In Slap At Obama, GOP-Led House Moves To Block Steep Cuts To Greenhouse Gas Emissions

originally posted by: mikell
I believe it's a fraud because the local weather reporting station was moved from a farm about 6 miles out of town to the library courtyard. To make it easier to take the readings. The new station doesn't meet specs but is what they use.

This winter is going to be warm because of El Nino so wait till spring and it'll be the warmest winter in 10 years!!

This thread has nothing to do with weather. Please pick up an elementary grade science textbook and learn the difference between weather and climate then rejoin the conversation.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I do have proof

Where is it? I don't see any links.

How hard all the leftist politicians are pushing it, silencing desent, advocating legal measures against those who don't agree.

Yup seems like they are in the picks of "Big Green Climate Change" to me

Don't tell me special interest groups aren't hard selling these politicians and lining their pockets

To think that big oil is but somehow "your guys" aren't is ludicrous and dishonest

Oh... It's just your rhetoric... *yawn...*

a reply to: theonenonlyone

Is this how the republican members act all the time?

Well we sure know how the climatephobe's are acting don't we?

Oh my God,Oh my God!

The planet is out to git us!

Government please 'save' us.

Meanwhile:

White House Gave Isis 45 Minute Warning Before Bombing Oil Tankers.....Thanks, Obama!

Bombing oil tankers sure isn't good for the environment.

And that's the people that's suppose to 'save' us.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The left scream " The right is in the pocket of Big oil "

LOL.

The Hard Truth: Even Liberals are Big Fans of Oil Subsidies

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just an observation:

My personal understanding of scientific theory or principle is in no way informed or affected by my political ideology. It's dangerous to deny one because of the other.

But it appears that many others lack the intellectual honesty and integrity to separate the two, and their entire understanding of scientific principles are not only informed by their politics, it's a requirement to be part of the club.

Why? Why is the GOP and their masses so set against science?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Do you happen to know how that natural cycle even works? Or are you (as I suspect) just repeating the buzzphrase "natural cycles" over and over again.

*sigh*

You do understand that the natural cycle of the earth over hundreds of thousands of years is not a buzzphrase, but a factual thing, right? Your concerns about what I know are inconsequential to me, especially when you use them in a way to change the subject and attack me instead.

I don't need to prove myself to you, as like I said, this crap has been beaten to death already and your mind won't be changed about neither the subject of the thread nor your opinion of my intelligence.

No we haven't and no I don't. All I ever get is someone bringing up that tired debate about Climategate which has been proven to be a manufactured scandal and a falsehood. In any case, none of that is an excuse to dodge your duty to fulfill your burden of proof.

Here's the thing, Krazy--you also have a burden to research all sides of an issue and be well acquainted with the information before you can imply I know nothing about my claims and that I need to prove things to you. Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time proving things to you that are easily a few internet searches away. Your burden, not mine.

I've gone from AGW proponent to skeptic because of researching all sides and thinking for myself. It's a pretty cool way to approach a subject.

Then why did you even respond to me in the first place? I'm looking for a real debate not some dude's misinformed opinion on the internet.

Therein lies the proof to your own ignorance. You know by now on this site that "real debates" happen all of the time, with one side dismissing the other with absolution, even when there is valid evidence on both sides.

I've seen you dismiss valid evidence before--even valid evidence presented by me. Why would I want to debate that? That's not a debate at all.

I haven't seen a single denier apply logical critical thinking to AGW. Ever. Heck here you are entering a thread, refusing to back anything you say up with links and then saying that its because we've done it before (we haven't). Par the course for a denier argument.

...

Naturally. Fly by posting only convinces me that you are wrong. Thanks.

You make my point and I don't even think that you realize it. You talk about critical thinking, yet need me to prove with data and links things that are easily found and readily known by people who have truly looked at both sides of the arguments. I know the majority of the body of evidence used by those who espouse the AGW argument, as do I the side of the "deniers," and I choose to accept evidence from both sides that have been collected using methods that I find scientifically acceptable. That's where being a skeptic comes into play--knowing that there are valid arguments on both sides, but not enough on the AGW to tell me that, without human beings, the planet would be dramatically different in its climate.

But I don't have to prove the 'why' behind that, and I don't have to give you all the links because I DO NOT CARE if you believe me, think I'm ignorant, or think I'm a troll.

Good luck on finding someone who wants to "debate" you.

a reply to: introvert

You do know that everyone who is skeptical of the AGW line of thinking doesn't have to be part of the GOP or an utter dumbass, right?

I'm not a conservative or a republican, and whether you trust me or not, my IQ could at the very least warrant an application to MENSA, and per my research into both sides' data, and then researching how that data is derived, I would argue with you that "science" really is not science anymore, if you go strictly by the scientific method of how to approach a problem.

But to claim or infer that it's only "the GOP and their masses" set against science is as ludicrous an idea as can be, especially when discussing intellectual honesty and integrity right before making the claim.

Generalizations are as unscientific as it gets.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh... It's just your rhetoric... *yawn...*

Oooo snarky....

Where is it? I don't see any links.

and thats always yours, if i had a dime every time you said "Do you have a link" as if somehow a random link makes anything concrete, I would be a rich man

Youve done that at least 3 times in this thread already

You use that line to keep your cognitive disconnect....

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who emerged as the single biggest individual political donor in the 2014 midterm elections, is ramping up his efforts to make climate change a major issue for candidates in 2016.

On Friday, Mr. Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, will announce that for a 2016 candidate to receive its financial backing, he or she must pledge to enact an energy policy that would lead to the generation of half the nation’s electricity from renewable or zero-carbon sources by 2030 – more than tripling the current use of such sources – and 100 percent from clean sources by 2050.

“We will call on candidates to lay out policies that will get us to this goal,” Mr. Steyer said in an interview. “That’s the hurdle candidates have to get over to win our support.”

Mr. Steyer declined to say how much he planned to spend in the 2016 campaign, but a spokeswoman for NextGen Climate Action said he intended to “double down.” Mr. Steyer spent $74 million in the 2014 midterm elections, donating $67 million to NextGen Climate Action, on a campaign intended to reward candidates who embrace climate change as a major issue, and to punish those who question or deny the established science of human-caused climate change.

Read that He spent 74 MILLION in 2014 mid terms, donating 67 MILLION as a reward to candidates who would push the agenda....

This is just ONE that ive found in a 2 min google search

NY TIMES not exactly a right leaning news paper

Keep thinking your "Climate Paragons" arent getting fat checks to push this agenda, thats your prerogative, but this is ONE man , and there are many many more

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just an observation:

My personal understanding of scientific theory or principle is in no way informed or affected by my political ideology. It's dangerous to deny one because of the other.

But it appears that many others lack the intellectual honesty and integrity to separate the two, and their entire understanding of scientific principles are not only informed by their politics, it's a requirement to be part of the club.

Why? Why is the GOP and their masses so set against science?

Politics has nothing to do with science nor will it ever.

Now that is intellectual honesty instead of touting 'intellectual' superiority over the right which the left just loves to do.

Of course without one original thought of their own.

Just a brutal honest observation.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You do understand that the natural cycle of the earth over hundreds of thousands of years is not a buzzphrase, but a factual thing, right

I do.

It's been in a constant state of motion for over 5 billion years. Never ending.

Which is why I don't see how growing government bigger than it already is.

Destroying business's more than they already are that kill jobs, and wealth. To where they get shipped offshore to other countries that are bigger polluters in the world. Like China, and India.

Creating more laws, Increasing the tax burdens on Americans is going to stop a damn thing.

And that's the kicker.

Climate change can't be stopped.

Not even if the US government controlled the entire world, and had the ECO police stationed in every home, and every business on every continent forcing people in to the LEFT's submission.

Thinking they know what is best for everyone in the world.

The people that push climate change live in a delusion neocon fantasy world.

It's just another vehicle they are using to push the same old tried, and epic failed ideology.

a reply to: introvert

Ya got me. It baffles me why politics and climate change have become inseparable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introvert

Ya got me. It baffles me why politics and climate change have become inseparable.

Because politicians, and pundits are running their mouths about it.

Using it to push agendas.

Hey it's not rocket science now is it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
*sigh*

You do understand that the natural cycle of the earth over hundreds of thousands of years is not a buzzphrase, but a factual thing, right? Your concerns about what I know are inconsequential to me, especially when you use them in a way to change the subject and attack me instead.

I didn't say that. I asked if you knew how those natural cycles actually worked. I'm well aware of the natural cycles, but I know how they work and I know why the changes happening now aren't part of the natural cycles. Because, again, I know how the natural cycles work. So I ask again, do you know how the natural cycles work? Because I don't think you do. I hear denier after denier talk about natural cycles, but never elucidate much further beyond that. You are doing the same thing here.

I don't need to prove myself to you, as like I said, this crap has been beaten to death already and your mind won't be changed about neither the subject of the thread nor your opinion of my intelligence.

As I said earlier in the thread, my mind has changed about Climate Change while on these forums already. So don't tell me what I will and won't do when you actually give me quality evidence.

Here's the thing, Krazy--you also have a burden to research all sides of an issue and be well acquainted with the information before you can imply I know nothing about my claims and that I need to prove things to you. Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time proving things to you that are easily a few internet searches away. Your burden, not mine.

I've gone from AGW proponent to skeptic because of researching all sides and thinking for myself. It's a pretty cool way to approach a subject.

Funny. I went from skeptic to believer doing that exact same thing.

Therein lies the proof to your own ignorance. You know by now on this site that "real debates" happen all of the time, with one side dismissing the other with absolution, even when there is valid evidence on both sides.

There is no "valid" evidence on the skeptic side. It's all rhetoric, partisan nonsense, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence based on how people THINK politicians act. No definitive evidence though. Plus there is the fact that the denier camp keeps harping on proven hoaxes like Climategate.

I've seen you dismiss valid evidence before--even valid evidence presented by me. Why would I want to debate that? That's not a debate at all.

Bull#.

You make my point and I don't even think that you realize it. You talk about critical thinking, yet need me to prove with data and links things that are easily found and readily known by people who have truly looked at both sides of the arguments. I know the majority of the body of evidence used by those who espouse the AGW argument, as do I the side of the "deniers," and I choose to accept evidence from both sides that have been collected using methods that I find scientifically acceptable. That's where being a skeptic comes into play--knowing that there are valid arguments on both sides, but not enough on the AGW to tell me that, without human beings, the planet would be dramatically different in its climate.

Burden of Proof and all that. Just because I demand evidence from you doesn't mean I'm unaware of what you are talking about. But you make the claim, you produce the evidence. I've been producing the evidence for my claims.

But I don't have to prove the 'why' behind that, and I don't have to give you all the links because I DO NOT CARE if you believe me, think I'm ignorant, or think I'm a troll.

Good luck on finding someone who wants to "debate" you.

Bye. Enjoy denying science.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t
and thats always yours, if i had a dime every time you said "Do you have a link" as if somehow a random link makes anything concrete, I would be a rich man

They are far more credible than your opinion on a forum that's for sure.

Youve done that at least 3 times in this thread already

You use that line to keep your cognitive disconnect....

No I do it because random opinions on a forum aren't proof of anything. By producing links (especially credible one) you establish credibility for your opinions. That's basic reporting right there.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who emerged as the single biggest individual political donor in the 2014 midterm elections, is ramping up his efforts to make climate change a major issue for candidates in 2016.

On Friday, Mr. Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, will announce that for a 2016 candidate to receive its financial backing, he or she must pledge to enact an energy policy that would lead to the generation of half the nation’s electricity from renewable or zero-carbon sources by 2030 – more than tripling the current use of such sources – and 100 percent from clean sources by 2050.

“We will call on candidates to lay out policies that will get us to this goal,” Mr. Steyer said in an interview. “That’s the hurdle candidates have to get over to win our support.”

Mr. Steyer declined to say how much he planned to spend in the 2016 campaign, but a spokeswoman for NextGen Climate Action said he intended to “double down.” Mr. Steyer spent $74 million in the 2014 midterm elections, donating $67 million to NextGen Climate Action, on a campaign intended to reward candidates who embrace climate change as a major issue, and to punish those who question or deny the established science of human-caused climate change.

Read that He spent 74 MILLION in 2014 mid terms, donating 67 MILLION as a reward to candidates who would push the agenda....

This is just ONE that ive found in a 2 min google search

NY TIMES not exactly a right leaning news paper

Keep thinking your "Climate Paragons" arent getting fat checks to push this agenda, thats your prerogative, but this is ONE man , and there are many many more

$67 Million? Oh NO!

Koch Brothers Put Price Tag On 2016: $889 Million

Oh wait that is only 7% of what the Koch brothers are paying for politicians. You still haven't proved that climate change isn't real though. Only that wealthy donors are willing to donate to climate change agendas.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introvert

Ya got me. It baffles me why politics and climate change have become inseparable.

Because politicians, and pundits are running their mouths about it.

Using it to push agendas.

Hey it's not rocket science now is it.

That's a fair point. The right wing pundits and politicians have politicized it because their owners (the koch brothers and the oil industry) told them to. That's why they've become inseparable.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

$67 Million? Oh NO!

Koch Brothers Put Price Tag On 2016: $889 Million

Oh wait that is only 7% of what the Koch brothers are paying for politicians. You still haven't proved that climate change isn't real though. Only that wealthy donors are willing to donate to climate change agendas.

Your accusation wasnt whose spending more

Your accusation was that I had no proof and you were denying that they werent making money

This is ONE person, not a pair of brothers, and that was a 2 min search on google....

You denied the politicians were lining their pockets with this agenda and asked for proof

I obliged....

Stop trying to obfuscate , your dishonesty exposes your agenda more than your objectivity

You cant even admit when you were wrong

Hard to accuse "Right Wingers" of being bought off and agenda driven when "Global Warmers" are doing the very same thing

Pot meet kettle

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How much money has Gore made off it ?

So much for being 'non' partisan.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

Trying to work together with the rest of the world to save it for our children or children's children is stupid?

Considering most scientist who agree with th emajority of scientist dont even study climatology. Flawed models that have to be tweaked to get them to work to is suspicious.

If th ehead of th eweather channel who has been studying this issue for 20 plus years says its bunk,and his scientist he know say th esame im going to give pause to any global warming deal.

Planning on proving any of this?

The founder of the Weather Channel is ridiculing Al Gore over his calls for action on global climate change, saying in a column that global warming is a "hoax" and "bad science."

John Coleman, now a weatherman at San Diego's KUSI, wrote on his station's Web site Wednesday that Gore refuses to acknowledge the faulty research on which the idea of global warming is based.

Coleman's lengthy scolding came as the former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would put caps on heat-trapping gases and take the lead on a global climate treaty.

Coleman wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency is "on the verge" of naming CO2 (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant, and that seemingly all of Washington is on board with such CO2 silliness."

"I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it," Coleman wrote, describing the decades-old theory that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere leads to global warming.

"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history," Coleman wrote.

The link to his article was dead but thats what i was refrencing.

OH found another refrencing it. more detail. Link follows.
weather channel founder dismissed AGW

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Your accusation wasnt whose spending more

Your accusation was that I had no proof and you were denying that they werent making money

So are you under the impression that politicians are able to make changes regarding carbon output without money or something? Where is the proof of corruption? $67 million is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to government and political spending so you aren't exactly telling us much here.

This is ONE person, not a pair of brothers, and that was a 2 min search on google....

Dude... Really? $889/2 is $444.5 million which only brings that negligible amount of $67 million up to 14%.

You denied the politicians were lining their pockets with this agenda and asked for proof

I obliged....

Stop trying to obfuscate

Actually you produced evidence that a wealthy donor is willing to give money to fund pro-climate change politicians not that any politicians are specifically lining their pockets with it. Going by the numbers, it appears that denying climate change as a politician appears to be more profitable. I produced just two donors giving TONS more money to politicians to deny climate change. So you have a WAYS to go to produce the same donation levels that just TWO people are contributing.

Still haven't produced evidence that climate change isn't real though. Politicians are really irrelevant to the discussion if the science is legit or not.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: introvert

You do know that everyone who is skeptical of the AGW line of thinking doesn't have to be part of the GOP or an utter dumbass, right?

I'm not a conservative or a republican, and whether you trust me or not, my IQ could at the very least warrant an application to MENSA, and per my research into both sides' data, and then researching how that data is derived, I would argue with you that "science" really is not science anymore, if you go strictly by the scientific method of how to approach a problem.

But to claim or infer that it's only "the GOP and their masses" set against science is as ludicrous an idea as can be, especially when discussing intellectual honesty and integrity right before making the claim.

Generalizations are as unscientific as it gets.

I didn't say it was only the GOP. That was just whom I was directing the comment towards.

For someone that claim to be smart enough to join MENSA, you should work on your comprehension skills.