Senate votes to begin global warming debate

[IisJustMe]

WASHINGTON — The Senate began what is expected to be a weeklong, contentious debate Monday over legislation to combat global warming by mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Senators voted 74-14 to proceed to the bill, but immediately it became clear Republican opponents were not going to make it easy. A request by Democrats to begin considering substantive changes in the bill was blocked by GOP opponents until Wednesday at the earliest.

Fox News: The great global warming debate

This should be interesting ... providing there's no bloodshed.

 

[HollandScotts]

Gas is already 4$ a gallon, and we're going to make it even more expensive with some stupid asinine policies that are just going to make billions for the govenment and special intrests group and do nothing for the enviroment, and give government the power to regulate our lives inside and out just because some morons proclaim they have a consensus of other morons that say stupid things?

 

[IisJustMe]

Gas is already 4$ a gallon, and we're going to make it even more expensive with some stupid asinine policies that are just going to make billions for the govenment and special intrests group and do nothing for the enviroment, and give government the power to regulate our lives inside and out just because some morons proclaim they have a consensus of other morons that say stupid things?

Basically? Yes.

... oh, that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

 

[chaim]

So in your opinion, essentially the entire scientific community including the National Academies, the Royal Society and NASA are all morons? Who do you consider smart people?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

So in your opinion, essentially the entire scientific community including the National Academies, the Royal Society and NASA are all morons? Who do you consider smart people?

According to this website that documents the temperature stations in the US, and the Site Reference Handbook that they link to, 13% of the temperature sites actually produce accurate data.

That's out of a sample of 43% of the temperature sites in the United States.

 

[chaim]

Luckily our temperature records are based on more than just individual weather stations. There are satellites that measure lower tropospheric temperatures, radiosondes which measure the temperature profile, buoys that measure sea surface temperature and surface temperature reference stations that meet very strict quality control standards. All these different techniques come to the same conclusion, the earth is warming at an alarming rate.

According to this website that documents the temperature stations in the US, and the Site Reference Handbook that they link to, 13% of the temperature sites actually produce accurate data.

That's out of a sample of 43% of the temperature sites in the United States.

 

[HollandScotts]

So in your opinion, essentially the entire scientific community including the National Academies, the Royal Society and NASA are all morons? Who do you consider smart people?

If those organizations have come out in support of global warming, yes. And what does NASA have to do with anything, aren't they a little busy with the cosmos to be experts on our climate?

And how about the 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition claiming global warming is bunk? Or are they the morons?

 

[platzapS]

And how about the 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition claiming global warming is bunk? Or are they the morons?

How many of those people are non-industry-funded climatologists?

 

[Ave Maria]

Leave it to the Republicans to oppose protecting our earth.

 

[FilM]

If those organizations have come out in support of global warming, yes. And what does NASA have to do with anything, aren't they a little busy with the cosmos to be experts on our climate?

And how about the 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition claiming global warming is bunk? Or are they the morons?

I see some people are still swallowing the Exxon line hook-line-and-sinker.

Exert from Scientific American:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community

And there are plenty of non-PhDs with absolutely no background in science or engineering who signed it, like the "famous" Al Caruba, a pesticide industry PR man, bogus entries such as B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from MASH), and double entries.

From Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.

So even if all the double and bogus entries were included, 31,000 out of even 500,000 is hardly a strong response - 6%! And 31,000 our of 10,000,000?

 

[chaim]

Okay, so anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. NASA is very much interested in our home planet. Thus they are one of the leading agencies in climate change research:

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/climate-variability-and-change

As Film has pointed out the "petition of 31000 scientists" is rather bogus, unless you think Gerri Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice) is an expert on climate change.

If those organizations have come out in support of global warming, yes. And what does NASA have to do with anything, aren't they a little busy with the cosmos to be experts on our climate?

And how about the 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition claiming global warming is bunk? Or are they the morons?

 

[HollandScotts]

Leave it to the Republicans to oppose protecting our earth.

Perhaps you could demonstrate how cap and trade legislation will protect anything?

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.

Well that sure is a massive sample right there. How many climate scientists have come on board with global warming?And how many of what kind of scientists who believe in global warming isn't even the topic. Why don't you demonstrate how this legislation will help us, unlike the ethanol scam these morons forced down our throats.

 

[revolutio]

I have to agree about the ethanol push being effectively a scam. So I hope that doesn't come in to play on a debate about the realities of global warming.

 

[fieldy]

HollandScotts why do you feel the need to keep calling so many people morons? I understand there is a debate on what effect humans have on global warming and what we can do about it if anything. Having said that it's pretty obvious that global warming exists. The evidence is just so overwhelming.This is not some left vs. right issue. The state of our planet is bigger than such a petty rivalry. It's bigger than me. It's bigger than you or any other person.

 

[chaim]

There is really no question amongst practicing climate scientists as to whether climate change is real and whether humans are largely responsible. Instead of looking at asinine surveys of random folks who got a postcard in the mail, take a look at the actual science being done. Take a quick look at the most recent Journal of Climate. None of the papers are suggesting that climate change is not anthropogenic. Furthermore not a single scientific institute or professional society doubts the existence of anthropogenic climate change. If there was debate amongst climate scientists, where are the scientific papers suggesting that climate change is not anthropogenic? Why aren't any scientific institutions coming out with position statements claiming that climate change isn't happening?

Or is the problem that all these PhD's and researchers are all morons and don't know nearly as much about the climate system as you do?

Perhaps you could demonstrate how cap and trade legislation will protect anything? Well that sure is a massive sample right there. How many climate scientists have come on board with global warming?And how many of what kind of scientists who believe in global warming isn't even the topic. Why don't you demonstrate how this legislation will help us, unlike the ethanol scam these morons forced down our throats.

 

[IisJustMe]

The Big Lie (of the kind Hitler told often enough and loud enough until it was accepted as truth despite still being 100% lie):
"The reality of human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming is a consensus opinion among climatologists."

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, AGW as a primary cause of the 100-year temperature increase of one degree is a minority opinion, and is most commonly held by those closely associated with IPCC study commissioned by the UN.

AGW is a political hook upon which the anti-US contingent of nations hopes to hamstring the US economic advantage while letting countries that are bigger polluters than the US avoid the same kind of sanctions being imposed on industrialized countries such as the US.

Global warming is real, to the extent that temperatures have risen one degree on the median over the last 100 years. Ignored by the proponents of AWG is the fact that temperatures over the last 3,000 years have been higher and have increased at rates and levels three to five times the 100-year anomaly observed by the alarmists. These increases came at times when man was still in the stone, bronze and iron ages, and no harm came to the planet, though men noticed their growing seasons were longer and more productive. Aside from that obvious fact, the largest "greenhouse" gas is carbon dioxide, which is 96.4% naturally occurring, the likelihood of global warming being primarily human caused is slim to none.

There are those on this thread who have seen me argue this point before, have asked for sourcing, have been given it, and have then proceeded to deny its validity, despite the work having been done by noted and credentialed climatologists. Why they pick and choose which climatologists to believe is beyond me to explain. Ask them.

 

[chaim]

How many times do we have to have this discussion. You post a bunch of unsupported and largely false "facts" (which you claim to have supported "before"). You are claims are shown to be categorically untrue by peer reviewed science. Then you post them all again a week later.

So to rehash again - we have not had warmer surface temperatures for at least the past 12000 years.

Humans are responsible for way more than 5% of the total co2 accumulation.

Anthropogenic climate change is by far the majority view amongst scientists.

So unless you have some ground breaking research that proves every major scientific institute in the world wrong, would you please stop repeating the same falsehoods.

The Big Lie (of the kind Hitler told often enough and loud enough until it was accepted as truth despite still being 100% lie):
"The reality of human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming is a consensus opinion among climatologists."

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, AGW as a primary cause of the 100-year temperature increase of one degree is a minority opinion, and is most commonly held by those closely associated with IPCC study commissioned by the UN.

AGW is a political hook upon which the anti-US contingent of nations hopes to hamstring the US economic advantage while letting countries that are bigger polluters than the US avoid the same kind of sanctions being imposed on industrialized countries such as the US.

Global warming is real, to the extent that temperatures have risen one degree on the median over the last 100 years. Ignored by the proponents of AWG is the fact that temperatures over the last 3,000 years have been higher and have increased at rates and levels three to five times the 100-year anomaly observed by the alarmists. These increases came at times when man was still in the stone, bronze and iron ages, and no harm came to the planet, though men noticed their growing seasons were longer and more productive. Aside from that obvious fact, the largest "greenhouse" gas is carbon dioxide, which is 96.4% naturally occurring, the likelihood of global warming being primarily human caused is slim to none.

There are those on this thread who have seen me argue this point before, have asked for sourcing, have been given it, and have then proceeded to deny its validity, despite the work having been done by noted and credentialed climatologists. Why they pick and choose which climatologists to believe is beyond me to explain. Ask them.

 

[eldermike]

Not to worry, last night, the oceans stopped rising, Obama said so.

 

[IisJustMe]

How many times do we have to have this discussion.

I'm not discussing it with you. I'm posting in oppositon to the "big lie" you keep telling.

You post a bunch of unsupported and largely false "facts" (which you claim to have supported "before").

Not "claimed to ... " but "Have." Your refusal to accept them makes them no less proof that there is no consensus. For those interested:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200412%5CNAT20041207a.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#preface
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

In addition, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) has a petiton signed by 31,000 scientists, mathematicians, physicists and other climate professionals and those in related fields denouncing the alleged "consensus" Chaim will tell you "they are not qualified." Well, that opinion isn't worth to the cost of the cyberspace it is written in, so I'll let those 31,000 signatures speak for themselves. They say loudly and clearly, "There is no consensus." It's the "Big Lie."

 

[FilM]

Perhaps you could demonstrate how cap and trade legislation will protect anything? Well that sure is a massive sample right there. How many climate scientists have come on board with global warming?And how many of what kind of scientists who believe in global warming isn't even the topic. Why don't you demonstrate how this legislation will help us, unlike the ethanol scam these morons forced down our throats.

How will the legislation help us?

How about making us more efficient in how we use energy. Europe and Japan are going to weather the rapidly increasing cost of oil a lot more effectively than we are as their economies are less dependant on oil. If anything's going to make America fall behind economically it's our highly inefficient use of energy.