The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[bripat9643]

They don't emulate the fascists. They are fascists.

It's more correct to compare deniers to Stalinists than fascists, given the way they try to emulate Stalinist policies. For example, most deniers on this board demand that any scientist who dissents from the official policy of DerParteiRepublikkan must be imprisoned.

Nope. I have never seen a single post where a skeptic demanded that the AGW con artists be put in jail. The only thing I have ever asked is that they be removed from the government tit. Demanding that their critics be put in prison or even executed it the modus operandi of the AGW cult. I can post most numerous cites to prove it.

They're not shy at all about letting their Stalinist freak flag fly. And, exactly like the Stalinists, they also declare it's justified because those dissenting scientists are guilty of numerous CrimesAgainstTheState. If the deniers here were in power, they'd fill up a lot of gulags with their perceived enemies.

That is the weakest attack on AGW critics I have ever seen. The truth is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The cult members are the ones displaying all the classic characteristics of Stalinism. It's so blatant that it's not even debatable. Only a congenitally retarded asshole would even make such a claim.

Just consider the fact that Michael Mann is the one suing Mark Steyn and the National Review, not the other way around.

 

[depotoo]

Congressional Progressive Caucus : Caucus Members
Surely you are aware of the Congressional Progressive Caucas.

Progressives always need a scapegoat; Hitler had the Jews, Stalin the Kulaks, Mao the Capitalists and American Progs have the Koch Brothers

Isn't is cute the way nutters like to call all those horrible people "progressives".

Do me a favor, dummy. Name the five leading American progressives of the 20th century.

Thanks.

 

[g4racer]

"The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change " Your wrong, they've been there from the beginning. DuPont and India are a good example. If Business were to admit that warming existed (and I have not like that name since it was introduced, I prefer Climate Change) they would have an obligation to do something about it. Moving out of the USA to a country that will allow anything means they do not have to comply with regulations. Paying off people in India is cheaper than doing the right thing They did not care about the lives of people in India The foundation of the Tea Party is in denial of most NT teachings (the foundation being the Moral Majority) so spend all their time in 1/4 of the OT and Revelation
They made their choice a long time ago, that which is important is money and they are willing to do anything to get it.
Do we have a problem with welfare in this country? If anyone say No I have a problem with them. The problems can be fixed, you don't have to do away with the entire system, it might take work and some thought; but that is something that politicians have always had a problem with.
I like the GOP always using Thomas Jefferson as there example but feel Alexander Hamilton would have been a better choice. Seeing that George Mason gave us the Bill of Rights it might be worth while considering him.

 

[Politico]

Isn't is cute the way nutters like to call all those horrible people "progressives".

Do me a favor, dummy. Name the five leading American progressives of the 20th century.

Thanks.

1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) Woodrow Wilson
3) FDR
4) Jimmy Carter
5) Th current Boi King
6) Hillary

Nice job, Gramps. We can argue some...but it doesn't matter.

Now....which one of those has emulated any of the fascists that your pal mentioned?

Do you see why his post was retarded?

BTW...why do you have difficulty calling Mr. Obama by his name and/ or title? Mental block?

There is no argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

They don't emulate the fascists. They are fascists.

Yeah. Duly elected....and often reelected.....fascists.

You are a special kind of stupid.

The fascists in Germany were elected and reelected as well. And, hey, guess what? They also used the government to persecute their political opponents, just like Obama, Harry Reid and company use the IRS!

Libturds are all despicable sleazy Nazi thugs.

Hey Grampa Roo! Look.....he used the NAZI card! Get him!

 

[LoneLaugher]

He thinks his shit doesn't stink.
He TRULY thinks his shit doesn't stink.

He has NO trouble lying, in fact lying is fine IF it gets him what he wants.
He is racist to his core.
He does NOT like this Nation as founded...He TRULY wants to and has engaged in "fundamentally" transforming this Nation into something it was never intended to be.

Ooooooh! You sound just like a Brian Kilmeade fart there.

The guy is humble enough....for a POTUS. Hard to be contrite when you hold that office. Not special.

Look at you. You are an insurance agent. You think your shit don't stink. Right?

Again with the lying whine. You have got to admit that every POTUS has told a few.....and are fine with it. Not special in the least.

Racist? That is a funny one. You can't prove that. Period. By the way....are you racist?

He doesn't like this nation as founded? That is a real odd one. You can't prove that either.

Are you feeling silly yet? You sure are looking silly.

Why would I feel silly?
Because some kid barely wet behind the ears thinks I should?
No,you you don't mean anything to me.

He called his grandmother a"typical white person".
He called his grand father a "House ******".

His book is titled Dreams of My Father".
His Father's dream was social justice in the form of Socialism.

He is on record as saying that the Warren Court was not radical because it did not venture into "redistributive justice".

See kid, every time you engage me I slap you every which way but loose.

You haven't slapped anyone. But nutters sure do love to claim empty victory.

Does your shit stink?

 

[sameech]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

How many people make their voting decisions on climate change? I would be willing to bet whether or not it is raining on election day will affect election outcomes more than a candidate's opinions on climate change. It's weather, not climate, that decides the winners and losers.

 

[Antares]

Ooooooh! You sound just like a Brian Kilmeade fart there.

The guy is humble enough....for a POTUS. Hard to be contrite when you hold that office. Not special.

Look at you. You are an insurance agent. You think your shit don't stink. Right?

Again with the lying whine. You have got to admit that every POTUS has told a few.....and are fine with it. Not special in the least.

Racist? That is a funny one. You can't prove that. Period. By the way....are you racist?

He doesn't like this nation as founded? That is a real odd one. You can't prove that either.

Are you feeling silly yet? You sure are looking silly.

Why would I feel silly?
Because some kid barely wet behind the ears thinks I should?
No,you you don't mean anything to me.

He called his grandmother a"typical white person".
He called his grand father a "House ******".

His book is titled Dreams of My Father".
His Father's dream was social justice in the form of Socialism.

He is on record as saying that the Warren Court was not radical because it did not venture into "redistributive justice".

See kid, every time you engage me I slap you every which way but loose.

You haven't slapped anyone. But nutters sure do love to claim empty victory.

Does your shit stink?

Very much so, now go play in the sand box its about all you are qualified to do.

 

[Fishlore]

Marco Rubio tells Florida Republicans that global warming is a hoax. Future generations of Floridians will erect a statue to this weather profit for his courageous stand. Alas, the statue will have to be made from cork as huge strips of the Sunshine State, including most of its cities, will under water by 2050. Ya gotta love it!

Ya know Nixon was told that D.C. and NYC would be under water by 2000.. So where does this 2050 date come from? What's the latest record of EXTREME hurricanes and weather events for Florida?

Florida's problems go far beyond the occasional storm surge. The Sunshine State is basically a big sandbar resting on a substratum of limestone. Its highest point is little more than 100 feet above today's sea level. Miami is already experiencing street flooding under clear blue skies as salt water intrusion dissolves its fragile bedrock and pollutes its rapidly shrinking aquifers.

Elsewhere giant sinkholes are opening up swallowing cars and houses within moments and runoff and other pollution sources destroy the slow-flowing rivers and canals which are the only storm drain system dealing with the violent downpours common in the nation's second rainiest state.

Climate change denial is now a basic part of the GOP ideology despite the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. The party that legitimized the idea of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs has taken another fundamentalist swipe at modern science. Alas, climate change bites a lot harder than dinosaurs.

 

[mamooth]

Ya know Nixon was told that D.C. and NYC would be under water by 2000..

Pathetic, flac. That is, repeating that flagrantly dishonest bullshit which you full well know to be flagrantly dishonest bullshit.

Given you'll lie so brazenly about that, everything you say comes into question. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, all of your statements have to be assumed to be fabrications.

 

[KNB]

No one will miss Florida once its gone. Perhaps we should speed up the Greenhouse Effect and get it over with.

 

[bripat9643]

Ya know Nixon was told that D.C. and NYC would be under water by 2000..

Pathetic, flac. That is, repeating that flagrantly dishonest bullshit which you full well know to be flagrantly dishonest bullshit.

Given you'll lie so brazenly about that, everything you say comes into question. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, all of your statements have to be assumed to be fabrications.

How ironic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deniers will continue, even beyond the point that the ocean begins to creep into the lobbies of Miami hotels.

Florida is 'Ground Zero' for sea level rise

I am sure that by the time the level rises to the point that ocean fronts are abandoned and entire buildings are lost to the sea, the GOP will come up with another reason this is happening. They have always had a certain ability to twist lies to their advantage.

The deniers will continue

I'll deny the Earth is warming, even if the mile thick ice over Chicago melts.
Wait, that already happened and we didn't do it.

I won't deny that climate changes.
I won't even deny that extreme weather constantly happens and has for billions of years.

I will deny that giving the government trillions of dollars to waste on "green energy" will give us the perfect, unchanging, non-extreme climate while creating millions of "green jobs" without damaging our economy and sinking our standard of living..

 

[Edgetho]

More Global Warming happening as we speak!!!

USCG Concludes Its Largest Domestic Icebreaking Operation

The US Coast Guard continues the battle against global warming.

Via Marine Link

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) crews concluded the nation’s largest domestic ice operation known as Taconite, Thursday, after more than five months of icebreaking operations in the Northern Great Lakes.

Coast Guard Sector Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, plans and runs Operation Taconite, which includes all of Lakes Superior and Michigan, the northern half of Lake Huron, the St. Marys River and the Straits of Mackinac.

During the 160 days of the operation, nine U.S. Coast Guard and three Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers spent more than 5,000 hours breaking ice for convoys and assisted in 946 commercial vessel transits that moved an estimated 33 million tons of dry bulk and liquid cargoes, valued at $1.2 billion. These commodities were crucial to sustaining industrial production and power generation for the Great Lakes region during the winter months. Icebreakers provided direct assistance for 517 of the transits.

An additional 5,597 hours of icebreaking established and maintained tracks through the ice-choked waterways of Georgian Bay, Straits of Mackinac, Green Bay, southern Lake Michigan, St. Marys River, and across Lake Superior.

U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard aviators flew 43 sorties in direct support of the icebreaking operation, providing a bird’s-eye view of ice coverage, track quality and open water.

Although official statistics have not been released, it is reported the 2013-14 winter season produced the thickest and most expansive ice cover the Great Lakes has experienced in 35 years.

dimocraps are stupid, lying scum

 

[Paperman299]

See my response to Zeke above.. There are no GLOBAL proxy studies that have the resolution to detect 100 year events. That INCLUDES the Mann Hockey and all the other "hockey sticks" out there. You've got to remember that we are all panicking (most of you) over 0.6degC in your lifetimes. And all those graphs are scaled that way. And looking at just historical study -- say Brazil using lake mud cores -- will show similiar events in recent geological history. But when you try to combine say 200 of those studies to cover the entire GLOBE and make a comparison -- you really don't get enough coverage of the globe and the time resolution sucks. It's like trying to digitize an audio signal at rates BELOW the speed of the sound waves.

So it is irresponsible NOW to making comparisons about the GLOBE and how our brief modern instrumentation observation compare with trees.

Someone coined a phrase -- "I think that I shall never see --- A thermometer as bad as a tree".. And THAT is a more rational view of our ability to look back into temperature on the planet..

But this is conflating uncertainty over how much for uncertainty over if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened, is already having severe effects.

Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were 10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.

So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?

Right now and for the past 15 years or so -- the fire is just smoldering. No significant rise in surface temperature. Now -- I'm not gonna tell you that there might be some global warming trend BURIED under whatever causes explain that pause in temp. rise -- but I AM gonna tell you that the "models" were not worth a shit in PREDICTING IT... A reasonable person with appreciation for math and science would deduce that whatever SUPERPOWERS CO2 is said to have -- SOME OTHER effects are in play and are NOT accounted for. So my position is -- Climate science has jumped the shark with the CO2 fallacy for politcal/economical reasons and is only lately paying attention to some fundamental science of how the Earth distributes, dissapates and stores heat.

And I don't want to derail this thread with a science discussion because it's been allowed to remain in Politics because the discussion was about policy. But there are HUNDREDS of threads in the Enviro forum about each one of these issues in detail. And I'd welcome you to join us there to discuss the "nutters" and "enviro-nuts" and why the science is ANYTHING but settled.

Looking at your RealClimate link in another response of yours, I came to this quote:

Q: What about temperature projections for the future?

A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study.

Your assertion that there's "no significant rise in surface temperature" carries less weight when the experts you're quoting disagree with you. And citing an expert's credentials and quoting him, without admitting that his position is actually contrary to your own, is being less straightforward than you could be.

As to the "small" increase, what those experts are also saying is that a global change in temperature does not need to be a large number on the Celsius scale in order to be a drastic force for change. There's just no reasonable disagreement anymore that an artificial and rapid increase in global temperature, following the trend we're experiencing now, will have Bad Consequences for humanity. I agree that the science can still stand to improve (it always can), and that the pause in the temperature increase clearly tells us there's more to be learned (there always is).

But there's simply no substantive science telling us man-made climate change will work out OK, just minor causes for doubt, which are totally negligible when taken together with the mountain of evidence that it won't. And that in a nutshell is why I take the position it's well past being reasonable for the GOP to go on denying man-made climate change and resisting legislation to ameliorate it.

PS I see you've responded to another post of mine, but I think I've made my point here. After all, if westwall doesn't like any of those quantifications of human-driven climate change, there's thousands of others to rebuke his claim. Besides, I think it is time I branched out from the Politics sub-forum...

 

[Erand7899]

No one will miss Florida once its gone. Perhaps we should speed up the Greenhouse Effect and get it over with.

I second that. I live in Florida, on one of the high points. When the waters rise I will sell my property as beach front property, and move to Colorado. Every black cloud has a silver lining when you take your dumbass head out of the sand and look for it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ya know Nixon was told that D.C. and NYC would be under water by 2000..

Pathetic, flac. That is, repeating that flagrantly dishonest bullshit which you full well know to be flagrantly dishonest bullshit.

Given you'll lie so brazenly about that, everything you say comes into question. Unless independent evidence shows otherwise, all of your statements have to be assumed to be fabrications.

Don't blame me for you inability to read recent papers introduced to the Nixon Library.
You are a STELLAR denier tho.. Maybe we have a job for you..

 

[flacaltenn]

But this is conflating uncertainty over how much for uncertainty over if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened, is already having severe effects.

Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were 10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.

So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?

Right now and for the past 15 years or so -- the fire is just smoldering. No significant rise in surface temperature. Now -- I'm not gonna tell you that there might be some global warming trend BURIED under whatever causes explain that pause in temp. rise -- but I AM gonna tell you that the "models" were not worth a shit in PREDICTING IT... A reasonable person with appreciation for math and science would deduce that whatever SUPERPOWERS CO2 is said to have -- SOME OTHER effects are in play and are NOT accounted for. So my position is -- Climate science has jumped the shark with the CO2 fallacy for politcal/economical reasons and is only lately paying attention to some fundamental science of how the Earth distributes, dissapates and stores heat.

And I don't want to derail this thread with a science discussion because it's been allowed to remain in Politics because the discussion was about policy. But there are HUNDREDS of threads in the Enviro forum about each one of these issues in detail. And I'd welcome you to join us there to discuss the "nutters" and "enviro-nuts" and why the science is ANYTHING but settled.

Looking at your RealClimate link in another response of yours, I came to this quote:

Q: What about temperature projections for the future?

A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study.

Your assertion that there's "no significant rise in surface temperature" carries less weight when the experts you're quoting disagree with you. And citing an expert's credentials and quoting him, without admitting that his position is actually contrary to your own, is being less straightforward than you could be.

As to the "small" increase, what those experts are also saying is that a global change in temperature does not need to be a large number on the Celsius scale in order to be a drastic force for change. There's just no reasonable disagreement anymore that an artificial and rapid increase in global temperature, following the trend we're experiencing now, will have Bad Consequences for humanity. I agree that the science can still stand to improve (it always can), and that the pause in the temperature increase clearly tells us there's more to be learned (there always is).

But there's simply no substantive science telling us man-made climate change will work out OK, just minor causes for doubt, which are totally negligible when taken together with the mountain of evidence that it won't. And that in a nutshell is why I take the position it's well past being reasonable for the GOP to go on denying man-made climate change and resisting legislation to ameliorate it.

PS I see you've responded to another post of mine, but I think I've made my point here. After all, if westwall doesn't like any of those quantifications of human-driven climate change, there's thousands of others to rebuke his claim. Besides, I think it is time I branched out from the Politics sub-forum...

Marcott contradicted NOTHING that I said. Looking at future projections for 2100 has NOTHING TO DO with the temperatures being flat for the past 15 years. And if you noticed -- the statistical bracket on the predictions for just 80 years out goes from 1.1 to 6.4degC is NOWHERE NEAR "settled science". It's more like reading tea leaves. And NO that bracket isn't largely due to the CO2 scenarios, it's because of the range of ficticious number called Climate Sensitivity.. The magical number that gives CO2 it's superpowers.

You need to show any statement I made that was in conflict with what Marcott said in that interview.. Science orgs are waking up.. There's a general revolt of the membership at AGU because the members want to be consulted on the orgs' GW statement. And one of the prestigious lead labs on GW (Max Planck Institute) is admitting that the understanding of the Climate System has to go to a new level to understand the past 100 years.

It's aint' "settled" by any means.

 

[RKMBrown]

Marco Rubio tells Florida Republicans that global warming is a hoax. Future generations of Floridians will erect a statue to this weather profit for his courageous stand. Alas, the statue will have to be made from cork as huge strips of the Sunshine State, including most of its cities, will under water by 2050. Ya gotta love it!

Weather profit. Ayup that's what this global warming bull shit is all about. Profit for the likes of Al Gore and crew.

 

[Politico]

No one will miss Florida once its gone. Perhaps we should speed up the Greenhouse Effect and get it over with.

I second that. I live in Florida, on one of the high points. When the waters rise I will sell my property as beach front property, and move to Colorado. Every black cloud has a silver lining when you take your dumbass head out of the sand and look for it.

Sounds like a plan. And you get rid of Miami to boot. Now Kalifornia. That whole place can't wash away fast enough.