The weather for 2016

[shunyadragon]

jorge is wrong in his 'world domination conspiracy fears.

But he is right in that some are trying to find ways to use RICO laws in the US (and other approaches in other countries) to to quiet dissent over global warming.

This is a VERY bad idea.

You just can't legislate a scientific position, and you just can't silence contrary voices.

(1) the 1st amendment gives all of us the right to voice our disagreement with any political policy or idea.
(2) the instant you legislate which ideas are scientifically correct and which ones are not, science dies. From that moment forward, ALL science is suspect.
(3) if a scientific idea needs prosecution of dissent by the law to gain acceptance, it is not very good science to start with.

I hope most of you already understand these things. And I hope most of us will be opposed to those that want to try to force the silence of those that doubt AGW.

The only possible exception would be a conspiracy to knowingly lie and deceive the ignorant. PROVING that is the case would be exceptionally difficult, but that is no excuse for trying to bypass first amendment rights and the free expression of ideas to accomplish the goal of widespread UNDERSTANDING of the science that leads to the conclusion AGW is a reality.


Jim

I do not believe it is getting all that hard to demonstrate dishonesty in the case of global climate change as it is with evolution, and an earth and universe billions of years old. The selective use and misuse of climate data is overwhelmingly obvious. Read the following. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly blatant. This is only a partial list.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL-04): “I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions.” [Daily Mountain Eagle Op-Ed, 12/13/10]

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05): “I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I’m approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.” [Science Insider, 2/9/11]

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL-06): “The science that shows we haven’t had a temperature increase in 17 or 18 years. The science that says global climate change is more a function of nature and solar activity than it is anything man does.” [RayComGroup, 7/18/14]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Sen. Jeff Sessions was more than surprised when informed by Sen. Barbara Boxer that roughly 98 percent of climate scientists accepted that anthropogenic warming was real and serious — he was outraged:

SESSIONS: Madam Chairman, I am offended by that, I’m offended by that — I didn’t say anything about the scientists. I said the data shows [sic] it is not warming to the degree that a lot of people predicted, not close to that much…

BOXER: The conclusion that you’re coming to is shared by 1-2 percent of the scientists. You shouldn’t be offended by that. That’s the fact.

SESSIONS: I don’t believe that’s correct.

© Copyright Original Source

[klaus54]

How is this at the level of a crime?

[oxmixmudd]

I do not believe it is getting all that hard to demonstrate dishonesty in the case of global climate change as it is with evolution, and an earth and universe billions of years old. The selective use and misuse of climate data is overwhelmingly obvious. Read the following. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly blatant. This is only a partial list.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL-04): “I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions.” [Daily Mountain Eagle Op-Ed, 12/13/10]

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05): “I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I’m approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.” [Science Insider, 2/9/11]

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL-06): “The science that shows we haven’t had a temperature increase in 17 or 18 years. The science that says global climate change is more a function of nature and solar activity than it is anything man does.” [RayComGroup, 7/18/14]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Sen. Jeff Sessions was more than surprised when informed by Sen. Barbara Boxer that roughly 98 percent of climate scientists accepted that anthropogenic warming was real and serious — he was outraged:

SESSIONS: Madam Chairman, I am offended by that, I’m offended by that — I didn’t say anything about the scientists. I said the data shows [sic] it is not warming to the degree that a lot of people predicted, not close to that much…

BOXER: The conclusion that you’re coming to is shared by 1-2 percent of the scientists. You shouldn’t be offended by that. That’s the fact.

SESSIONS: I don’t believe that’s correct.

© Copyright Original Source

Ignorance about science is not a crime. Neither is disagreeing with a scientist, for whatever reason. Shunya, you can't prosecute someone for denying the Holocaust. You can't prosecute them for spreading false propaganda that says the Holocaust never happened. All of this is protected under free speach laws. It'll be a cold day in hell before I will say that anti-AGW propaganda deserves 10th mention against THAT. And if THAT is legal, then you should not be able to touch the folks that post articles that imply AGW might not be real. To even suggest limiting those kind of ideas while supporting the idea that (for example) holocaust deniers have a right to say what they do would be simple insanity.

In summary, there is so much wacknut, dangerous, and even just plain pure evil speech protected under free speech laws that I am simply floored that anyone would even suggest prosecution of AGW 'denialism' as a possible course of action ... let alone a senator or congressman!

The fact it HAS been proposed means Jorge is right to be a bit paranoid.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

How is this at the level of a crime?

I did not put this at the level of a crime. I consider it blatant dishonesty on the part of leadership in Congress.

[shunyadragon]

Ignorance about science is not a crime. Neither is disagreeing with a scientist, for whatever reason. Shunya, you can't prosecute someone for denying the Holocaust. You can't prosecute them for spreading false propaganda that says the Holocaust never happened. All of this is protected under free speech laws. It'll be a cold day in hell before I will say that anti-AGW propaganda deserves 10th mention against THAT. And if THAT is legal, then you should not be able to touch the folks that post articles that imply AGW might not be real. To even suggest limiting those kind of ideas while supporting the idea that (for example) holocaust deniers have a right to say what they do would be simple insanity.

In summary, there is so much wacknut, dangerous, and even just plain pure evil speech protected under free speech laws that I am simply floored that anyone would even suggest prosecution of AGW 'denialism' as a possible course of action ... let alone a senator or congressman!

The fact it HAS been proposed means Jorge is right to be a bit paranoid.

Jim

I do not consider it on the level of a crime, and Jorge paranoia does not have a basis in reality, nor is most of what Jorge believes remotely in touch with the real world. I do not believe putting this self imposed ignorance, dishonesty, and incompetence on the level of a crime. Just because a few people propose this does not mean it is being seriously considered as a crime.

I do not consider this blatant dishonesty ignorance on the part of the highest elected officials, and possibly the dominant view in right wing America. The evidence for climate change is widely available in high school level science. The citations I gave are only a partial list,and clearly dishonest.

It would be difficult for you to justify the citations as merely based on ignorance. Notice that all these deniers represent Republican politicians. Is this blatant dishonesty a disease of the Republican Party.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK-At Large): “I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.” [KTVA Interview, 2/18/10]

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): “With 7 billion humans on earth, there is likely some impact on nature. The last few years clearly show, though, that there is no concrete scientific consensus on the extent to which humans contribute to climate change.” [Newsminer.com, 8/18/14]

ARIZONA
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-08): “While I am concerned about the potential effects of global warming, I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations.” [AZ Central Candidate Survey, 2008]
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04): “Further, ‘global warming’ now known as ‘climate change’ is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.” [AZ Central Candidate Survey, 2012]
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ-06): “When you think about the complexity of a worldwide system and the amount of data you’d have to capture, and how you adjust for a sunspot, and how you adjust for a hurricane and I think it’s incredibly arrogant for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world is coming to an end.” [Interview with conservative activist Marcus Kelley via Huffington Post, 6/26/14]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): For years during the Bush presidency, Sen. John McCain argued that global warming pollution was an existential threat that required a strict cap-and-trade carbon market. Now that Obama is president and climate policy is a real possibility, McCain sounds and acts like a climate science denier: “I do not support the cap-and-trade energy reform legislation under consideration in Congress. There are dramatic environmental changes happening in the arctic region — whether one believes they are man-made or natural.” McCain now opposes the cap-and-trade policy he once championed, and opposes the EPA finding that greenhouse gases are pollution. [ThinkProgress, 9/13/10]

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): “Certainly, nobody can deny that we’ve had several years of warmer temperatures. If that signals just a routine change that is manmade or not, I don’t think anybody can say definitely.” [Arizona Public Radio, 10/25/12]

ARKANSAS
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR-01): Rep. Crawford fielded a question regarding climate change and President Obama’s environmental agenda while speaking to radio station KASU 91.9 FM. “There’s not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the President, I think, is committed to. We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time. and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research.” He continued, “I don’t see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas.” [Talk Business Arkansas, 1/27/13]

Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR-02): “I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.” [THV 11, 4/12/10]

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR): “Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.” More recently, Sen. Boozman said, “Now I’m not a scientist but I’m an optometrist, and I spent much of my life working with the scientific community. I was a zoology major. And I’ve said before that there’s nothing scientific about discrediting people who present conflicting evidence and ask reasonable questions.” [ThinkProgress, 9/13/10; Arkansas Times, 6/21/14]

CALIFORNIA
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-42): Calvert co-sponsored H.Res.954, a resolution that stated: “Whereas recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England (in this resolution referred to as the ‘CRU’) which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, altering, and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims.” [H.Res.954, GovTrack, 12/8/09]

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA-10): While debating a bill requiring climate change to be taught in schools, then state senator Denham said he wanted a guarantee that the views of global warming skeptics will be taught. “Some wouldn’t view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue. We don’t have complete factual information yet. From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don’t know that there’s anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet.” [Mercury News, 1/1/09]

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA-50): “There is climate change. Is there human-caused climate change? I don’t buy that.” [Times of San Diego, 9/26/14]

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-49): “One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/12]
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-01): “The climate of the globe has been fluctuating since God created it.” [Redding Record, 9/24/14]

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-04): “The planet has been warming — on and off — since the last ice age, when glaciers covered much of North America. The climate has been changing since the planet formed, often much more abruptly than it has in recent millennia. Until the earth begins moving into its next ice age, we can reasonably expect it to continue to warm. That will mean less water can be stored in snow packs and therefore more will need to be stored behind dams.” [Congressman Tom McClintock, 2/27/14]

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA-22): “However, scientists admit that they cannot be sure whether the Earth’s temperature is rising due to cyclical warming and cooling processes, or whether and how much humans are influencing it.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/12]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48): “Just so you’ll know, global warming is a total fraud and it’s being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions. Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives.” [Huffington Post, 8/12/13]

© Copyright Original Source

More pacyderms to follow

[Jorge]

jorge is wrong in his 'world domination conspiracy fears.

Jim

It is a very common trait of yours -- almost your signature -- that you call "wrong" whatever you either disagree with OR are totally clueless about. You need to learn the meaning of the word "wrong". It's not that hard a word, you know.

As for my "world domination conspiracy fears", I can only restate that you are c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s on the subject. Myself, I've been studying this area since the mid 1970's and so if you wish to turn the tables on me then you've got a snowball's chance in Hell. Of course, this isn't the place to talk of such things so ... 'nuff said.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I do not believe it is getting all that hard to demonstrate dishonesty in the case of global climate change ... The selective use and misuse of climate data is overwhelmingly obvious. Read the following. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly blatant.

Yay ... YAY !!! ... the Dragon finally got something right !!!

Congratulations, Dragon ... sincerely!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I do not consider it on the level of a crime, and Jorge paranoia does not have a basis in reality, nor is most of what Jorge believes remotely in touch with the real world.

I knew it ... I KNEW IT !!!

It was far too good to last ... Dragon is what he is.

Oh well ... spot and leopards ... stinging and scorpions ... and all similar analogies.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I do not consider it on the level of a crime, and Jorge paranoia does not have a basis in reality, nor is most of what Jorge believes remotely in touch with the real world. I do not believe putting this self imposed ignorance, dishonesty, and incompetence on the level of a crime. Just because a few people propose this does not mean it is being seriously considered as a crime.

I do not consider this blatant dishonesty ignorance on the part of the highest elected officials, and possibly the dominant view in right wing America. The evidence for climate change is widely available in high school level science. The citations I gave are only a partial list,and clearly dishonest.

It would be difficult for you to justify the citations as merely based on ignorance. Notice that all these deniers represent Republican politicians. Is this blatant dishonesty a disease of the Republican Party.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK-At Large): “I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.” [KTVA Interview, 2/18/10]

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): “With 7 billion humans on earth, there is likely some impact on nature. The last few years clearly show, though, that there is no concrete scientific consensus on the extent to which humans contribute to climate change.” [Newsminer.com, 8/18/14]

ARIZONA
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-08): “While I am concerned about the potential effects of global warming, I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations.” [AZ Central Candidate Survey, 2008]
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04): “Further, ‘global warming’ now known as ‘climate change’ is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.” [AZ Central Candidate Survey, 2012]
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ-06): “When you think about the complexity of a worldwide system and the amount of data you’d have to capture, and how you adjust for a sunspot, and how you adjust for a hurricane and I think it’s incredibly arrogant for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world is coming to an end.” [Interview with conservative activist Marcus Kelley via Huffington Post, 6/26/14]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): For years during the Bush presidency, Sen. John McCain argued that global warming pollution was an existential threat that required a strict cap-and-trade carbon market. Now that Obama is president and climate policy is a real possibility, McCain sounds and acts like a climate science denier: “I do not support the cap-and-trade energy reform legislation under consideration in Congress. There are dramatic environmental changes happening in the arctic region — whether one believes they are man-made or natural.” McCain now opposes the cap-and-trade policy he once championed, and opposes the EPA finding that greenhouse gases are pollution. [ThinkProgress, 9/13/10]

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): “Certainly, nobody can deny that we’ve had several years of warmer temperatures. If that signals just a routine change that is manmade or not, I don’t think anybody can say definitely.” [Arizona Public Radio, 10/25/12]

ARKANSAS
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR-01): Rep. Crawford fielded a question regarding climate change and President Obama’s environmental agenda while speaking to radio station KASU 91.9 FM. “There’s not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the President, I think, is committed to. We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time. and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research.” He continued, “I don’t see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas.” [Talk Business Arkansas, 1/27/13]

Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR-02): “I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.” [THV 11, 4/12/10]

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR): “Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.” More recently, Sen. Boozman said, “Now I’m not a scientist but I’m an optometrist, and I spent much of my life working with the scientific community. I was a zoology major. And I’ve said before that there’s nothing scientific about discrediting people who present conflicting evidence and ask reasonable questions.” [ThinkProgress, 9/13/10; Arkansas Times, 6/21/14]

CALIFORNIA
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-42): Calvert co-sponsored H.Res.954, a resolution that stated: “Whereas recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England (in this resolution referred to as the ‘CRU’) which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, altering, and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims.” [H.Res.954, GovTrack, 12/8/09]

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA-10): While debating a bill requiring climate change to be taught in schools, then state senator Denham said he wanted a guarantee that the views of global warming skeptics will be taught. “Some wouldn’t view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue. We don’t have complete factual information yet. From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don’t know that there’s anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet.” [Mercury News, 1/1/09]

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA-50): “There is climate change. Is there human-caused climate change? I don’t buy that.” [Times of San Diego, 9/26/14]

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-49): “One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/12]
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-01): “The climate of the globe has been fluctuating since God created it.” [Redding Record, 9/24/14]

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-04): “The planet has been warming — on and off — since the last ice age, when glaciers covered much of North America. The climate has been changing since the planet formed, often much more abruptly than it has in recent millennia. Until the earth begins moving into its next ice age, we can reasonably expect it to continue to warm. That will mean less water can be stored in snow packs and therefore more will need to be stored behind dams.” [Congressman Tom McClintock, 2/27/14]

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA-22): “However, scientists admit that they cannot be sure whether the Earth’s temperature is rising due to cyclical warming and cooling processes, or whether and how much humans are influencing it.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/12]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48): “Just so you’ll know, global warming is a total fraud and it’s being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions. Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives.” [Huffington Post, 8/12/13]

© Copyright Original Source

More pacyderms to follow

Shuny,

The fact is many Americans are religious people. And there are a lot of irreligious people that put out the idea the science and reason render belief in God, especially Christian expressions of belief in God, foolish. The end result is there are a lot of religious people in America that simply do not trust what scientists have to say. This distrust keeps Ken ham well employed, and keeps anti-AGW sentiment alive and well.

Proposing legislation that would make anti-AGW comments illegal only SUPPORTS that distrust and feeds the fires of ignorance. And those that propose it are idiots and in fact enemies of the goal of an informed and rational public. As are people like Richard Dawkins who continue to belittle those of religious faith in the name of science.

If you want people to use reason and science fact to assess AGW, then start doing things that build trust between the religious, fiscal conservative, and scientific communities. As it is, most efforts seem aimed at silencing opposing voices with force rather than with reason.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

The fact is many Americans are religious people. And there are a lot of irreligious people that put out the idea the science and reason render belief in God, especially Christian expressions of belief in God, foolish. The end result is there are a lot of religious people in America that simply do not trust what scientists have to say. This distrust keeps Ken ham well employed, and keeps anti-AGW sentiment alive and well.

It is unreasonable to accuse a few vocal atheist scientists for the huge problems of religious people having and antagonists negative view of science whether evolution or climate change. Throughout the world the vast overwhelming majority of scientists, regardless of belief, the research, and publications are completely religious neutral concerning all subjects. The overwhelming problem with the believers rejecting science is their religious agenda, and not science, which they demonstrate a dishonest self imposed ignorance of basic high school level science and abundant easily read publications.

Proposing legislation that would make anti-AGW comments illegal only SUPPORTS that distrust and feeds the fires of ignorance. And those that propose it are idiots and in fact enemies of the goal of an informed and rational public. As are people like Richard Dawkins who continue to belittle those of religious faith in the name of science.

Anyone can propose in Congress, and many odd foolish proposals are made.The fact is that it will not go anywhere legislatively, and if you look at it objectively you would realize that. IT is a foolish smokescreen for the greater issue from the dishonest perspective of the paranoid rejection of science by religiously conservatives including many elected government religious conservatives. It is not a coincidence that the overwhelming rejection of global climate change is from the right religious conservatives.

If you want people to use reason and science fact to assess AGW, then start doing things that build trust between the religious, fiscal conservative, and scientific communities. As it is, most efforts seem aimed at silencing opposing voices with force rather than with reason.
Jim

As before, the problem is the opposition of the religious right dishonestly rejecting science, and not a few vocal atheists calling religion foolish. By far the majority of science research and publications are just simply science and nothing but science.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

COLORADO

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO-04): “Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.” [ThinkProgress, 8/8/13]

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO-06): “Climate change is naturally occurring. What influence do we have over that, we certainly need to look into, but that’s subject to debate.” [The Atlantic, 6/15/12]

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO-05): “Lamborn said there are ‘a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is man made.’ However, he said there is ‘not much unanimity’ about it. At that statement many audience members commented that 98 percent was ‘pretty unanimous.’ Lamborn said he spoke to a scientist who believes that global warming is man-made and ‘should materialize’ 50-100 years from now. He said there are issues that need dealing with now. Eckler asked again if he would listen to the evidence claiming global warming is here and now. After more back-and-forth on the issue, Lamborn said, ‘I think we’ve beaten this horse to a pulp. I’m listening to all sides.'” [The Mountain Mail, 6/3/13]

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO-03): Rep. Tipton conceded that climate change exists, but argued that it’s caused by natural climate cycles rather than humans. “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” the Tea Party freshman argued. Acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America,” said Tipton. [ThinkProgress, 8/23/12]

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): “During the lightning round, yes-or-no portion of The Denver Post debate between Gardner and Udall, the Republican was asked ‘do you believe humans are contributing significantly to climate change?’ ‘Well, I’ve said all along climate is changing,’ Gardner began, earning reprimands from the moderators to answer in one word. ‘This is an important issue and I don’t think you can say yes or no,’ Gardner fired back, earning boos from the crowd and another reprimand. ‘I believe climate is changing, but I disagree to the extent that’s been in the news that man is changing — ’ he started again, earning a third reprimand and a reminder that he would have time later to explain his answer if he wanted.” [MSNBC, 10/6/14]

FLORIDA

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL-25): “I know there’s a lot of money to be made on the bandwagon of global warming, you can make movies, documentaries, get a lot of research money — and that’s okay, I love capitalism … My fear is using the bandwagon of global warming to have Congress act on some knee-jerk reaction which will please some editorialists, will hurt our economy, will not do anything to help us in the future.” [Mario Diaz-Balart Video, 9/25/07]

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL-01): “I have scientists that I rely on, the scientists that I rely on say our climate has changed. It wasn’t just a few years ago, what was the problem that existed? It wasn’t global warming, we were gonna all be an ice cube. We’re not ice cubes. Our climate will continue to change because of the way God formed the earth.” According to BuzzFeed, earlier at the same event, Miller announced his intentions to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and responded to questions about a scientific consensus on climate change by saying none existed. [BuzzFeed, 8/14/13]

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL-08): “We’ve had climate change since the day the earth was formed, whenever that was, depending on whatever it is you believe. And we’ll have climate change until the earth implodes, whenever that is … Obviously we’ve had global warming for a long time. You can’t have one seamless ice age that encompasses three ice ages. We had to have warming periods between each of those. And so that is a natural phenomenon. Just because we’re alive now, the tectonics plate shifts aren’t going to stop, the hurricanes tsunamis aren’t going to stop, the asteroid strikes aren’t going to stop, they’ve been going on for eons and they’re going to continue to go on for eons.” [Hill Heat, 3/26/14]

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy.” [Miami Herald Blog, 5/11/14]

GEORGIA

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA-12): During a debate, Rep. Allen was asked “Do you believe manmade greenhouse gas emissions are a major source of climate change?” and responded, “the answer is no.” [YouTube, 9/29/14]

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA-01): “Certainly we have to pay attention to [climate change]. There’s no doubt about that. But I do have reservations about how real it is.” [Savannah Morning News, 7/14/14]
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA-09): When asked if he believes human activity is contributing to climate change, Rep. Collins answered “no.” [Project Vote Smart Political Courage Test, 2012]

Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA-10): “The Radical Environmental Movement with former Vice President Al Gore as its poster boy has propagandized the theory of impending environmental disaster due to ‘Global Warming.’…The theory is that so-called global warming is caused by greenhouse gases caused by carbon-based fuels.” [Jody Hice for Congress 2010 archive via the WaybackMachine, accessed 1/6/14]
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA-06): “This decision goes against all common sense, especially considering the many recent revelations of errors and obfuscation in the allegedly ‘settled science’ of global warming.” [Republican Study Committee]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA-03): Co-filed a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the endangerment finding that said: “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.” [Petition to EPA, 12/23/09]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/11]

Sen. David Perdue (R-GA): “The EPA is really overreaching and damaging entire industries. We’ve got to get some common sense back in Washington—in science, there’s an active debate going on.” [Slate, 5/6/14]

IDAHO

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID): “While there is no dispute over the fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the planet’s history, the underlying cause of these climactic shifts is ultimately not well-understood and is a matter of vigorous debate.” [Crapo Website]

ILLINOIS

Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL-12): When asked during a radio interview whether he thought climate change was real, Bost said, “I don’t. I don’t know that I do; no.” He continued, “Some scientists do; some scientists don’t” believe in climate change. [St. Louis Public Radio, 10/16/14]

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL-13): During an interview with Illinois Public Media radio, a constituent asked Representative Rodney Davis what he planned to do to combat climate change, and he responded that “global warming has stopped 16 years ago.” He then went on the say that climate change is real but the debate is over whether or not it is manmade or natural. [Illinois Public Media, 10/16/12]

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL-14): “The greatest impact on our climate clearly is the sun, and we have very little impact on the sun and how much energy and temperature the sun is sending to the earth. We have seen clearly over thousands of years that at different times more energy has come through and different times less energy has come through, and that variation has impacted climate change. Over the thousands of years that’s been recorded we’ve had both colder times and warmer times. It happens to be that we’ve recently come out of a warmer time and now actually we’re headed in to a little bit of a colder time, the impact of the sun is much different than impact that we could have had.” [Illinois Review, 12/2/09]

Peter Roskam (R-IL-06): During a debate at the College of DuPage, “Roskam drew the ire of the crowd by calling global warming junk science.” [College of DuPage Courier, 10/20/06]

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-15): During his introductory remarks at a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing, Representative Shimkus read from the Bible to prove that global warming will not destroy the earth because only God can decide when the earth will end: “The earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.” [House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing, 3/25/2009]

INDIANA

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN-08): “It’s not about affecting the global temperature and climate change. There’s public comments out there that that question has been answered saying ‘no…’ Of all the climatologists whose career depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, yes I could read that. But I don’t believe it.” [The Daily Show, 9/22/14]

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN-04): “97 percent of some of the liberal scientists polled believe humans are doing this. This is not settled science just like perhaps many pf those same scientists — 97 percent perhaps — believe there is no god. But they don’t know there’s no science on that. So scientists like the rest of us humans can have beliefs but that doesn’t make it science.” [Mother Jones, 10/28/14]

Rep. Todd Young (R-IN-09): During his first campaign, Young said he strongly opposed cap and trade and other unilateral measures to combat global warming and that he was uncertain what is causing the observed heating of the planet, adding that it could be caused by sunspots or the normal cycles of nature. “The science is not settled,” he said in an interview with the New York Times. According to the Times, “he said that given the scientific uncertainty, it was not wise to make major changes in the nation’s energy economy to reduce carbon emissions.” [New York Times, 10/20/10]

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN): “At a candidate forum Saturday, the Republicans running for the U.S. Senate dismissed the threat of global warming, as well. Former U.S. Rep. John Hostettler called it ‘junk science.’ State Sen. Marlin Stutzman called it a ‘manufactured controversy.’ Former U.S. Sen. Dan Coats discussed this year’s snowstorm in Washington, D.C., ignoring scientists who say global warming causes intensified weather consistent with such a snowstorm.” [Evansville Courier & Press, 4/18/10]

IOWA

Rep. Rod Blum (R-IA-01): “Well, it’s interesting. I can see why the average citizen is skeptical about this. I guess you can put me in that camp. I’m skeptical … I’m not a scientist, and I know most scientists’ paychecks come from the federal government, and so right away that makes me a bit skeptical. Thirty years ago we were going into a global cooling period. That makes me skeptical.” [Iowa Public Radio, 5/29/14]

Rep. Steve King (R-IA-04): At an event sponsored by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, King told the audience that climate change “is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science.” He also said that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be good. “Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in [environmentalists’] analysis,” King said. “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer … And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.” [ThinkProgress, 8/7/13]
Rep. David Young (R-IA-03): “I’ve seen, like a lot of people, credible studies on both sides of this issue. I do know one thing for sure: We need to use sound science and not put this into a political science box. We need to make sure also that if this is going to be put through public policy, it needs to not be done unilaterally through this administration, through executive order, or by the EPA.” [Iowa Public Radio, 5/22/14]

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA): “I don’t know the science behind climate change. I can’t say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it’s man-made or not. I’ve heard arguments from both sides, but I do believe in protecting our environment, but without the job killing regulations that are coming out of the [Environmental Protection Agency] …” [ThinkProgress, 9/29/14]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “But the scientific aspect that I’m still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy.” [Grist, 8/26/09]

KANSAS

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS-02): “I cosponsored a res. overturning an EPA rule that says man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health.” [Twitter, 3/3/10]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04): When asked if he believes global warming is a problem, Pompeo responded: “Look, I think the science needs to continue to develop. I’m happy to continue to look at it. There are scientists who think lots of different things about climate change. There’s some who think we’re warming, there’s some who think we’re cooling, there’s some who think that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate environment.” [C-SPAN Interview, 6/25/13]

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): “There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism.” [Topeka Capital-Journal, 8/24/10]

KENTUCKY
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-04): Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Massie said he was “disappointed” that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on “human activity” and accused some of “denying the evidence of scientists,” the Washington Times reported. “As somebody with a science-type background, I took offense at that,” Mr. Massie said during a panel meeting billed as “Conversations With Conservatives.” “I would challenge him to show us the linkage — the undeniable linkage — between droughts and the change of weather, and some kind of human activity.” [Washington Times Inside Politics Blog, 1/22/13]

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY-01): “Misrepresenting scientific research to support one’s own personal beliefs, particularly on an international stage, is dangerous, disingenuous and simply unacceptable. I call on Mr. [Al] Gore to come clean about the real science surrounding climate change and let the American people come to their own conclusions on global warming.” [Whitfield Website, 12/15/09]
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “For everybody who thinks it’s warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn’t.” More recently, when asked whether he agreed that human activity was driving climate change, McConnell responded, “I’m not a scientist.” [Cincinnati Inquirer, 3/7/14; ThinkProgress, 10/3/14]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): “I think that scientific debate should not be dumbed down to politics. I think this debate has become so dumbed down beyond belief. The Earth is 4.54 [billion] or 4.6 billion years old. Anybody who’s ever studied any geology knows that over periods of time, long periods of time, that the climate changes, mmkay? I’m not sure anybody exactly knows why. But we have twenty-, thirty-, hundred-thousand sort of year cycles that go on with the climate. It has been much warmer than it is today. We have real data [for] about 100 years. So somebody tell me what 100 years data is in an Earth that is 4.6 billion years old? My guess is that the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive.” [Huffington Post, 4/23/14]

LOUISIANA
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA-04): “Quietly released scientific report without fanfare. Global warming, to the the extent that it ever existed, halted 16 years ago. So, what is Washington controlled by the radical environmental agenda?” [Fleming Facebook Post, 10/14/12]

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA-01): “While their global warming agenda continues to lose support, it’s ironic that radical environmentalists are at it again, less than a month after NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), announced the Great Lakes had the most widespread ice coverage in over 35 years. Thirty years ago liberals were using global cooling to push new radical regulations. Then they shifted their focus to global warming in an effort to prop up wave after wave of job-killing regulations that are leading to skyrocketing food and energy costs.” [The Times-Picayune, 3/31/14]

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA): During a debate, Sen. Cassidy said, “global temperatures have not risen in 15 years.” [Washington Examiner, 10/14/14]

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): “I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory.” [KLFY, 10/28/10]

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

Oh well ... spot and leopards ... stinging and scorpions ... and all similar analogies.

Chicken castrati and clucking...

Paid that $150 yet, welcher?

[oxmixmudd]

It is a very common trait of yours -- almost your signature -- that you call "wrong" whatever you either disagree with OR are totally clueless about. You need to learn the meaning of the word "wrong". It's not that hard a word, you know.

As for my "world domination conspiracy fears", I can only restate that you are c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s on the subject. Myself, I've been studying this area since the mid 1970's and so if you wish to turn the tables on me then you've got a snowball's chance in Hell. Of course, this isn't the place to talk of such things so ... 'nuff said.

Jorge

Jorge - so have I. And the same timeframe. In all likelihood some of the same books. It's all a bunch of paranoid bunk designed to feed on basic human fears.

And you, of course, miss the part where I agree with you that those proposing the prosecution of AGW denial are idiots and give some credence to your fears. And that to do so would be a fundamental violation of 1st amendment rights.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It is unreasonable to accuse a few vocal atheist scientists for the huge problems of religious people having and antagonists negative view of science whether evolution or climate change. Throughout the world the vast overwhelming majority of scientists, regardless of belief, the research, and publications are completely religious neutral concerning all subjects. The overwhelming problem with the believers rejecting science is their religious agenda, and not science, which they demonstrate a dishonest self imposed ignorance of basic high school level science and abundant easily read publications.

Not really. First, It's not just a few. I know of few Christians that attended college and studied the sciences that did not have an uncomfortable run-in with the inevitable PhD that suddenly saw a 15 point drop in one's IQ upon learning one was a Christian. I dealt with it in several cases, and that at schools in the 'Bible Belt'. And it's really annoying how after that little encounter what was once a decent, respectful student/professor relationship no longer is. Encounters like that fuel this thing generation to generation.

Anyone can propose in Congress, and many odd foolish proposals are made.The fact is that it will not go anywhere legislatively, and if you look at it objectively you would realize that.

I don't expect it to go anywhere. But those that proposed it are idiots - and just as much idiots as the ones you list below!

IT is a foolish smokescreen for the greater issue from the dishonest perspective of the paranoid rejection of science by religiously conservatives including many elected government religious conservatives. It is not a coincidence that the overwhelming rejection of global climate change is from the right religious conservatives.

And as long as you and others approach it that way, the problem will not ever get solved. You don't reconcile opposing point of view by both sides calling the other side stupid. Each side has to take the time to listen to the other and acknowledge the legitimate concerns held by each side. The lack of capacity to recognize any sort of legitimacy one side to the other that feeds the conflict, not to mention the fact that there are those on both sides that profit from the conflict and will do all they can to keep it alive (do you remember the conversation a few months ago and some AGW proponents where the mere fact I would even talk about the arguments used by the anti-AGW side meant I was also anti-AGW? Do you remember the hostility of that conversation?)

And although it may appear I'm blaming the irreligious side, that is an artifact of the one-sidedness of this particular thread of conversation. Both sides are terribly guilty in this in terms of preventing rational discourse. But the issue being discussed is the religious rights suspicion of science. There is a deep sense in religious circles that the scientists of the world are against what they stand for and that they must be very, very careful with what they are told by them. The Dawkins of the world only feed that.

Why would you trust a group of people whose, in appearance at least, top representatives are often people who would like to eliminate from the world the most significant element in your life?

Think about it.

The issue is not just 'ignorance'. It is a system that in many ways is hostile to their most deeply held beliefs.


Jim

[TheLurch]

So, it's probably worthwhile to step back and look at the issue that's actually being argued here. Which is what the RICO prosecution, legally, would actually involve. And it isn't making climate denial some sort of thought crime, contra to some hasty claims around here.

The idea is this: fossil fuel companies will have their businesses harmed if the full extent of climate change is recognized and restrictions put on the use of fossil fuels. By law, said companies are required to disclose future risks such as this in their reports to their shareholders. Failure to do violates US SEC rules; it's artificially pumping up the share price by misleading investors.

Now, not only have most fossil fuel companies failed to disclose this as a risk until recently, many of them have been funding organizations that proclaim climate science to be a giant conspiracy, etc. This, according to the legal argument, is a form of fraud against their shareholders. The fact that it was done repeatedly and in a coordinated way makes it subject to RICO rules.

Do i think it's a stupid idea to do a RICO prosecution? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean i think it's legally unsound—i have no background in the law, so i can't make that sort of determination.

What i'd love to see here is an argument over the reality of what's happening so that i might become better informed. What i'm seeing instead is everyone shouting about something they don't understand any better than i do.

[TheLurch]

As far as the original topic of this thread goes, 2016 is looking like a scorcher:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ling-new-high/

Both months so far have been records, February by a very large margin - 0.4ºC above last year's average temperature. The entire Arctic and large portions of North America and Eurasia were over 11ºC above the baseline used by NASA.