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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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.

LOL really? did you even read the source?

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.

i repeat

and to punish those who question or deny the established science of human-caused climate change.

you keep making excuses , seriously its not only dishonest its offensive to even call yourself objective when you wont call this what it is....

This is ONE man in a SEA of Global Warmists, and others who stand to make MILLIONS with this whole thing

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.

Dishonesty for you again.....thats NOT what you asked....

I stated

Liberal left are in the pockets of cronies who arent interested in anything but stuffing their bank accounts under the "guise" of being green and helping the environment

Your reply was

Got any proof of this? Because I can prove the statement that the right is in the pocket of big oil rather easily.

Again more obfuscation, goal post moving, and dishonesty

You refuse to be objective, so im ending this debate, you clearly have no interest in truth

a reply to: yuppa

Oh my god is that guy dumb! He's literally just repeating right wing talking points like they are factual.

The climate of Earth has never been ‘normal’ or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed…”

What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?

Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.

Much warmer times have also occurred in climate history – during most of the past 500 million years, Earth was probably completely free of ice sheets (geologists can tell from the marks ice leaves on rock), unlike today, when Greenland and Antarctica are ice-covered. Data on greenhouse gas abundances going back beyond a million years, that is, beyond the reach of antarctic ice cores, are still rather uncertain, but analysis of geological samples suggests that the warm ice-free periods coincide with high atmospheric CO2 levels. On million-year time scales, CO2 levels change due to tectonic activity, which affects the rates of CO2 exchange of ocean and atmosphere with the solid Earth. See Section 6.3 for more about these ancient climates.

When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the ‘radiative forcing’ theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify…

No the terms were never switched either.

Global warming vs climate change

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:

And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t
LOL really? did you even read the source?

Don't care. That is just one guys hopes with a pitiful amount of money to donate compared to people donating to deny climate change.

you keep making excuses , seriously its not only dishonest its offensive to even call yourself objective when you wont call this what it is....

This is ONE man in a SEA of Global Warmists, and others who stand to make MILLIONS with this whole thing

Yes one man. That's really all it is. You are trying to say that because you've found one guy who donated some money and wants to punish climate change deniers that there are tons more. That isn't necessarily the case, not to mention it is still more profitable for a politician to deny climate science not embrace it. That is something you keep ignoring.

Dishonesty for you again.....thats NOT what you asked....

Yea you keep cleverly avoiding the "is climate change real" discussion in this thread. Instead continuing to harp on political agendas. I care about the science not the politics so that's why I keep shifting the conversation back to the science. I know crazy right?

By the way, if it were Republicans siding with climate change and Democrats denying it then I'd be siding with the Republicans on this issue. Again I care about the science not the politics. Until you can show me the science isn't real all your posturing about political corruption means nothing to me. Yes political corruption exists, but that doesn't mean the science is flawed or that politicians shouldn't do anything about climate change.

You refuse to be objective, so im ending this debate, you clearly have no interest in truth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is really funny coming from someone who is TERRIFIED to discuss science in a topic about science.

dbl post

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't care. That is just one guys hopes with a pitiful amount of money to donate compared to people donating to deny climate change.

Ahh so you didnt, pitiful huh? I know a lot of people that wouldnt sneeze at 60 million plus....

But thanks for proving once again you arent objective, you didnt read and you dont care..

You asked for proof, I gave it to you, then you claimed you asked me something else which you did not....

Now you claim you dont care....youre all agenda and not interested in truth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is really funny coming from someone who is TERRIFIED to discuss science in a topic about science.

You asked a question and wanted proof , I provided it....you refused to read the article, and then accuse ME of being terrified to talk about the topic? Which ties directly to politics since your OPs own title includes GOP, not climate science...

You tried to derail your own thread into a different topic in order to keep from discussing the proof myself and others have submitted that destroys your assertion that Politicians on the Left are being bought off....

End of discussion, youre dismissed

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ahh so you didnt, pitiful huh? I know a lot of people that wouldnt sneeze at 60 million plus....

But thanks for proving once again you arent objective, you didnt read and you dont care..

I did read it. It isn't proving what you think it is proving.

You asked for proof, I gave it to you, then you claimed you asked me something else which you did not....

Now you claim you dont care....youre all agenda and not interested in truth

End of discussion, youre dismissed

Yea you are right. I really don't want to waste my time with someone who only cares about the politics around climate change and not the actual science. My time would be better spent discussing CO2, and the various real world instances of climate change that are happening now. So yea, cya Mr. Not Interested in Truth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea you are right. I really don't want to waste my time with someone who only cares about the politics around climate change and not the actual science. My time would be better spent discussing CO2, and the various real world instances of climate change that are happening now. So yea, cya Mr. Not Interested in Truth.

Your OP isnt about the discussion on if MMGW is real, your OP was a slam on the Right, and you go on to talk about them being bought off

Your whole post and subsequent replies are DISTINCTLY political, not scientific

Now your pissed because people are calling you out on the hypocrisy of it....

Give me a break

a reply to: introvert

LOL, yeah, okay. Let's revisit your comment:

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?

Reading between the lines is part of reading comprehension, and any intelligent individual would read these three-ish sentences and see that you're saying anyone who subscribes to the GOP's (i.e.: the whole of the Republican party, proper) politics is lacking intellectual honesty and integrity while being set against science (as it pertains to AGW, anyways).

Now sure how you come of lecturing me about comprehension skills when, if you meant something different, you didn't communicate in a comprehensive fashion.

And to direct it back at you, as is appropriate, I didn't say that you said it was only the GOP...in fact, if you look at what I said--and you quoted it, so I assume that you did--I said, "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?"

See, the coordinating conjunction "or" means that there is more than one category about which I'm speaking. Yet, you responded as if I said you were only talking about the GOP when clearly I was not.

Comprehension skills, indeed.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Reading between the lines is part of reading comprehension, and any intelligent individual would read these three-ish sentences and see that you're saying anyone who subscribes to the GOP's (i.e.: the whole of the Republican party, proper) politics is lacking intellectual honesty and integrity while being set against science (as it pertains to AGW, anyways).

OK. What's the problem? You said I inferred it was only the GOP my comment could apply to. I never said "only". That was whom I was addressing. NO need to read between the lines.

you're saying anyone who subscribes to the GOP's (i.e.: the whole of the Republican party, proper) politics is lacking intellectual honesty and integrity while being set against science (as it pertains to AGW, anyways).

I didn't say "only", "all" or "anyone" either.

And to direct it back at you, as is appropriate, I didn't say that you said it was only the GOP...in fact, if you look at what I said--and you quoted it, so I assume that you did-

You used the words "claim" and "infer".

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.

Without reading between the lines, it does appear that you were inferring I was saying anyone or all of the GOP. So it appears we are stuck in a war of words.

My original point was quite clear, I stand by my observation and I am not beyond consideration that other "dumb asses" may also deny CC science.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

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

This doesn't mean what you think it means. You use the word agenda pejoratively - but, yeah - it's an agenda

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.”

Yes - please Mr. Steyer - whatever it takes!

There will hopefully be more and more money being poured into this in the future - and then some more. I know you can't appreciate this - but some people are working very hard and paying big time to save the planet. You should thank them

:-)

Climate Change Is Going to Be Expensive—For Everybody

Bill Gates And Other Billionaires Pledge To Take On Climate Change

Trudeau pledges $2.65B to help poor countries fight climate change

Tech CEOs, Billionaires Throw Money at Climate Change As Eiffel Tower Shines Green

In case you're interested:

Climate Funds Update

Climate Data Shows What's Good Business

Here we go!

Climate Change Fight Gets Cash From the Right
One conservative billionaire wants to convince his fellow Republicans to believe in climate change. Can his money make a difference?

Faison, a conservative Christian and a business entrepreneur in Charlotte, N.C., says he wants to use his money to help shift the conversation among Republicans when it comes to climate change. “We want to move people away from the, ‘Are we causing it?’ and into the, ‘How are we going to solve it?’” he told The Washington Post earlier this year.

Holy crap - right? :-)

But, you know - it's not all good news:
Senators Who Rejected Human-Caused Climate Change Received 7 Times as Much Money from Oil and Gas Interests

The Koch Brothers have sent at least $79,048,951 to groups denying climate change science since 1997.

...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

Sometimes links are useful because it shows that you understand the conversation and aren't just talking out of your ass

We all have ideas about which sources are the most reliable and which are just nonsense, but eventually anybody that's paying attention should be able to see where all this is heading

This is a fight between scientist and corporations. BOTH are fighting over money. Its no longer about Science being altruistic anymore. They are just as bad as corporations now. the government wins either way.

a reply to: yuppa

Uh, yeah... because the scientists are really raking it in out there... especially compared to those corporations.

Scientists have to prove what they say (or at least prove that, without a doubt, they are onto something) in order to get funding while corporations, well, they don't have to prove a thing, just use their same old tactics... advertising & rhetoric, lobbying (and everything horrifying that comes with that), monopolies, price fixing, law suits, dirty politics, etc. etc.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Can't argue against the science, so you find bits of the argument that you can harp on...I do believe that is the old strawman attack/argument.

I demand evidence that counters the AGW theory, and no one provides it.(opinion pieced by wuwt, heartland institute articles, roy spencer, jo nova, ect. are usuaaly what I get even though they have all been thoroughly discredited)

It does bother me that so many cry 'hoax' and 'agenda' yet can't provide any actual science and data that the IPCC, NOAA, NASA,ect. got it wrong.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Wow this is beautiful. Thank you for those links. At least someone gets it. I'm going to read them now. Some of that stuff I wasn't aware of.

a reply to: jrod

Exactly. The political discussion is just a red herring. The money discussion another red herring. If AGW is TRULY a hoax, then prove it with the science. That's how it works.

If you can't do that, then just shut up and let us start figuring out solutions.

The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing

Click on the link, read the article, then tell me that climate change isn't real.

originally posted by: introvert
My original point was quite clear, ...

Agreed, but we just differ on what that clarity was saying, apparently. No big deal, as it's just a misguided, generalized opinion based on political ideology anyway, and that's all that I was pointing out.

... I stand by my observation and I am not beyond consideration that other "dumb asses" may also deny CC science.

You should always stand by your observation if you make it; my observation is that you're letting generalized political bias and rhetoric give you observational cataracts, but so be it, as you're not the first or last person on ATS to exhibit that symptom, and I'm not completely immune to it myself at times.

As for the "dumb asses" comment, I'll just assume that there's some passive-aggressive point in there somewhere and we'll just agree to disagree with your observation.

Best regards, as this war of words has run its course, I think.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I read that...and nothing proves that the sea-level rise is because of man, but I'm not going to get into that again with you and your apparent lack of willingness to accept that the natural cycles and dynamics of Earth's climate have more to do with it than us humans affecting percentages of percentages of percentages of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (and that being the cause of all of the changes on earth).

In fact, the seas have been rising since the last ice age, and since we're still rebounding from that, it would make sense that they're still rising now, and in doing so, affecting the water and air temperatures that then affect how currents move and winds blow. Mankind's tiny little effect is not the bulk of the cause, and the "West's wallet" isn't going to fix the issue.

This link is tantamount to claiming that it's man's fault that all of the islands that used to sit where the Hawaiian Islands currently sit are now underwater. No, it's a combination of many different natural processes that combined to send them northward toward Alaska and under the ocean's surface. Same with the Marshall Islands, unless you can prove to me that the sea level in relation to the islands sat stagnant for thousands of years before the industrial revolution came along, or that the wind directions in that area have been consistent for millennia as well.

There is insufficient hard evidence--it's mostly conjecture and supposition--that human activity has caused the changes in the climate that have moved the path of the trade winds that are the cause of the higher water on the shores of the nation that stands, on average, 7 feet above sea level (apparently a little less, now). But seriously, think about that...there are human beings who are taller than the average elevation of that nation that is surrounded by sea water. Not exactly the most intelligent area to claim a nation, imo.

The point is that climate change is real, but anthropogenic global warming, which is what you seem to espouse, is highly skeptical (at best) when looking at the severity of the claimed effect that it's having on the planet.

And to anyone with a rational mind, that is an absolutely acceptable stance to have on the issue.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Climate changed in the past due to CO2. So it reasons that climate can change in the past when humans dump tons of CO2 into the air. It's simple logic mate. Saying that climate has always changed then neglect to acknowledge the connection when humans fiddle with one of the primary drivers of climate change in the past is intellectually dishonest. Plain and simple.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or, in general, CO2 changed in response to other factors, lagging behind temperature by about 400 years or so:


There is a lot of evidence that shows that CO2 trends lag behind temperature trends in the grand scheme of our planet's climate changes.

It's only simple logic if you look at the overall picture. You seem to keep dismissing that I acknowledge that humans probably play a small role in affecting the speed or direction at which the climate changes, but I can't accept that it is to the extreme that you and others believe and claim it to be.

I haven't been intellectually dishonest on that part, ever. I have never denied the possibility that we are affecting it, but I do claim that it is a tiny part of the big picture, if we are. And I would even argue that the earth has natural ways to correct, if need be, the affect that we're having, as evidenced by the reality that the climate has NEVER remained steady or stagnant.

Plain and simple.