Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

"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."
1493001287469-MBD01-003_CLIMATE_SEN.jpeg

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress
1493001301991-MBD01-003_CLIMATE_REP.jpeg


"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.
 
I don't believe any of the giant wealth redistribution plan....err globull warming aka climate change aka weather

But you appear to have no evidence with which to convince anyone else that they should join you.
She's a lot smarter than dupes like you. At least she has enough street smarts to know when she's being sold a bill of goods.
 
I would never vote for someone so ignorant of basic science as to believe in the global warming hoax. This is like the old alar hoax or the hole in the ozone layer hoax or even the 1970s global cooling hoax.
 
Oh Muhammed, where have you been? I have missed you so.

Or not.

I would never vote for a climategate denier.

A climategate denier... Would that be someone who understood that the demonized conversation in the stolen emails was a completely unremarkable conversation about completely unremarkable processes? Seems so.

I can excuse a congressman who doesn't have the extremely deep understanding of the science that I do.

You have an "extremely deep understanding of the science" involved? You'll have to pardon me if I reject that out of hand.

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.

Pardon me but you seem to have missed a point: The people who ARE climate scientists and who very likely have a MUCH DEEPER understanding of the science involved than do you (who are not a scientist) ACCEPT the IPCC conclusions that warming is taking place and that human emissions of GHGs are the primary cause.

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.

I'm afraid that is simply false.

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

And people like Muhammed are shown to be a bunch of lying idiots
 
The OP is talking about the number of repreesentatives in our CURRENT congress that reject or act as if they reject AGW.

Well, it is good to know that at least some in congress are capable of thinking...and aren't top shelf suckers for pseudoscientific bullshit..
 
I would never vote for someone so ignorant of basic science as to believe in the global warming hoax. This is like the old alar hoax or the hole in the ozone layer hoax or even the 1970s global cooling hoax.

I'm afraid the only hoax around here is the one the fossil fuel industry has been funding for several decades and for which you have completely fallen.
 
:wtf::wtf::wtf:

What is the OP talking about?

Congress has had 20 years to do something about climate change! Two decades and back in 2009, had a DUM president and a DUM congress. What did they do? Zero. Why? Because unlike the hysterical social oddballs that navigate in this forum, nobody cares that much about climate change! These climate crusaders have the political IQ of a small soap dish. Not only is it not complicated.....it is simple. Voters don't give a crap...…:spinner::spinner:…..they have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more pressing matters to worry about. Which is why nobody is calling their representative since the AGW bozos came up with their scam. It has yet to impress anybody. Doesn't matter who is in office!:th_smileysw2wqa:
Climate change is just socialism in sheep's clothing.
It's way that socialist/progressive/commie bastards use to attack anyone who dares to use their common-sense.
It's a way to rip people off and beg for donations.
It's like cancer research. It never ends.
 
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Medieval Warm Period
Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif


Warming through 2008
Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg


mann08_s6e_eivGLlandocean.png

Pure unsupportable bullshit...ignoring literally hundreds of published papers which show in no uncertain terms that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature.... Typical AGW alarmist hysterical handwaving lies... Of course that is about all you can expect from this guy...

Here is a link to an interactive map...every balloon links to a study done at the location indicated by the balloon. The red balloons find that the MWP was warmer than the present...the blue balloons find that the MWP was cooler than the present.. the yellow balloons find that the MWP was drier, the green balloons find that it was wetter.

Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period | Die kalte Sonne

mwp-karte-update-1024x758.png


Anyone who can look at this, and all these studies and still claim that the MWP was a localized phenomenon is just too stupid, and dishonest to be taken seriously on any level.
 






Amazingly enough Kiribati is still there. Years after it was supposedly going to go under water. The Maldives too. And, amazingly enough, for a country that is soon to be under water they were able to find somebody to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice, shiny, new airports to bring tourists to the underwater empire.

That's the problem with your claims. They are easily refuted.
 
I don't believe any of the giant wealth redistribution plan....err globull warming aka climate change aka weather

But you appear to have no evidence with which to convince anyone else that they should join you.

Lack of observed measured evidence supporting the claim that the present climate change is in any way different from natural variability is evidence in and of itself...and far more convincing than any of the alarmist claptrap the handwaving hysterics are pushing....
 






Amazingly enough Kiribati is still there. Years after it was supposedly going to go under water. The Maldives too. And, amazingly enough, for a country that is soon to be under water they were able to find somebody to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice, shiny, new airports to bring tourists to the underwater empire.

That's the problem with your claims. They are easily refuted.

How many claims did I make, or is that meant as a general insult to my intelligence ?
 
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Medieval Warm Period
Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif


Warming through 2008
Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg


mann08_s6e_eivGLlandocean.png
So your graph ends in 2008, since then the Earth has been cooling but you wont see that trend on a GW graph. Funny how a liberal is good at misinformation.
 






Amazingly enough Kiribati is still there. Years after it was supposedly going to go under water. The Maldives too. And, amazingly enough, for a country that is soon to be under water they were able to find somebody to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice, shiny, new airports to bring tourists to the underwater empire.

That's the problem with your claims. They are easily refuted.

How many claims did I make, or is that meant as a general insult to my intelligence ?





YOU trotted out a silly little video as an APPEAL to AUTHORITY (a logical fallacy, look it up) to support your belief that the world is going to die thanks to global warming.

I fear you need to get a remedial English education, because it is clearly not your first language.
 
YOU trotted out a silly little video as an APPEAL to AUTHORITY (a logical fallacy, look it up) to support your belief that the world is going to die thanks to global warming.

I fear you need to get a remedial English education, because it is clearly not your first language.
Actually I was making fun of Donald Trump.



If that was your goal you failed miserably, and made a fool of yourself. Try better next time.
 
YOU trotted out a silly little video as an APPEAL to AUTHORITY (a logical fallacy, look it up) to support your belief that the world is going to die thanks to global warming.

I fear you need to get a remedial English education, because it is clearly not your first language.
Actually I was making fun of Donald Trump.



If that was your goal you failed miserably, and made a fool of yourself. Try better next time.
His moronic hairspray joke makes Americans look foolish for electing a president 2nd graders can outsmart.
 
"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."
1493001287469-MBD01-003_CLIMATE_SEN.jpeg

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress
1493001301991-MBD01-003_CLIMATE_REP.jpeg


"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.
Judging by the responses to your OP I would have to say the answer is "yes they would".
 

Forum List

Back
Top