House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming

Prove to me that it is. Note, the data you cite will be subject to high scrutiny, speculation will not be tolerated.

Prove to me that it is. Note, the data you cite will be subject to high scrutiny, speculation will not be tolerated.

Shopper, you're right not to trust them scientists! If you do, they'll have you believing in evolution, the big bang & such-like.

The best source of good information on climatology is not from scientists who make this area their life work, but from the corporations who would be harmed by any requirement to reduce their carbon footprints. Other good sources of info on climatology are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Sean Hannity.

When Republican Senators reach the point where there is a never ending increase in the cost of food for their constuencies, due to "Climate Change" and not just rising gas prices--(although that is a factor), then they may change their tune.

Unfortunately, the problem is that the Republican Party is currently being held hostage by this so called "Tea Party" faction, whose anti-science, anti-global warming stance, anti-intellectual drumbeat is keeping the senators in check.

House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming

House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming: Scientific American Podcast

I guess that settles it.

What's funny is reading the comments under the article, especially 10.

House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming

House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming: Scientific American Podcast

I guess that settles it.

I am laughing and crying.


Twain did not know how right he was..

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
-- Mark Twain

I liked comment #5, pretty much says it all, imho:

"Let us hope the "Stick your head in the sand" approach works, or that End of Days is actually approaching, otherwise those of us that actually believe in Reason will have only ourselves to blame when humans make this planet uninhabitable (or at least miserable to live on) because we couldn't find a working method for combating idiocy.
It is sad that the most obstinately ignorant among us so often rise to power."

No worries, even if man is destroying the planet God will fix it.:sarc:

Shopper, you're right not to trust them scientists! If you do, they'll have you believing in evolution, the big bang & such-like.

The best source of good information on climatology is not from scientists who make this area their life work, but from the corporations who would be harmed by any requirement to reduce their carbon footprints. Other good sources of info on climatology are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Sean Hannity.

I don't trust any of those sources but am open to listening to all of them, while you accept everything from one particular group and dismiss everything from the others. Who's being more closed minded here? ;-)

I don't trust any of those sources, while you accept everything from one particular group and dismiss everything from the others. Who's being more closed minded here? ;-)

I agree that we must be careful of sources on all sides of the issues. I tend to be a little more persuaded by top scientists in the field of climatology than politicians who refuse to acknowledge generally accepted scientific theories and facts. There is no denying that our energy and other consumption is having an impact on our environment and that there will be consequences to earth and our quality of life. There are many questions surrounding our climate, atmosphere and potential warming - even scientists do not agree on the details but they do know that our actions do impact earth and our existence in real ways. The entire world is concerned and taking it seriously. Are we really going to give up our position as a world leader in scientific exploration and environmental protection because of politics?

I try not to take anything congress does or doesn't do too seriously. There is so much more to study and understand on the topic of global warming and environmental impact. Continuing scientific exploration is critical and will continue no matter what congress does or says or votes for or against. I'm interested in seeing responses from the international community on this vote.

I found an interesting article on "top scientists" and their views. They are very mixed on the subject. But most agree on certain elements such as human impact. There are so many different fields of expertise and study, it blows the mind to consider all we are learning and how much we just don't know.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - FT.com / FT Magazine - Top climate scientists share their outlook

​

Top climate scientists share their outlook

By Tom de Castella
Published: November 20 2009 16:51 | Last updated: November 20 2009 16:51

Climate scientists are like an exotic tribe ? fascinating, sometimes hard to understand and rarely visited. The editor of a science journal warned me that I would find little to interest mainstream readers ? the boffins would agree on pretty much everything. The debate, she implied, was over. She was wrong.
While climate scientists agree the world is warming due to man?s activities, there are still large areas of conflict, notably over how certain we can be about the predictions.



see Financial Times for article

Yet some of these same republicans believe in a talking snake.

interesting...

New Republic: Japan Holds A Lesson For US Politics

by John B. Judis



Toshifumi Kitamura /AFP/Getty Images Japanese Defense Force members load tsunami relief goods at the port in Kamaishi city, Iwate Prefecture. The official toll of the dead and missing has topped 11,000.



March 16, 2011
John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The earthquake and potential nuclear catastrophe in Japan have brought home a set of questions that have haunted philosophers for hundreds of years ? and have played an important role in American politics for over a century. They have to do with the relationship between humanity and nature ? not nature as "the outdoors," but as the obdurate bio-geo-physiochemical reality in which human beings and other animals dwell. To what extent does nature set limits on human possibilities? And to what extent can human beings overcome these limits?


see npr for article

I agree that we must be careful of sources on all sides of the issues. I tend to be a little more persuaded by top scientists in the field of climatology than politicians who refuse to acknowledge generally accepted scientific theories and facts. There is no denying that our energy and other consumption is having an impact on our environment and that there will be consequences to earth and our quality of life. There are many questions surrounding our climate, atmosphere and potential warming - even scientists do not agree on the details but they do know that our actions do impact earth and our existence in real ways. The entire world is concerned and taking it seriously. Are we really going to give up our position as a world leader in scientific exploration and environmental protection because of politics?

I try not to take anything congress does or doesn't do too seriously. There is so much more to study and understand on the topic of global warming and environmental impact. Continuing scientific exploration is critical and will continue no matter what congress does or says or votes for or against. I'm interested in seeing responses from the international community on this vote.

I found an interesting article on "top scientists" and their views. They are very mixed on the subject. But most agree on certain elements such as human impact. There are so many different fields of expertise and study, it blows the mind to consider all we are learning and how much we just don't know.

That's why I found that blurb in Scientific American so ironic. Note both sides were playing politics with the subject. Waxman introduced an amendment stating warming of the climate was "unequivocal", while we know the subject of global warming is still highly debated within the scientific community. Yet Scientific American, which should be highly skeptical, made fun of the fact that republicans shot down the amendment? They should have applauded them for it.

That's why I found that blurb in Scientific American so ironic. Note both sides were playing politics with the subject. Waxman introduced an amendment stating warming of the climate was "unequivocal", while we know the subject of global warming is still highly debated within the scientific community. Yet Scientific American, which should be highly skeptical, made fun of the fact that republicans shot down the amendment? They should have applauded them for it.

agree except for the applauding part. there is nothing to applaud here, imo. it seems very shortsighted. and wrong. makes me wonder - why? is it really all about corporations?