| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Some Politicans do not Believe in Global Warming |
| 2011-08-20 |
| Only the moronic GOP, of course. The political discussion about global warming has lurched dramatically in four years -- even as the scientific consensus has changed little. McCain's 2007 description remains the scientific consensus: Human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is pumping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warming the planet. But that scientific conclusion has become a lively point of debate in the GOP presidential campaign. Joining Perry on the skeptical side, for example, is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who suggested Wednesday that "manufactured science" underpins what a questioner called the "man-made climate-change myth." Let's just say a very weak correlation, shall we? Why does everything have to be black or white? The nominal GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney, drew sharp fire from conservatives when he said in June that he accepts the scientific view that the planet is getting warmer and that humans are part of the reason. Part of the reason? Crackpot! Heretic! TEA PARTIER!! Historically, climate change has ranked near the bottom of issues that voters care about as they evaluate presidential candidates. The major parties' nominees endorsed the Government leads the way again. More tax, more control. But even as it appeared that the government might take sweeping action on climate change, the political opposition intensified. Frightened, perhaps, by the Obamacare time-bomb? President Obama favored a nationwide system in which industries would have to cap their carbon dioxide emissions and trade pollution allowances with one another. The then-Democratic-controlled House passed this "cap-and-trade" system in June 2009, but the plan stalled in the Senate after Republicans and major industries criticized it as a "cap-and-tax" system that would escalate energy costs. Not to mention line the Goracle's pockets. The battleground shifted to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in December 2009 determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. That "endangerment finding" paved the way for regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. GOP lawmakers and industry groups fought the plan, calling it a job-killing tax and an example of government overreach. Don't worry, dear readers; I'm sure the WaPo will rebut that silliness! During this period, Americans -- particularly conservative Republicans -- became less convinced about global-warming science. See? Some in the tea party seized on the issue as a rallying cry in last year's election, which brought dozens of new members to Congress who reject a connection between human activity and climate change. Missteps by scientists have given critics ammunition. Most notorious were "Climate-gate" e-mails hacked from computers at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2009. Embarrassing errors were also found in a seminal 2007 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was supposed to establish, beyond question, the scientific consensus. The science is settled, just like gravity! One passage in the 3,000-page report, for example, stated that massive glaciers in the Himalayas would vanish by 2035 -- which isn't true. First of all, it's a 1991 report on the hydrology of glacier runoff, not AGW. Second, it presumed the current (whatever that was - 1980's? 1990-1991?) trends continued, - a mighty big if, since the trend has already been busted. Third, it said (in that case) some glaciers would be greatly reduced, not disappear. Fourth, the timeline for this potential change was 2350, not 2035. So the IPCC took three giant leaps of faith and a simple typo to manufacture their conclusion. Since everyone believed it, it instantly became more proof. One of the twists in the debate is that the data that show the planet warming over the past century -- data that skeptics often deride as untrustworthy -- also show that the rate of warming has slowed in the past decade or so. "The warming has slowed since 1998," said Tom Peterson, chief scientist for NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. But no one sees a possible conflict between that statement and the next one? The most recent decade is still the warmest on record -- warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s. And NOAA and NASA rate 2010 as tied with 2005 as the warmest year ever measured. A 2010 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed 1,372 climate scientists and found that 97 to 98 percent agreed that humans are contributing to global warming. So the science is settled? Influential conservatives have pushed climate science to the fore of Republican politics. When Romney endorsed the consensus scientific view, talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh immediately declared: "Bye-bye, nomination. Another one down." Thus concludes the case for AGW - if Rush is against it, it must be true! |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #31 LOLs...Exlax would fix that... |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-20 23:39 |
| #30 This has become public endangerment. There is NO excuse for any of it. I will hold ALL politicians responsible for every death when this happens. Someone needs to hit the reset"" button of Washington DC. The whole damnit district has become a loony bin. Mindless stupid idiots from HELL. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-08-20 23:36 |
| #29 Most people know they are not controlling the atmosphere of this great big planet with the tail pipes of their cars. Those "scientists" should just be out-right fired for Fraud, and those that profit from this fraud sent to prison for RICO and extortion charges. The EPA should be totally disbanded and a nationwide investigation should begin. All e-mails and material should be public knowledge as it is a public scandal and those that made money off of it should be publically shamed at the least. I do not like stupid people promoting non-existant problems in the face of real problems. Shame on ALL of you that purported this FRAUD. You bear false witness and have absolutely no intestinal fortitude or honor. Your parents failed you, and you are people that shame the human race. More people will starve an die because of this farce, and trust me, GOD is watching. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-08-20 23:18 |
| #28 The moment a scientist claims anything as an immutable fact, he's not a scientist. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick - Halliburton Lost Drill Bit Division 2011-08-20 23:15 |
| #27 The science is settled, Yup like crap, it settles. Like we used to say in chemistry class, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2011-08-20 23:13 |
| #26 President Obama favored a nationwide system in which industries would have to cap their carbon dioxide emissions Could we make this apply also to the "political" industry. "Sorry Senator, you have reached your carbon dioxide emission limit. No more speeches or statements for the rest of the year." |
| Posted by: Cromert 2011-08-20 23:06 |
| #25 Sorry, there is NOTHING sillier than that drivel... Actually, economic creationism probably qualifies. That's the belief that 'value' magically appears out of thin air or at the whim of a bureaucrat or from a printing press. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-20 22:14 |
| #24 Top three "science is settled" moments: Don't worry,dear. Those leaches are good for you! Penicillin is mold! It doesn't work! It doesn't get any more advanced than trebuchets. |
| Posted by: badanov 2011-08-20 21:51 |
| #23 For clarity, I'm NOT a "Tea Party" person, the term "Tea Bagger' does NOT apply to me. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-08-20 21:11 |
| #22 The problem is a variant of Narcissism whereby the person not only thinks they know more than other people they think they know more about the wants of the other person than the person concerned. Where you find Narcissism you tend to find economic creationists. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-08-20 21:02 |
| #21 Bright Pebbles, I find it interesting how so many of society's problems can be traced back to Judeo-Christian 'Original Sin,' aka Greek 'hubris.' The idea that Man knows more than God causes problems no matter how one defines God - or even IF there is God; when a man (woman or group of them) convince themselves and others that they are all-knowing, the one thing we can be sure of is that they are wrong. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-20 20:15 |
| #20 "I hope the left continue to put off religious voters because if there's one thing sillier than creationism" Sorry, there is NOTHING sillier than that drivel, except for maybe belief in the Tooth Fairy... |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-20 20:09 |
| #19 I hope the left continue to put off religious voters because if there's one thing sillier than creationism, it's the economic creationism that Marx espouses (with the state in the role of God). |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-08-20 19:49 |
| #18 Shakey, you have any evidence or proof for a "well reasoned discourse"? Obviously, if you are so defending it you must have some evidence, yes? Or do you want to keep flinging insults like a monkey flinging poo and defending your beliefs like a religion? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-08-20 19:09 |
| #17 "so keep polluting cuz it's hopeless"... Not 'hopeless', just pointless. And based on relative efficiencies, downright counterproductive. Unless the real point is economic redistribution, and the climate change arguement is just a red herring. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-20 19:03 |
| #16 Shakey Steve: I second my esteemed moderating colleague Badanov. 'Tea bagger' is an insult. It was created to be one, it is one, and it's one that shall not be used at Rantburg. As Badanov said, you have a choice. AoS (moderator) |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-08-20 19:00 |
| #15 Shakey Steve: As a matter of warning, this is your last one. One more ad hominem atttack, one more personal snide remark, and I will disappear your remarks from Rantburg, all of them, permanently. You now have a choice. You can debate, or you can disappear. Your choice. |
| Posted by: badanov 2011-08-20 18:29 |
| #14 Aw yes, that old attitude "if we lower are carbon footprint and the Commies don't, it would have no effect, so keep polluting cuz it's hopeless"...is that part of the TP platform? Listen, put your big-girl panties on and stop the crying... |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-20 18:26 |
| #13 called him early. |
| Posted by: Frank G on the road 2011-08-20 18:24 |
| #12 Shakey, I am active in our local tea party and I resent your insulting terminology. Read my post above and explain just what you think tea partiers like me are getting wrong about climate change (we'll leave discussing the real heart of the tea party movement for another time.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-20 18:18 |
| #11 Just trying hard to wear our your welcome, eh Shakey Steve? |
| Posted by: badanov 2011-08-20 18:17 |
| #10 "Redneck Jim" thinks science is crap, so it's settled y'all. You like dim Tea Baggers, do ya? |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-20 18:13 |
| #9 The science is settled, Yup like crap, it settles. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-08-20 17:56 |
| #8 The enlightened 'scientists' in the GOP think the Earth is 7000 years old and that cavemen were hunting dinosaurs for din-din. No need to worry...the Tea Baggers have a plan...pollute cuz the Commies are...just make sure you keep the curtains pulled and have shotgun in hand...what dipshits. |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-20 17:49 |
| #7 The "scientific consensus" is this... If I keep my mouth shut about doubts I will keep getting grants. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-08-20 15:34 |
| #6 Of course climate change is real. And the change has been Global Warming since wooly mammoths roamed the countryside. SOME component of that change is man-made (particulate pollution causes shade, & cooling; CO2 & methane releases cause some warming; burning methane that would otherwise naturally be released causes cooling); the real question is “How big is the man-made effect?” We don’t know. Then even if we did know, and it was big, the question remains “What can we DO about it?” We could cut the US carbon footprint to zero and all it would do is delay that CO2 emission a few years. In fact, more efficient combustion here means less CO2 emission per unit of economic output than in, say, China, and there’s no way China is going to sacrifice its development to ‘save the planet.’ |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-20 15:08 |
| #5 I figure the only way MMGW advocates will ever shut up is when those who engaged and continue to engage in scientific fraud are brought up on criminal charges. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-08-20 13:49 |
| #4 The Himalayan glacier claim wasn't so much the glaciers would shrink, but would cause x million/billion people to experience water shortages. This was based on simple ignorance of the fact himalayan rivers flood in late summer with the monsoon. The peak of agricultural demand for water. The people who wrote the report assumed late summer was low water in rivers as it is in temperate zones. And smaller glaciers = less summer river flow. The reality is less summer flow from melt is the proverbial drop in the ocean when summer rainfall is 100+ inches. But then the people who wrote the IPCC report weren't scientists. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2011-08-20 12:28 |
| #3 The great global warming swindle is just a big transnational-bureaucrat-class lie to take away our freedoms and tax us And not just the US but every country. We are fighting this idiocy in Australia right now. It's a big lie that the science is settled, that scientists all agree, that humans are destroying the planet with C02. CO2 is NOT pollution. It is a harmless gas that is essential to life as we know it. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. Sunspots and solar weather activity has a big influence on climate. Go see NASA's website on it. Green fascists: go to hell |
| Posted by: anon1 2011-08-20 12:18 |
| #2 What cracks me up is the data they point to only goes back a few decades. In order to get the big picture, you have to go back a few hundred thousand years at least. Once you go back that far, the little warm blip that is the past few decades disappears as statistical noise. It is called climate, and it changes with, or without us. I swear these people so want to believe that this has become their religion and god. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-08-20 11:24 |
| #1 Thepolitical discussion about global warming has lurched dramatically in four years -- even as the scientific consensus has changed little. ahhh, invoking "consensus" in the first sentence? Smells like |
| Posted by: Frank G on the road 2011-08-20 11:05 |