GOP Victory May Be Defeat For Climate Change Policy

[thundley4]

The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

That's a scientific fact.

Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

That too, is a fact.

And yet the majority of Republicans running for House and Senate seats this year disagree.

Ken Buck, the GOP senate candidate in Colorado admits he's a climate change denier. Ron Johnson, who leads in the polls of Wisconsin's senatorial race, has said that "it is far more likely that [climate change] is just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate."

Racist  NPR

More fear mongering from the government tax funded wing of the DNC.

CO₂ adds to global warming, but not nearly as much as water vapor/clouds do.  Then there is the truth about man's contribution to CO₂ in the atmosphere. It's something like 3 % or less . The Earth itself produces most of the CO₂.

[true_blood]

You know what else is a fact?!? Gas prices and utility prices go up when they pass Cap & Trade for "globull warming".
Still think it's a good idea, liberals?

[Freeper]

Have they ever mentioned just what temperature is the normal temperature for Mother Earth?
Seems to me it has changed constantly since the beginning.

I'm all for searching for other ways to provide energy and doing things cleaner. I don't exactly understand how taxing the piss out of everyone will do anything other than relieve us of all our money.
Let the free market develop, test, and sell alternative forms of energy production. We will get it a hell of a lot quicker than the Govt trying to force it on us.

[JohnnyReb]

I have been convinced...I'm going to do my part...I'm going to live in the dark, eat raw meat and freeze/burn to death.

Gonna have to eat raw meat, the plants will die from a lack of CO2.

...and that just about uses up my quota of DUmmie thinking units for the rest of the year.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Other facts:  Earth is currently below the mean temperature for the current geological period, the CO2 warming model is laughably primitive (Though that doesn't necessarily mean the prediction is wrong, it just means that would be a matter of chance rather than predictive value if it does prove correct), and solar variation appears to be far more significant than greenhouse gases in any current warming.

All in all, I'm not going to be too broken up if GOP victories put the brakes on screaming greenness.

[JohnnyReb]

Other facts:  Earth is currently below the mean temperature for the current geological period, the CO2 warming model is laughably primitive (Though that doesn't necessarily mean the prediction is wrong, it just means that would be a matter of chance rather than predictive value if it does prove correct), and solar variation appears to be far more significant than greenhouse gases in any current warming.

All in all, I'm not going to be too broken up if GOP victories put the brakes on screaming greenness.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

That's why DUmmies and greenies keep jumping the fence.

[BowTied]

"Climate change"? About time that was jettisoned. The whole notion is the biggest scam ever perpetrated.

[Eupher]

I think it's been well established that the fear-mongering and woe-be-us-'n-shit brought upon by the current flavor of "global warming" is due principally to acquiring money.

Money is necessary to continue to study things that require no study ordinarily. So we have to create shit to study to keep our scientists from eating their young.

Mrs E froths at the mouth when I badmouth her precious scientists, but I think even TVDOC would agree that there are unscrupulous scientists out there who insist on bending facts to meet the agenda. The agenda requires the acquisition of money.

I ain't no scientist, but I can understand that much.

Caveat statement: not all scientists are unscrupulous, but those that stick to a predetermined agenda aren't quite as objective as they'd like to think they are.

[JohnnyReb]

I
Caveat statement: not all scientists are unscrupulous, but those that stick to a predetermined agenda aren't quite as objective as they'd like to think they are.

Yeah...Here are the results we want, now make up shit to prove them.

[Thor]

Back in the 70s, the climatologists were predicting another Ice Age. In 77 & 78, Norfolk, Va got the most snow they have ever had in a LONG while.

[Doc]

I think it's been well established that the fear-mongering and woe-be-us-'n-shit brought upon by the current flavor of "global warming" is due principally to acquiring money.

Mrs E froths at the mouth when I badmouth her precious scientists, but I think even TVDOC would agree that there are unscrupulous scientists out there who insist on bending facts to meet the agenda. The agenda requires the acquisition of money.

Caveat statement: not all scientists are unscrupulous, but those that stick to a predetermined agenda aren't quite as objective as they'd like to think they are.

Sadly Euph, this is very true......."publish or perish" has led many in the sciences to gravitate toward every "hot button" issue that develops that has even the remotest relationship to any scientific discipline.

Research has become an exercise in constantly securing grants for "study".  Gone are the days when the vast bulk of research was sponsored largely by private industry, nonpartisan foundations, universities, and other nongovernmental entities.

Basically most (in the US at least) research is either sponsored by direct government grants, or partisan groups attempting to provide academic cover for an agenda, and 99% of the agenda is liberal in nature.

The vast majority of honest scientists do not participate in this, however the minority that do have their voices "amplified" by the ideologues that sponsor them, therefore their "findings" are nearly always out of step with scientific reality.  There are many examples other than AGW, which we tend to focus on here.....AIDS research, NASA, NOAA, and particularly the pseudo scientific areas like  psychiatry and psychology are rife with ideologically driven grants for research.

doc. .

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yes...offer Federal, or foundation, grant money to study something arcane and problematic, and scientists will line up to find it.  Not only will they find it, their most conclusive finding will be that they also need more money for further studies necessary to understand and document it properly...