Senate Climate Change Vote

[Weegle777 78]

Idiots?

[WarTim 3,456]

"he mad"? Bwahahahahaha :bananadance:

[AUDub 11,136]

Idiots?

The idiots in the senate. Going to dispute that assertion?

[AUDub 11,136]

"he mad"? Bwahahahahaha :bananadance:

I've never been called a bammer before.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Mad that you are hoodwinked into a cult ?

[WarTim 3,456]

Raptor, perhaps you should only type with one hand.....In the attempt to give them a level playing field..........

[Weegle777 78]

Idiots?

The idiots in the senate. Going to dispute that assertion?

Now we do agree on something. Lol. D.C. is a bowl full of idiots on both sides and in between.

[AUDub 11,136]

Mad that you are hoodwinked into a cult ?

Mad? Nah. I joined the reasonable people voluntarily. You should join us.

There's not much on this forum that gets me mad. In fact, I only recall being mad and lashing out on this forum once. It was at Blue. He deserved it.

[kd4au 1,145]

I do not believe in global warming,I think it is hoax to gain control over every aspect of our lives.But even if it was real(big if)it seems to me more people would die from global cooling like an ice age than from warming.Plants can grow in warm weather they can not grow under ice.

Nice to see you posting down here. Here's your obligatory conspiracy theory accusation:

Thwacka Thwacka Thwacka

:big:/>

Not really a conspiracy man, but I wouldn't trust the government to much if I was you.There is sign not far from where I live that says"trust the government?just ask the native americans about that"

[AUDub 11,136]

I do not believe in global warming,I think it is hoax to gain control over every aspect of our lives.But even if it was real(big if)it seems to me more people would die from global cooling like an ice age than from warming.Plants can grow in warm weather they can not grow under ice.

Nice to see you posting down here. Here's your obligatory conspiracy theory accusation:

Thwacka Thwacka Thwacka

:big:/>

Not really a conspiracy man, but I wouldn't trust the government to much if I was you.There is sign not far from where I live that says"trust the government?just ask the native americans about that"

Why trust the government on the matter? They haven't been any better than the citizenry or the media.

[homersapien 11,357]

I do not believe in global warming,I think it is hoax to gain control over every aspect of our lives.But even if it was real(big if)it seems to me more people would die from global cooling like an ice age than from warming.Plants can grow in warm weather they can not grow under ice.

Nice to see you posting down here. Here's your obligatory conspiracy theory accusation:

Thwacka Thwacka Thwacka

:big:/>

Not really a conspiracy man, but I wouldn't trust the government to much if I was you.There is sign not far from where I live that says"trust the government?just ask the native americans about that"

Yeah, the government committed genocide all on it's own against the will of the American citizens.

[AURaptor 1,122]

"he mad"? Bwahahahahaha :bananadance:/> :bananadance:/> :bananadance:/>

I've never been called a bammer before.

Stop acting like one , then it won't happen.

[AUDub 11,136]

"he mad"? Bwahahahahaha :bananadance:/> :bananadance:/> :bananadance:/>

I've never been called a bammer before.

Stop acting like one , then it won't happen.

If your standard for calling people bammers is pointing out your fractal wrongness on climate change, be prepared to call a lot of people bammer in the future.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ben.......I have to take issue with your claim about not lashing out at anyone but Blue. In one discussion we were involved in you called my Mother and Father derogatory names. maybe you don't consider that lashing out. It was at the least, very offensive.

[Weegle777 78]

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Michael Crichton

[AUDub 11,136]

Ben.......I have to take issue with your claim about not lashing out at anyone but Blue. In one discussion we were involved in you called my Mother and Father derogatory names. maybe you don't consider that lashing out. It was at the least, very offensive.

I made a joke from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. You're the only person here that would have taken that the wrong way.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ben...that's a hard statement about every one else. Did you take a poll? I never saw Monty Python or knew the names were from that source. Did you apologize?

[AUDub 11,136]

Ben...that's a hard statement about every one else. Did you take a poll? I never saw Monty Python or knew the names were from that source. Did you apologize?

You should start that poll. I guarantee you the results would break my way. It's a joke insult that's so ineffectual that, before I met you, I would never have assumed anyone would take it the wrong way, even if they had never heard of Monty Python.

Regardless, I do apologize if it was taken that way.

EDIT: For the record, everybody, I quoted John Cleese's French character from the castle scene from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail."Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"

Proud thinks I was making fun of his parents. Make of that what you will.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Ben - Ben - consensus doesn't make truth. I don't care how many " fall in " with the myth, I'm not playing.

Ther are plenty smart , professional folk in the field of studying weather who simply reject the idea of man made global warning . This list of " 97%" of all scientist agree in mange is a lie. Straight up .

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ben...;.apology accepted. Let's move on.

[AUDub 11,136]

Ben - Ben - consensus doesn't make truth. I don't care how many " fall in " with the myth, I'm not playing.

Strawman. No one here said that the consensus dictated truth. Weegs chucked in a copypasta from his new denialist hero and you've suddenly decided to confront me about the consensus?

Ther are plenty smart , professional folk in the field of studying weather who simply reject the idea of man made global warning . This list of " 97%" of all scientist agree in mange is a lie. Straight up .

No one here has made the claim that "97% of all scientists agree." There are studies of that support the conclusion that 97% of climate scientists accept climate change. There are climate scientists that reject it, but they are few and far between.

[homersapien 11,357]

p

Ben...;.apology accepted. Let's move on.hh

Anyone who is offended enough by such comedic absurdity to demand an apology has some SERIOUS issues.

[AURaptor 1,122]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/wsj-myth-of-climate-change-97-what-is.html

May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

[Weegle777 78]

Don't bring logic and facts into this!

[AURaptor 1,122]

Don't bring logic and facts into this!

Seriously. Look around . Anyone see the " crippling consequences " John Effing Kerry was talking about ?

WHERE IS IT ??

Storms ? Always had them. Since 2005, with Katrina, when we were told to get use to this as being " the norm ", we've not had any Hurricanes hit the US other than not so super storm Sandy. There was a lull of how 7 years. Not ONE hurricane man landfall on the US mainland.