accept each are almost equal. But if you do not want to otherwise participate, I will not complain.

Accept? No try PAID....Paid by powerful behind the scenes people such as George Soros.

 

[Crick]

There's a new one. The 64,000 scientists who accept AGW do so because George Soros gives them money.

Have any... what do they call it??? Ohh... uh... evidence?

 

[Aponi]

"What would you think if your government didn't believe in gravity? If your senator alleged that, because they couldn't see it, perhaps it didn't exist. To many, this might seem absurd—the science is enough to know that it's real."

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress

"Almost 30 years ago, a NASA scientist named James Hansen pleaded with Congress, under the Reagan Administration, to accept the evidence and do something about it. "It is already happening now," Hansen said before a Congressional committee in 1988."

"Fast-forward three decades, and the United States is facing one of its most anti-science Congresses in history. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives have gone on-record to denounce climate change as a hoax. Others have proven through their votes that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not a priority. And still, some state representatives claim to believe in human-made climate change, but consistently support policies that would erode initiatives to combat it."

The colors used here are no mistake. The alignment between a representatives position on AGW and his political party is almost perfect. And you can see many instances of the same reasoning you'll find here on this forum, in the halls of our Congress. The most common answer seen from our representatives is that the Earth's climate has always been dynamic and that the changes over the last century and a half are simply Mother Nature at work. Unsurprisingly, that reasoning is as easily refuted as all the rest. Of course the Earth's climate is dynamic, but through its very long history, that dynamicism has resulted in changes orders of magnitude slower than the changes we are witnessing now. And the various variable factors that naturally control our climate: ex solar irradiance and orbital mechanics, indicate that we should be cooling now. But, of course, we are not.

So, once again, would you vote for a representative that didn't believe in gravity? What if he thought we were all actually held down by magnetism or by wee demons trying to drag us to Hell? Would you vote for a senate candidate that believed the Earth was flat, that humans had never traveled to space, much less the moon? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who believed that modern medicine was an evil to be eliminated from modern society? The belief that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is a natural climatic change (or a lie constructed by thousands of corrupt scientists) and that human GHG emissions have no involvement, is just as false and just as dangerous.

Why dont you tell us how you will change the climate

 

[Crick]

We need to eliminate as much of our GHG emissions as possible. That would include CO2, CH4, NO2, and CFCs. We need to try to stop deforestation and reforest where we can. We need to shift power generation to nuclear, solarPV, wind, OTEC, hydroelectric and any other efficient alternative technologies that get developed. We need to move transportation to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. We need to push mass transit where it is not yet popular (like the US). We need to stop wood burning in Africa and Asia as fast as we can.

We need to put a live flower on every desk and workbench.

 

[Flopper]

"What would you think if your government didn't believe in gravity? If your senator alleged that, because they couldn't see it, perhaps it didn't exist. To many, this might seem absurd—the science is enough to know that it's real."

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress

"Almost 30 years ago, a NASA scientist named James Hansen pleaded with Congress, under the Reagan Administration, to accept the evidence and do something about it. "It is already happening now," Hansen said before a Congressional committee in 1988."

"Fast-forward three decades, and the United States is facing one of its most anti-science Congresses in history. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives have gone on-record to denounce climate change as a hoax. Others have proven through their votes that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not a priority. And still, some state representatives claim to believe in human-made climate change, but consistently support policies that would erode initiatives to combat it."

The colors used here are no mistake. The alignment between a representatives position on AGW and his political party is almost perfect. And you can see many instances of the same reasoning you'll find here on this forum, in the halls of our Congress. The most common answer seen from our representatives is that the Earth's climate has always been dynamic and that the changes over the last century and a half are simply Mother Nature at work. Unsurprisingly, that reasoning is as easily refuted as all the rest. Of course the Earth's climate is dynamic, but through its very long history, that dynamicism has resulted in changes orders of magnitude slower than the changes we are witnessing now. And the various variable factors that naturally control our climate: ex solar irradiance and orbital mechanics, indicate that we should be cooling now. But, of course, we are not.

So, once again, would you vote for a representative that didn't believe in gravity? What if he thought we were all actually held down by magnetism or by wee demons trying to drag us to Hell? Would you vote for a senate candidate that believed the Earth was flat, that humans had never traveled to space, much less the moon? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who believed that modern medicine was an evil to be eliminated from modern society? The belief that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is a natural climatic change (or a lie constructed by thousands of corrupt scientists) and that human GHG emissions have no involvement, is just as false and just as dangerous.

Most of them do believe what scientists are saying. They are just choosing to ignore them because they believe supporting climate change measures are not in their best interest. They are not going to be around in 20, 40, or 60 years. They aren't concerned about the world they are leaving for future generations. They're concerned about how much major supporters pledge next year, results of the next election, and the cushy job they plan to move into when they leave office.

 

[Crick]

I think we should convince them that their assumptions as to what their constituents want to see is incorrect.

 

[Flopper]

"What would you think if your government didn't believe in gravity? If your senator alleged that, because they couldn't see it, perhaps it didn't exist. To many, this might seem absurd—the science is enough to know that it's real."

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress

"Almost 30 years ago, a NASA scientist named James Hansen pleaded with Congress, under the Reagan Administration, to accept the evidence and do something about it. "It is already happening now," Hansen said before a Congressional committee in 1988."

"Fast-forward three decades, and the United States is facing one of its most anti-science Congresses in history. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives have gone on-record to denounce climate change as a hoax. Others have proven through their votes that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not a priority. And still, some state representatives claim to believe in human-made climate change, but consistently support policies that would erode initiatives to combat it."

The colors used here are no mistake. The alignment between a representatives position on AGW and his political party is almost perfect. And you can see many instances of the same reasoning you'll find here on this forum, in the halls of our Congress. The most common answer seen from our representatives is that the Earth's climate has always been dynamic and that the changes over the last century and a half are simply Mother Nature at work. Unsurprisingly, that reasoning is as easily refuted as all the rest. Of course the Earth's climate is dynamic, but through its very long history, that dynamicism has resulted in changes orders of magnitude slower than the changes we are witnessing now. And the various variable factors that naturally control our climate: ex solar irradiance and orbital mechanics, indicate that we should be cooling now. But, of course, we are not.

So, once again, would you vote for a representative that didn't believe in gravity? What if he thought we were all actually held down by magnetism or by wee demons trying to drag us to Hell? Would you vote for a senate candidate that believed the Earth was flat, that humans had never traveled to space, much less the moon? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who believed that modern medicine was an evil to be eliminated from modern society? The belief that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is a natural climatic change (or a lie constructed by thousands of corrupt scientists) and that human GHG emissions have no involvement, is just as false and just as dangerous.

I would never vote for a climategate denier.

I can excuse a congressman who doesn't have the extremely deep understanding of the science that I do. Very few people on this planet do or are even capable of that. And they were getting mixed messages from people claiming to be scientists.

However, when the climategate emails were released by a whistleblower in 2009, the entire debate in congress should have been over, once and for all. The people on the CAGW side of debate were shown, by their own words, to be complete frauds. The IPCC was shown to be a completely farcical institution.

And people like Crick and OldRocks/Matthew were proven to be a bunch of idiotic fucking dupes.

Many deniers beginning with Trump are conspiracy theories and contrarians. They will take issue with just about anything that most people accept as truth. These people are not the real problem. It's the great mass of people who simply don't care what happens once they leave this earth. What happens to future generations is immaterial to them. What is important to them is they don't have to make any changes that might be an inconvenience.

As someone said the best and worst thing about climate change is most people alive today will not experience the worst of climate change. If next year brought 400 mph hurricanes slamming into the US coast, the wheat crops in Midwest were dying, tens of thousands of people in the Southwest were moving north to escape the heat, climate change would become a real national emergency. America would be moving away from fossil fuels at rate no could have imagined.

Sometimes I think Climate Change is God's test of humans to see if they have learned to work together for the common good.

 

[SSDD]

I am here to talk about the science...

Really? That's odd. You have said countless times you don't believe the fundamental tenets of basic physics that are in all textbooks.


.

And yet another bald faced lie from the second or third biggest liar on the board...but do feel free to provide such a quote if you like...

Won't be happening...will it? Because it is a lie...the tedium never ends..

 

[SSDD]

What is obviously self explanatory is your inability to provide even one single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Every post you make is "self-explanatory" and very predictable.

And still not the first piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you know why you can't post it? Any idea? Take a guess..

 

[the other mike]

 

[SSDD]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

 

[boedicca]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

 

[Crick]

Gollee, that is funny. Just not true.

 

[Wuwei]

I am here to talk about the science...

Really? That's odd. You have said countless times you don't believe the fundamental tenets of basic physics that are in all textbooks.

And yet another bald faced lie from the second or third biggest liar on the board...but do feel free to provide such a quote if you like...

Won't be happening...will it? Because it is a lie...the tedium never ends..

Lucky I kept notes on your stupidity. Here are some tenets and observations in physics that you don't believe and that show your ignorance of the physical sciences. Quantum Mechanics is a major one. Others involve thermodynamics and miscellany. These are the quotes you wanted that show that you don't believe the fundamental tenets of basic physics.

No Evidence
#106 True, I don't believe quantum mechanics as a whole.
When you set the temperature of the two objects in question to the same temperature, the output of the primary radiation is zero.

The [S-B] equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool.
Equipartition theory doesn't work in the atmosphere.

#118 Quantum mechanics is science’s equivalent of political polarization.

No Evidence
#826 Since energy only moves in one direction T, according to the S-B law will always be the radiator and Tc will always be cooler than the radiator...that is a basic assumption of the S-B law...and for the equation in question

No Evidence
#888 the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict.

No Evidence
#1048 What you call "modern" physics is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
#754 So what if the 2nd law violates Quantum Mechanics.

#755 There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies

#769 the frequency of gamma radiation makes it hotter than anything you might find in the infrared spectrum even though you could hold the emitter in your hand.

#117 Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?
His response to my statement:You can't get more spontaneous than radioactivity.

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
Man made work means not spontaneous. #453
Energy previously absorbed – never spontaneous. #457
Does not believe cold molecules can strike a warm wall #457
Rock rolling downhill not spontaneous if carried up. #464

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
If I thought CMB BB radiation hit the antenna, I would say it..it didn't...that antenna picked up a resonant radio frequency...being a radio telescope and all..

BBC to reduce deniers coverage
#121 Has no idea of what stimulated emission means.
#125 Says luminescence is Stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...
#270 Increasing entropy flowing one way means thermal energy can only flow one way.
No man-made apparatus can exhibit spontaneous energy flow.

#299 Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...
#270 A single photon radiating at either frequency [0.2um or 10um]will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.

LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.
The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters. #720
LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere. #722

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
[scientists] believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB. #233

Science is falsifiable
“Heat of compression” is the same as “pressure due to heat.”

No Evidence
A black body emits whatever it absorbs...if it is absorbing a single wavelength then it is emitting a single wavelength..

 

[Wyatt earp]

 

[Crick]

You don't think no modern medicine might have something to do with that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You don't think no modern medicine might have something to do with that?

Most medicine needs plastic that is made out of oil, which you want to ban.

 

[Flopper]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

Climate Science is Science but it's not an exact science when it comes to forecasting. There is a ton of evidence that the climate is changing and greenhouse gases are responsible.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The problem with natural variability is it does not explain the observed relationship between rising CO2 levels and temperature.

How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ignoring the fact that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is more closely related to denial than anything I am doing... I am asking for evidence...you can't provide it, but call me a denier. See a disconnect from reality there?

Climate Science is Science but it's not an exact science when it comes to forecasting. There is a ton of evidence that the climate is changing and greenhouse gases are responsible.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The problem with natural variability is it does not explain the observed relationship between rising CO2 levels and temperature.

How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural

Whats up with you guys not admitting deforestation in the southern hemisphere is on par with burning fossil fuel?