Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,954
5,331
290
N/A
"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.
 
James Hansen is a heavy investor in Al Gore's carbon credits. That is something that does not exist. He has a finsncial interest in supporting the hoax of climate change.
 
"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.
Ask yourself what any US law will do to stop this. America is a very small country. We're already doing more than half of the countries in the world. China, Mexico, India, Pakistan, and many others are doing very little to stop pollution in the air, land, and water. Most of the plastics being thrown in the ocean comes from foreign sources. Yet these people claim that if the US just stops everything and goes back to the stone-age, well we can save the planet all by ourselves.
This is pie-in-the-sky Bull shit.
 
"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.
So this winter which is still going on, doesnt matter to you at all? Where did all this cold come from if the Earth is warming up year after year? I keep asking the question and the dumbass liberals have no clue. How many years we have left 12? Did AOC say that last year? Shouldn't it be 11 years now, or will be a continual 12 years? Then 1000 years from now it will still be 12 years? Fucking insane people have taken over the Democraps.
 
: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:
 
And the wait continues for anyone in climate science, or anyone else for that matter to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is in any way different from natural variability...

The author of the OP says that all the evidence is at www.ipcc.ch I invite everyone to go visit that steaming pile of excrement and see if you can find any such evidence...I have looked and there is nothing there but pseudoscience, output of failed models, and claims that are so weak that only simple minded goobs would be fooled by it...
 
James Hansen is a heavy investor in Al Gore's carbon credits. That is something that does not exist. He has a finsncial interest in supporting the hoax of climate change.

He was also caught flat-out lying about 1998 temperatures in one of his "scientific" papers by Climate Audit founder Steve McIntyre, forcing him to change it. And he has since let it be known in a presentation to college students that his real motivation is not science, it's wealth redistribution.

Hansen is best known for politicising NASA, thus turning it into a laughing stock. For this he should be executed for high treason.
 
The OP is talking about the number of repreesentatives in our CURRENT congress that reject or act as if they reject AGW.

As to what has happened in the past:

Climate change policy of the United States - Wikipedia

"In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate.[1] In the 2005 vote, Republicans opposed the Bill 49-6, while Democrats supported it 37–10.[2]

In January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming.[3] Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus."[4] Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act on January 15, 2007. The measure would provide funding for R&D on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2), set emissions standards for new vehicles and a renewable fuels requirement for gasoline beginning in 2016, establish energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards beginning in 2008 and low-carbon electric generation standards beginning in 2016 for electric utilities, and require periodic evaluations by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether emissions targets are adequate.[5] However, the bill died in committee. Two more bills, the Climate Protection Act and the Sustainable Energy Act, proposed February 14, 2013, also failed to pass committee.[6]"

The House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212, but the bill failed to pass the Senate.[7][8]

In March 2011, the Republicans submitted a bill to the U.S. congress that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gasses as pollutants.[9] As of July 2012, the EPA continues to oversee regulation under the Clean Air Act.[10][11]


Now try one more time to tell us that it was the Democrats that failed to push AGW-oriented policy.

References

  1. http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/senateVoteJune05.cfm, National Wildlife Federation
  2. ^ "Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 - Center for Climate and Energy Solutions". Retrieved November 11, 2016.
  3. ^ Pelosi creates global warming committee[permanent dead link], Associated Press, 1/18/07.
  4. ^ "Senators sound alarm on climate", The Washington Times, January 31, 2007
  5. ^ "Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress". Environmental Defense Fund. May 29, 2007. Archived from the original on February 12, 2008. Retrieved August 30, 2011.
  6. ^ "Sanders, Boxer Propose Climate Change Bills". Sen. Bernie Sanders. Retrieved 2015-10-10.
  7. ^ Broder, John (June 26, 2009). "House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
  8. ^ Greg G. Hitt; Stephan Power, "House Passes Climate Bill", June 27, 2009; The Wall Street Journal
  9. ^ Timothy Gardner, "Republicans launch bill to axe EPA carbon rules", Reuters March 3, 2011
  10. ^ Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26, 2012
  11. ^ ""This is how science works" on global warming, court rules - Doubtful News". Retrieved November 11, 2016.
 
"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.


so where is the link they deny the climate changes propaganda tool?
 
The link to the article may be found between the two graphics.
 
Is it warmer than it was during the medieval warm period?

By refusing to teach science and history students can be manipulated into spouting any kind of nonsense. Through ignorance of science students can come up with nonsense like make love not CO2. They are taught and believe that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are the same things.
 
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
 
I don't believe any of the giant wealth redistribution plan....err globull warming aka climate change aka weather
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top