Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[SSDD]

You made a deflection

Posting images of a climate change-related rain event was not a deflection, but nice try.

Got any actual evidence that the storm was related to climate change? Any at all?

 

[SSDD]

Might help you if you look at data newer than 2004....guess you haven't heard that arctic ice is making a record breaking come back...

 

[SSDD]

View attachment 250645

Always picking a short view with no other reason than to try and scare people with a bald faced lie...here is what today's arctic ice looks like compared to most of the past 10,000 years...

It is understandable why you post short views...if you tell the actual story, your story makes you look like the f'ing lying idiot you are.

 

[SSDD]

France is a democracy.

Do you NOT want a democracy here?

Not at all...democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner...I prefer a representative republic which is what the constitution provided for us...interesting that you don't even know what form of government you live under...

 

[hunarcy]

I'm sure that when millions have become refugees, are starving or dying of thirst, boredom will be a big part of their suffering.

And, among the scientists of the world, there is no longer a debate. YOURS is precisely the strategy that was employed by the tobacco industry to create a false impression that there was some debate as to whether or not cigarettes were harmful. Not surprising since the false debate scam was brought about by the exact same people.

Do you touch your children with the hands that type that shit?

The University of Alabama-Huntsville study, conducted by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider, shows that not only is the temperature rising far more slowly than predicted, but that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

 

[Hale]

That is all modeled bullshit not supported by local tide gauges....it's like the global temperature...nothing like actual warming when you look at regions...the warming only shows up in the heavily manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record...sea level is the same...look at local tide gages and sea level is continuing at the same 3mm per year rate that it has for a hundred years....look at the global record, and after climate pseudoscience gets through with it, you would think that we should all start building arks...

And even though modeled, it fails to prove any point. The rate is nearly uniform, which it should NOT be across that time span if "greenhouse gases" are a factor. There should be an upturn...

 

[Crick]

France is a democracy.

Do you NOT want a democracy here?

No, we do not.

What we want, and what we are supposed to have, is a constitutional republic, with limited government.

I was using the term democracy to indicate that French citizens vote for their leaders and representatives. France is also a constitutional republic. "

Your addendum concerning limited government is not to be found in the Constitution.

Over in France... Do you want that type of government here?

 

[Crick]

I'm sure that when millions have become refugees, are starving or dying of thirst, boredom will be a big part of their suffering.

And, among the scientists of the world, there is no longer a debate. YOURS is precisely the strategy that was employed by the tobacco industry to create a false impression that there was some debate as to whether or not cigarettes were harmful. Not surprising since the false debate scam was brought about by the exact same people.

Do you touch your children with the hands that type that shit?

The University of Alabama-Huntsville study, conducted by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider, shows that not only is the temperature rising far more slowly than predicted, but that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

That's nice. Now all they have to do is convince the 56,000 other climate scientists who, for the most part, disagree.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm sure that when millions have become refugees, are starving or dying of thirst, boredom will be a big part of their suffering.

And, among the scientists of the world, there is no longer a debate. YOURS is precisely the strategy that was employed by the tobacco industry to create a false impression that there was some debate as to whether or not cigarettes were harmful. Not surprising since the false debate scam was brought about by the exact same people.

Do you touch your children with the hands that type that shit?

The University of Alabama-Huntsville study, conducted by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider, shows that not only is the temperature rising far more slowly than predicted, but that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

That's nice. Now all they have to do is convince the 56,000 other climate scientists who, for the most part, disagree.

First, you say there is no debate. Then, when shown that debate still occurs, you try to minimize the fact that the debate continues based on new facts. I have no idea why people might think you post in bad faith.

 

[Crick]

There is a debate going on here, on this forum, of which I am a participant. When I say there is no debate about AGW, the apparently excessively subtle point I am making is that more than 98% of the world's climate scientists are convinced that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. They accepted this conclusion several years ago and have not wavered. They are no longer wondering about these points. They are completely convinced. They have moved on to other things. They are not listening to you nor the few people from whom you get your denier talking points.

I'll try to speak more simply the next time I see you on the other side.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"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.

^ Science Denier

 

[Crick]

Yes, Trump, most republicans and many of the people Trump has appointed to government offices are science deniers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I was using the term democracy to indicate that French citizens vote for their leaders and representatives. France is also a constitutional republic. "

Words have meanings. If you don't use words to carry the meanings that others understand them to have, then at best, this results in miscommunication, if not outright, willful deceit.

Your addendum concerning limited government is not to be found in the Constitution.

At the federal level, it absolutely is in there. The Constitution specifically enumerates the finite, limited powers that the federal government is to have, and the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from claiming or exercising powers outside those that are specifically designated to it.

 

[Markle]

The sad truth is that the Global Warming cabal's forecasts failed in coming to past so many times that they had to change their name to Climate Change. A name no one can deny. Climate Change has been happening for at least six billion years.

Their goofy tens of thousands of scientists agree is just that, goofy.

As for, "the models show this...or that...or whatever. I live in Florida so I watch hurricanes during the season. If you have ever seen the "computer models" of where a hurricane is to go in the next week, you have seen a plate of spaghetti. Each of those dozens of models is based on the most accurate information available using the most sophisticated, accurate technology available.

Now, if they can't reasonably forecast the path of a hurricane, on which they have every iota of information at their fingertips. How can they tell us what influence man is having on the climate of the earth?

 

[Crick]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is still Anthropogenic Global Warming

I also live in Florida. Hurricane path predictions have improved immensely in the last several years. And there is a difference between pinpointing the center of a storm five days in advance and estimating the average temperature of the planet fifty years on are two different things. As to the actual performance of contemporary GCMs:

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

There is a debate going on here, on this forum, of which I am a participant. When I say there is no debate about AGW, the apparently excessively subtle point I am making is that more than 98% of the world's climate scientists are convinced that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. They accepted this conclusion several years ago and have not wavered. They are no longer wondering about these points. They are completely convinced. They have moved on to other things. They are not listening to you nor the few people from whom you get your denier talking points.

I'll try to speak more simply the next time I see you on the other side.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

 

[Crick]

Do you know the difference between a survey and a poll?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[133] This study was criticised by Richard Tol.[140]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

 

[the other mike]

You made a deflection

Posting images of a climate change-related rain event was not a deflection, but nice try.

Got any actual evidence that the storm was related to climate change? Any at all?

There's some evidence that warmer ocean temperatures contributed at least 10% to the total rainfall but probably more.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/harvey-global-warming.pdf

 

[Crick]

Do you know the difference between a survey and a poll?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[133] This study was criticised by Richard Tol.[140]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

This is the scientific consensus that our president and his political party choose to reject out of hand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is still Anthropogenic Global Warming

I also live in Florida. Hurricane path predictions have improved immensely in the last several years. And there is a difference between pinpointing the center of a storm five days in advance and estimating the average temperature of the planet fifty years on are two different things. As to the actual performance of contemporary GCMs: