Science in a Republican Senate: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/11/04/science-in-a-republican-senate-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

The Republican Party is widely predicted to win control of the Senate as a result of today’s midterm elections. In broadstrokes, that outcome portends a green light for the Keystone XL Pipeline, a blow to the Affordable Care Act and a push for corporate tax reform.

But what would a GOP-controlled Senate mean for scientists and their research?

When it comes to science (and, more importantly, funding) individual senators are perhaps less important than the committees that they run. There are 20 committees in the U.S. Senate, with responsibilities ranging from homeland security to urban development. The chairperson of each committee, appointed by the majority party, holds inordinate sway over how his or her committee votes.

If Republicans take control of the Senate, we can expect a major shakeup within the ranks of these powerful committees. But, despite the conventional wisdom, conservatives aren’t always bad for science. Here are three of the senate committees that hold the most sway over science and scientific research—and what might happen to them if Republicans win the day.

The Good: Appropriations

The Senate Appropriations Committee is arguably the most powerful committee. Virtually all Senate-approved funding for science must pass through Appropriations—think cash for the Food and Drug Administration, the National Science Foundation and NASA. It would be disastrous for scientific research and development if someone hostile to science were to gain control of Appropriations.

Fortunately, that’s unlikely. The current chairwoman of Appropriations is Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat who has consistently opposed NASA budget cuts and recently promised that she will fight for NASA receive at least as much money in 2015 as the organization did in 2014.

If Republicans win the Senate, it is likely that Thad Cochran would return to his prior post (2005-2007) as chairman of Appropriations. Cochran, too, supports increased funding for NASA, and back in 2013 he was one of the few Republicans who voted in favor of protecting ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems. In the past, he has voted for telecommunications deregulation and even advocated for an extra $18 billion toward waterway infrastructure.

The Science-Friendly Vote: Toss up. Both Mikulski and Cochran seem pretty science-friendly.

The Bad: Commerce, Science and Transportation

The Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is all about scientific legislation. This committee controls funding for green technology, aeronautical and space sciences, atmospheric and weather sciences and scientific research and development (there’s some overlap among committees).

The current chairman of Commerce, Science and Transportation is Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat who thinks, according to his web site, that investing in science, technology is critical to our nation’s global leadership. Although Rockefeller did not seek reelection in 2014, his voting record has been decidedly pro-science. He has taken major steps toward bringing federal research grants to underserved states, and he even voted in favor of providing Internet connections for public schools. It’s not a stretch to imagine a Democratic successor who operates along the same basic lines.

Meanwhile, based on senate seniority, it is likely that the Republicans would appoint Ted Cruz as chairman of Commerce, Science and Transportation. Cruz is a climate skeptic who recently pushed for a reduction in NASA’s budget. It is also noteworthy that he was the public face of last year’s government shutdown, which did lasting damage to scientific research.

The Science-Friendly Vote: Rockefeller over Cruz.

The Ugly: Environment and Public Works

The Environment and Public Works Committee stands at the helm of climate change legislation and funds the Environmental Protection Agency. The current chairwoman, Barbara Boxer, famously pulled an all-nighter back in March to publicize the threat of climate change. Need we say more?

If Republicans win the Senate, James Inhofe will likely take charge of Environment and Public Works. That would be disastrous for science.

Inhofe is one of the loudest climate deniers in the senate, as evidenced by his book The Greatest Hoax: How The Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future and many other public and written statements. If Inhofe gains control of the Senate committee in charge of climate change legislation, that’s probably the end of climate change legislation (not that great strides have been made in the past seven years of Democratic dominance). And, global warming aside, it’s probably not a good idea to put someone who calls scientific consensus a “hoax” in charge of a Senate committee that holds the purse strings for scientific funding.

[DarrinS]

Wtf are "climate deniers"?

[spurraider21]

The anti-science view is among the many reasons I've never come close to identifying as a republican, among other things. By in large they're socially backwards and as carlin put it best have little dick syndrome aka warmongering

the GOP has a pretty simple way of looking at the world which sometimes is a good thing and practical but other times is just laughable

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wtf are "climate deniers"?


Always has and always will be. Climate change is the norm. If it stopped changing, it would be for the first time in 4½ billion years. Global warmists are the climate change deniers.


Global Warming or Cooling?

117 years of Failed Climate and Environmental Predictions

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890

The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,

The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - January 1905
“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. - Washington Post 11/2/1922

Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age - Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," - New York Times - May 30, 1947

Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. - Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

*********************

Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. – New York Times - February 20, 1969

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. – New York Times - July 18, 1970

*************

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

"(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971

New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. - Los Angles Times - May 16, 1972

"There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” – Fortune Magazine February 1974

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974

Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - October 10, 1975

A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature - March 6, 1975

Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978

One of the questions that nags at climatologists asks when and how fast a new ice age might descend. A Belgian scientist suggests this could happen sooner and swifter than you might think. - Christian Science Monitor - Nov 14, 1979

Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - November 1980

A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said... Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years - San Jose Mercury News - June 11, 1986

Greenhouse Effect Culprit May Be Family Car; New Ice Age by 1995?...As the tropical oceans heat up (due to increased greenhouse gases), more of their moisture is evaporated to form clouds. The increasing pole-tropic wind systems move some of these additional clouds toward the poles, resulting in increased winter rainfall, longer and colder winters and the gradual buildup of the polar ice sheets. This phenomenon has come to be widely recognized by climatologists in recent years. What most of them do not recognize is that this process may be the engine that drives the 100,000-year cycle of major ice ages, for which there is no other plausible explanation....we may be less than seven years away, and our climate may continue to deteriorate rapidly until life on earth becomes all but unsupportable.... New York Times - Larry Ephron , Director of the Institute for a Future - July 15, 1988

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants -- at a cost of $110 billion -- to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says...Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

'New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,' - St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990's) are not difficult to make... Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990

Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991

''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an "above normal" year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year's, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. -- Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted - The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team's forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. - ScienceDaily April 3, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States - NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country - ScienceDailyOct. 11, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted


Evidently, Nobel-prize winner Al Gore LOVED his speech. How predictable.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7342/algore5zr6og2vo3.png

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/the-presidents-oval-offic_b_614011.html?ir=Yahoo

That last one was just one of hundreds of posts of you trying to make Gore the center of the debate. You are a:

SOPHIST

PIECE

OF

SHIT

[baseline bum]

I miss the old Republican party of Reagan and HW Bush. I would have voted either of them over Obama in a second in the 2012 election. Even though I didn't like their economic and social policy they still had their good points, for instance, their willingness to fund scientific research like the supercollider in Waxahachie (fuck you Clinton for killing it). Can't stand this breed of Herbert Hoover Republicans that's taken over the party now and offers nothing constructive.

[DarrinS]

That last one was just one of hundreds of posts of you trying to make Gore the center of the debate. You are a:

SOPHIST

PIECE

OF

SHIT


Such venom and vitriol. You need better pot.

Just because I don't agree with the "end of days" climate change fanatics, doesn't mean I deny there's a climate. Your blog used "climate skeptic" and "climate denier". Just thought it was funny.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Such venom and vitriol. You need better pot.

Just because I don't agree with the "end of days" climate change fanatics, doesn't mean I deny there's a climate. Your blog used "climate skeptic" and "climate denier". Just thought it was funny.

You said that the warming had 'halted' or that the current climate trajectory was natural variation. Skeptics don't speak in absolutes like that nor does it mean that you are mitigating the effect of warming a la your current dissembling point of the impact of climate change.

You are either stupid, deceitful or both.. I go with the last considering how much you lie and misrepresent.

[DarrinS]

You said that the warming had 'halted' or that the current climate trajectory was natural variation. Skeptics don't speak in absolutes like that nor does it mean that you are mitigating the effect of warming a la your current dissembling point of the impact of climate change.

You are either stupid, deceitful or both.. I go with the last considering how much you lie and misrepresent.


I believe in global warming -- some natural, some man-made, but not much of either in the last 18 years or so. I DON'T believe in "tipping points" and spiraling positive feedbacks.

Satisfied?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe in global warming -- some natural, some man-made, but not much of either in the last 18 years or so. I DON'T believe in "tipping points" and spiraling positive feedbacks.

Satisfied?

No. Behaving like a shill whose goal is to thwart policy changes regarding carbon emissions regardless of data is not satisfactory. You will say anything that lends to said goal and have demonstrated that quite clearly.

You have no credibility on this subject and have intentionally misled people on this board as to where you get your information from. Claiming that stuff was from BEST when it was really from a GWPC mailer was just the first of many times I've seen you do that.

[DarrinS]

No. Behaving like a shill whose goal is to thwart policy changes regarding carbon emissions regardless of data is not satisfactory. You will say anything that lends to said goal and have demonstrated that quite clearly.

You have no credibility on this subject and have intentionally misled people on this board as to where you get your information from. Claiming that stuff was from BEST when it was really from a GWPC mailer was just the first of many times I've seen you do that.

Meh, whatever

[spurraider21]

http://images5.aplus.com/uc-up/f511e8e7-5397-4430-b957-f1f9651c96df/enhanced3040140268119923.resize_640x.png

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Meh, whatever

I remember asking you about that graph and you telling me it was from BEST. When I found the data in the BEST report and posted it, I again asked you where it came from because it was clearly not from BEST. You repeated yourself.

Came to find out that you had pulled it from a oil lobby junk mail but hosted it on your own domain which hid the link.

You intentionally try to mislead people on this subject. You would have made a good tobacco executive in the 1970s. It is what it is.

[SnakeBoy]

I hope the Dems are planning on making climate change a primary issue for 2016, should help the GOP.

Come to think of it, what exactly can they run on in 2016? Fixing the healthcare system? Promising immigration reform? Fighting terrorists? Paying attention to black folks now that the black President is gone?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope the Dems are planning on making climate change a primary issue for 2016, should help the GOP.

Come to think of it, what exactly can they run on in 2016? Fixing the healthcare system? Promising immigration reform? Fighting terrorists? Paying attention to black folks now that the black President is gone?

Florida thinks it's important and with Ohio, it's been one of the most important electoral contests over the past 100 years.

You are part of the GOP base and are not representative of the moderate swing votes. You get that right?

[SnakeBoy]

You are part of the GOP base and are not representative of the moderate swing votes. You get that right?

Oh yeah...I'm not objective like you lol.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh yeah...I'm not objective like you lol.

I know I am not objective. That is why you see me turn to polling data and the like. I say it's important in Florida because of that reason not because of any personal anecdote. Personal anecdotes in lieu of evidence is WC level thinking frankly.

I am very comfortable with the idea that most everyone doesn't think like I do and that a broader evaluation is best.

[spurraider21]

the campaign focuses were hilarious during these midterms :lol

:lol vote for us because isis is scary
:lol vote for us because you are a woman

[RandomGuy]

Wtf are "climate deniers"?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=55&highlight=pseudoscience

[RandomGuy]

the campaign focuses were hilarious during these midterms :lol

:lol vote for us because isis is scary
:lol vote for us because you are a woman

Eyup. This election sucked monkey balls, from both parties. I was left shaking my head.

[baseline bum]

the campaign focuses were hilarious during these midterms :lol

:lol vote for us because isis is scary
:lol vote for us because you are a woman

Vote for me for land commissioner/state senator/mayor because Obama sucks

I'll build new highways and hire more border patrol and it'll be free!

[RandomGuy]

No. Behaving like a shill whose goal is to thwart policy changes regarding carbon emissions regardless of data is not satisfactory. You will say anything that lends to said goal and have demonstrated that quite clearly.

You have no credibility on this subject and have intentionally misled people on this board as to where you get your information from. Claiming that stuff was from BEST when it was really from a GWPC mailer was just the first of many times I've seen you do that.

Pretty much. DarrinS is obviously not above lying to get the policies he wants, and that should concern anyone who agrees with him. That no one from his camp calls him out on it that I can think of, says volumes.

[DarrinS]

Pretty much. DarrinS is obviously not above lying to get the policies he wants, and that should concern anyone who agrees with him. That no one from his camp calls him out on it that I can think of, says volumes.

How are my posts on the political forum on ST going to change policy? I don't even care if I change minds on the subject. If you want to be an advocate for catastrophic climate change, that's your business.

Fuzzy has been obsessed with that issue of the BEST data and some graph I posted as if he scored some major victory. To this day, I still don't know wtf he is talking about. If I give 10 people a dataset and they each make an excel plot with various scales, limits on axes, titles, watermarks, etc., it still doesn't change the data.

As for who is a shill, I give you...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=5&p=5910380&viewfull=1#post5910380

[DarrinS]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=55&highlight=pseudoscience

Would you agree that the term "climate denier" is stupid?

[Blake]

http://images5.aplus.com/uc-up/f511e8e7-5397-4430-b957-f1f9651c96df/enhanced3040140268119923.resize_640x.png

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How are my posts on the political forum on ST going to change policy? I don't even care if I change minds on the subject. If you want to be an advocate for catastrophic climate change, that's your business.

Fuzzy has been obsessed with that issue of the BEST data and some graph I posted as if he scored some major victory. To this day, I still don't know wtf he is talking about. If I give 10 people a dataset and they each make an excel plot with various scales, limits on axes, titles, watermarks, etc., it still doesn't change the data.

As for who is a shill, I give you...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=5&p=5910380&viewfull=1#post5910380

It wasn't a victory to me. It was a reckoning as to who you are and how you operate. I looked up BEST and saw that they had not compiled the graph. I asked you straight out what lobbying group had put it together because you had hosted it on a third party site. You told me it was again from BEST. That you play stupid as to how pulling data without context and claiming an objective source could be deceiving just speaks to the reckoning I mentioned earlier.

This has gone on. You pull satellite data graphs that use land and sea measurements for use in comparison to land only data and wave your hands at the difference. Your favorite is to patronize people as to thinking you have been objective when we can look up the last 10 years this site has been open and see your sophistry for what it is. 'What's a denier?' 'I used to believe global warming?' Waffling back and forth between whatever position your mailer presents. You hide cources that you are not credible and post the shit anyway. It is what it is.

:lol Poptart

Please point to me the part where I misled people? Poptart did say those things and he was embarked on a smear campaign against the people I emailed.

What I want to know is why you had no issue with him going back and editing posts to remove his fuckups. My standard is the truth. Your standard is your political goal. I only pulled from stuff that he posted here. Why is it my fault that he filled out a psychological survey revealing a VERY troubled mind. I mean nevermind that he was a sociopath. I shouldn't attack your kindred spirits I guess.

I treat you as I do because you are intellectually dishonest here. Deal with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Would you agree that the term "climate denier" is stupid?

Obviously not. It is the nominalization of the word 'deny' and there are people such as yourself who deny the science of global warming and instead revert to sophistry.

What is stupid is crying about it. If you don't like being labeled as such most intellectually honest people I know stop the behavior. Not you though.

[Uriel]

Good read OP. Thanks for sharing. :tu

[Uriel]

The Ugly: Environment and Public Works

The Environment and Public Works Committee stands at the helm of climate change legislation and funds the Environmental Protection Agency. The current chairwoman, Barbara Boxer, famously pulled an all-nighter back in March to publicize the threat of climate change. Need we say more?

If Republicans win the Senate, James Inhofe will likely take charge of Environment and Public Works. That would be disastrous for science.

Inhofe is one of the loudest climate deniers in the senate, as evidenced by his book The Greatest Hoax: How The Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future and many other public and written statements. If Inhofe gains control of the Senate committee in charge of climate change legislation, that’s probably the end of climate change legislation (not that great strides have been made in the past seven years of Democratic dominance). And, global warming aside, it’s probably not a good idea to put someone who calls scientific consensus a “hoax” in charge of a Senate committee that holds the purse strings for scientific funding.
:bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang:bang :bang:bang

[RandomGuy]

Would you agree that the term "climate denier" is stupid?

Nope.

There is a difference between a rational consideration of available evidence, and the kinds of irrational pseudoscientific bullshit that people like you engage in.

This requires a term to differentiate between the two.

[RandomGuy]

How are my posts on the political forum on ST going to change policy? I don't even care if I change minds on the subject. If you want to be an advocate for catastrophic climate change, that's your business.

Fuzzy has been obsessed with that issue of the BEST data and some graph I posted as if he scored some major victory. To this day, I still don't know wtf he is talking about. If I give 10 people a dataset and they each make an excel plot with various scales, limits on axes, titles, watermarks, etc., it still doesn't change the data.

As for who is a shill, I give you...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=5&p=5910380&viewfull=1#post5910380

I will simplify it for you.

The graph you posted was dishonest, and you did not really apply enough reasonable skepticism to be able to figure out that it was dishonest, but rather accepted the lie at face value, and parrotted it without questioning.

Major victory? no. Par for the course? yes.

[DarrinS]

I will simplify it for you.

The graph you posted was dishonest, and you did not really apply enough reasonable skepticism to be able to figure out that it was dishonest, but rather accepted the lie at face value, and parrotted it without questioning.

Major victory? no. Par for the course? yes.


Where is this so-called "dishonest" graph?

[Wild Cobra]

No. Behaving like a shill whose goal is to thwart policy changes regarding carbon emissions regardless of data is not satisfactory. You will say anything that lends to said goal and have demonstrated that quite clearly.

You have no credibility on this subject and have intentionally misled people on this board as to where you get your information from. Claiming that stuff was from BEST when it was really from a GWPC mailer was just the first of many times I've seen you do that.
You are the shrill. You cannot debate me with any intelligence on the subject. All you do is appeal to authority.

[Wild Cobra]

Would you agree that the term "climate denier" is stupid?

Absolutely, but then it's stupid people using the term.

[boutons_deux]

climate change, and climate denier are framing propaganda.

people poll much worse on "global warming" than on "climate change"

anthropogenic global warming denier is specific.

btw, BigCarbon-puppet Inhofe to Senate science committee is as bad-faith, fuck-all-y'all inflammatory as sending war-monger/neo-con/UN-hater John Bolton to the UN.

[DarrinS]

climate change, and climate denier are framing propaganda.

people poll much worse on "global warming" than on "climate change"

anthropogenic global warming denier is specific.

btw, BigCarbon-puppet Inhofe to Senate science committee is as bad-faith, fuck-all-y'all inflammatory as sending war-monger/neo-con/UN-hater John Bolton to the UN.


"Climate denier" and "climate skeptic" are both idiotic because they imply someone denies there's a climate. The correct terms would be "climate change denier" or "climate change skeptic".

[SnakeBoy]

"Climate denier" and "climate skeptic" are both idiotic because they imply someone denies there's a climate. The correct terms would be "climate change denier" or "climate change skeptic".

Even those terms imply that people don't believe the climate changes and ignores the theory that people are skeptical of. Really should be "manmade global warming denier/skeptic" to be correct.

[boutons_deux]

"Climate denier" and "climate skeptic" are both idiotic because they imply someone denies there's a climate. The correct terms would be "climate change denier" or "climate change skeptic".

you've been framed, willfully, by Luntz and BigCarbon.

climate change is neutral, ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, AGW, is the correct phrase and em PHA sis.

[DarrinS]

Even those terms imply that people don't believe the climate changes and ignores the theory that people are skeptical of. Really should be "manmade global warming denier/skeptic" to be correct.

Even that doesn't go far enough, because pretty much everyone knows that climate changes and that humans cause some of it. Should be "we're all gonna die if we don't drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions skeptic/denier". Has a nice ring to it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are the shrill. You cannot debate me with any intelligence on the subject. All you do is appeal to authority.

I don't just namedrop UW or PSU. I pull the relevant material from the articles and studies and post it. You used a solubility chart of seawater in beakers to describe the behavior of the ocean. I used the PSU engineering model as a compare and contrast tool to show your Dr EZ-Bake analysis for what it is.

I have a very very good memory, dipshit, and then of course there is the search function. You really want to be embarrassed again?

What do feedback mean?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Even that doesn't go far enough, because pretty much everyone knows that climate changes and that humans cause some of it. Should be "we're all gonna die if we don't drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions skeptic/denier". Has a nice ring to it.

This is horseshit and the insurance risk assessors are beginning to put actual dollar amounts to things. It's why they are so adamant about getting shit done.

You keep spamming this shit about climate denier meaning 'denies climate' demonstrating your willful ignorance. Someone with a bit of nuance and not regurgitating shill takes would note that it could be a denial of a facet of climate ie the human factor.

You aren't even arguing the central theme. You are bitching about window dressing. Just like a sophist piece of shit.

[SnakeBoy]

Wait, insurance companies are using climate change as an excuse to raise rates? Say it ain't so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where is this so-called "dishonest" graph?


And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg


Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.

Here is NASA's

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Here is the explanation of their methodology.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/


The source of both graphs is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They do not correspond to the same data points because the aren't. The second graph is the last ten years. And you call other people dumb?F


You gave unlinked charts, dickhead. The only stupidity was that.

Now that i know the source I feel that more explanation is in order. Which study is that chart from? The reason is clear as for example http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf this study only analyzes urban surfaces and not the aggregate. Note how the GIS chart clearly labels land/ocean.

You gave us some random chart, dickhead. What do the temperature points actually reflect?

You ignore try to ignore this for a bit then. . .


You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.


Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.


Just to point out further how disingenuous you are. Here are three studies submitted for review done at Berkley over the past month. They all look at particular subsets and if you look inside of any of them they all have arbitrarily labeled graphs too.

http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

What is the context of that graph? You don't know do you?


What do you mean by the "context" of the graph?


Dumb noises. its not hard to figure out.

HERE (http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf) is an example study from BEST. It is looking at the SUBSET of variations within LAND surface tempurates. If you look in the link you will see similarly arbitrary labeled axes with the idea that if you know the study you have the appropriate CONTEXT of wht you are looking at.

If for example the data from the graphs was pulled from this study then it would obviously indicate that only about 25% of the Earth's surface is being discussed.

We have no context. We just have you giving vague directions as to where the data came from because you got your information from a mailer and lack critical thinking skills.

Where is the data from the graph from? Do I need to put it plainer so your dumb ass can figure it out?


Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html)


So you get the same mailer. Now that we have clearly established that the source of the graph was not in fact from BEST that serves to underscore the need to determine what BEST study, news release, data set etc that the graph was actually taken from.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait, insurance companies are using climate change as an excuse to raise rates? Say it ain't so.

You are aware of that all 50 states have insurance commissions that insurance companies have to justify any rate hikes with actuarial proof (re: quantified risk assessment from real data)?

They are using that as the basis to raise rates and that is literally where the rubber meets the road in getting red states along the coasts to finally see the light. More and more areas are being deemed uninsurable further underscoring the point.

There has been quite a bit of pushback from deniers especially in Florida and the Carolinas yet the claims being paid are what they are and the rates were upheld. When you are forced to move or get a denial of coverage on your homeowners policy because you are on the coast, it is very compelling.

[DarrinS]

Yes, Fuzzy, I misspoke when I said the GRAPH was from BEST, but the DATA is from BEST. Both the source of the DATA and the source of the GRAPH (nothing more than a specific presentation of the DATA) are clearly displayed on the graph.

Seems that all your bitching about that graph was misplaced.

[Clipper Nation]

Wtf are "climate deniers"?
The libtard term for "realists who haven't fallen for the scam."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, Fuzzy, I misspoke when I said the GRAPH was from BEST, but the DATA is from BEST. Both the source of the DATA and the source of the GRAPH (nothing more than a specific presentation of the DATA) are clearly displayed on the graph.

Seems that all your bitching about that graph was misplaced.

No, when I asked you where you got it from you told me BEST. This was after pointing out that it was from some mailer.

You do this all the time when you present a source that you know is biased but you want to be accepted. When you do it I come out with the sophist piece of shit angle.

You can characterize it however you like but it is what it is.

[DMC]

That "good, bad, ugly" theme is worn out completely. People need to get some new shit.

[boutons_deux]

That "good, bad, ugly" theme is worn out completely. People need to get some new shit.

agreed, from the Repugs, there is only bad and ugly.

[DMC]

agreed, from the Repugs, there is only bad and ugly.
Too bad they took over eh?

[boutons_deux]

Too bad they took over eh?

yep, they'll fuck up everything they touch, and fuck up everything the Dems have done, and fuck up everything Obama will do in the next two years. They've been doing since 1994. fuck up everything except that which protects/enriches/enables the 1%/BigCorps.

[DMC]

yep, they'll fuck up everything they touch, and fuck up everything the Dems have done, and fuck up everything Obama will do in the next two years. They've been doing since 1994. fuck up everything except that which protects/enriches/enables the 1%/BigCorps.
Everything? You mean like pulling out all the troops after announcing the date you would do so, and then having to put them back in? Or do you mean how the dems crippled small businesses with Obamacare? What exactly have the Dems achieved.. exactly?

[boutons_deux]

Everything? You mean like pulling out all the troops after announcing the date you would do so, and then having to put them back in? Or do you mean how the dems crippled small businesses with Obamacare? What exactly have the Dems achieved.. exactly?

Obama pulled the troops out under dubya's SOFA. That's Iraq was, is STILL broken is on the Reugs for breaking it, and owning it.

Small businesses aren't crippled by ACA.

[DMC]

Obama pulled the troops out under dubya's SOFA. That's Iraq was, is STILL broken is on the Reugs for breaking it, and owning it.

Small businesses aren't crippled by ACA.

Yes they are. See I refuted your comment.

[Winehole23]

about that $3M shrimp treadmill: http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/11/13/how-a-47-shrimp-treadmill-became-a-3-million-political-plaything/

[m>s]

they're talking about defunding him if he tries going forward with amnesty. i just wish the secret service would let the right guy through this time and get the job done.

[Cry Havoc]

they're talking about defunding him if he tries going forward with amnesty. i just wish the secret service would let the right guy through this time and get the job done.

What videogame did you learn that strategy from? I'm curious.

[m>s]

You'd know them all nerd