Most Americans Support Government Action on Climate Change

The US Senate, nearly unanimously, with LOTS of Republican votes....

voted that climate change is NOT a "hoax."


Thus kicking Rush Limbaugh in the nuts....along with his ditto-heads.

 

Climate change is not even in the TOP TEN of Americans' concerns. Try some more ridiculous crap.

 

Yeah! Let's discuss stuff the American people REALLY care about like Jonathan Gruber or the War on Christmas!!!!!

 

Or "RACE", which also fails to make the Top Ten.

For the more serious minded, the ECONOMY, JOBS and ISLAMIST TERROR top the list.

 

So, because I can't put the exact dollar amount on what exactly it would take to help impair the damage we've caused, my argument and climate change aren't valid? Wow, what a brilliant debate tactic Bronco

Must every scientific study also include a dollar amount, or else it isn't valid?

Good thing nobody is saying that we're controlling it. Glad that you guys have such an arsenal of idiotic strawman arguments to parade around and keep you company.

 

Well, let's see, it was a scientific article. Check. It surveyed articles of climatologists. Not sure what I'm missing here. I'm still waiting for you to BACK UP your vitriol that they were biased in their choices of articles.

Nope.

And by the way, I tend to agree more with scientists than talking heads at the WSJ. Especially when they require me to pay them money to read the article.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/

This article debunks the one you just linked to and gives more survey sources as well that back up the figure.

 

For WHEN? 6 billion years ago, 100,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? What? At least ask coherent questions.

 

Well, it's quite clear that you don't know what a scientific survey of climatologists looks like since you have yet to produce one. Thank you for playing.

 

Americans support the Keystone XL by about 60-65%.

 

You can't even put a number on what humans contribute. There is nothing strawman about my position. If the liberals in government want to invest my hard earned tax dollars, I want to see what the return on investment is

 

Why don't you actually come out and say what kind of survey you're looking for instead of tap dancing around the subject?

- - - Updated - - -

Contribute to WHAT? We know how much CO2 we put into our atmosphere.

I just pointed it out. Shall I point it out again? NOBODY is saying that humans are CONTROLLING the climate. That's a strawman argument that bears heavy resemblance to a lie.

Really? Because that's strange since I guarantee you that you have NO idea where the majority of your tax dollars go.

 

Right now, that beyond your comprehension? What is incoherent about asking you what this ideal temperature as you are the one claiming because of man we are not at it or will go above it or whatever it is you are trying to say. How do you know we are not under the ideal temperature and NEED to warm up a bit?

 

A scientific survey.

We have no idea where the majority of our tax dollars go, therefore we should tax the poor so that the government can blow it on who knows what to save the planet from we don't know.

 

We haven't given them the chance yet, that's why. You don't have to have a degree in Rocket Science to know, that if you gut the EPA and allow pollution such as China, "we will have pollution like China". And China proved that for us. There is no hyperbole. The evidence "IS" China. It can't get any more simpler than that. All your hateful government liberal nonsense talk isn't going to change that reality.

 

Maybe from this you think? https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...niv&sa=X&ei=-hLRVLrIBYKoNr6fgqAK&ved=0CCkQsAQ

 

You're just repeating "scientific survey" over and over again. I provided you with a scientific survey of thousands of peer reviewed articles authored BY GUESS WHO? Climatologists. You claim that isn't what you wanted and that it wasn't a "scientific survey" when in fact it was. Now, why don't you tell me what this scientific survey is supposed to look like.

 

Honestly, stupid Liberals should shut the hell up on Climate Change. They are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing morons.

Until you dopes get behind the ONLY base load power source that is zero emissions (NUCLEAR POWER); you are nothing but stupid little rock throwers with no viable solutions.

Case and Point:

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant: Southern California received 23% of it's power from this plant with ZERO carbon emissions. They refurbished the plant to better than new with steam generators that could produce 125% of the previous energy. The cost was about $4 Billion. They had an issue after the rebuild with some pipes that would leak if they ran the plant over 70% (Which by the way produced the same as 100% of the old generators which were replaced). They had a plan to fix the pipes completely that would have taken about 6 months. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer was head of the committee in charge and an ardent anti-nuclear environmentalist. What she did is tell San Onofre they the committee would not set a date to hear their plan to fix the plant. In other words, they were indefinitely shut down. With 4,000 high end employees to pay and already over a 6 month shut down, Southern California Edison pleaded with Barbara Boxer and the committee to provide them with a date for a hearing or they would have to shut down the plant and fire 4,000 employees. Barbara Boxer and the Democrats on the committee refused to give them a hearing date. San Onofre (a virtually brand new plant) that could not provide nearly 30% of the power needed for Southern California with zero carbon emissions) was forced to shut down.

I was in Houston, Texas last week for a conference. I met many coal (fossil) plant managers located in Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. They explained to me how the closing of the nuclear plant (San Onofre Units 2 & 3) was a boom for their plants and that they were burning more coal than ever and selling the power to Southern California.... to power idiot Liberals' Prius's.

The result of Liberal Climate Change Ideology?

• 4,000 High Paying Jobs Lost
• Tons more carbon emissions spewed into the atmosphere
• Loss of $1 Billion in Revenue a year for the state of California

This is one example of what following Liberal policies brings to a region. It's an economic and environmental disaster.

 

Yeah, too many Chinese, we should nuke 'em.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a study.

 

The work product of scientists is their papers.

Suggesting papers aren't a representation of climatologists is just plain lame. In fact, this is perhaps the most sure way to identify who is active in the field and creating quality product, as papers must pass review.

And, your claims of cheating are unsupportable.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive, bud, they can be both. This is honestly pathetic.

 

What exactly is happening? No one really knows. We see changes in the environment that are often more cyclical than the result of anything humans are doing.

You can't take a sample of weather for 100 or even a 1000 years and say that humans have impacted anything. We need solid comparative samples of data over a million years to "know" anything and eliminate long term cyclical changes in weather.

Our short term human point of view simply isn't long enough. We are doing too much guessing.

 

Psst: we have evidence for temperatures from millions of years ago already.

 

To review:

Basically 2/3rd of the articles did not agree with global warming, so they were tossed out. Then they surveyed only those that agreed with it, and through in a few that were skeptical of AGW. This is the source document from your link:

Even a survey of papers isn't scientific, especially if you admit to tossing out 2/3rds of them from the start.

Now, we all know what a scientific survey is. There is no scientific survey of climatologists that says 97% agree with AGW.

 

Check my previous posts. They tossed 2/3rd of the scientific papers from the start.

And a work product of a study of papers is still not a scientific study.

- - - Updated - - -

A study of papers is not a scientific survey of climatologists.

 

Uh, false. Hell, what you said can only be taken as a lie considering you then posted an excerpt from the article that says why they didn't use 2/3rds of the paper.

And I see NOWHERE in that quotation where it supports accusation. And this ISN'T EVEN THE SURVEY/STUDY THAT I LINKED YOU TO. So, you're making wild and false claims about a survey that wasn't even the topic of conversation.

And you can't be considered to be an honest person if you flat out lie about why they tossed out 2/3rds of the papers. And if you start arguing against a study/survey that I DIDN'T EVEN BRING UP.

- - - Updated - - -

Good thing that I didn't even mention the study that you're lying about now.

Actually, it is.