# really thought more would show up



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 11, 2014)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...senators-become-night-owls-for-climate-change# out of 55 + 2 ind. what 49%, of their own party? important stuff here with no bill in the works. maybe the others have jobs  on the line?


----------



## Warm_in_NH (Mar 11, 2014)

No bill. No filibuster,  just a few people repeating themselves to an empty room. Really didn't make much sense why they pulled the all nighter.


----------



## bassJAM (Mar 11, 2014)

Warm_in_NH said:


> No bill. No filibuster,  just a few people repeating themselves to an empty room. Really didn't make much sense why they pulled the all nighter.



Probably because they think the BS they spew pollutes less at night.


----------



## webbie (Mar 11, 2014)

Politics is the art of putting a chicken (well, actually, millions or billions of dollars) in someone's hand NOW.....and our leaders are not likely to address longer term issues where they or their constituents don't see relatively instant results....

The only thing we can hope is that all the new inventions, CAFE standards, technology, etc. helps a lot while they spend their time fighting each other and reality. I think that's gonna be the case......better late than never. As Churchill said "Americans will always do the right thing (after all other possibilities have been exhausted)". This is a perfect example...and there are many more...


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 11, 2014)

webbie said:


> Politics is the art of putting a chicken (well, actually, millions or billions of dollars) in someone's hand NOW.....and our leaders are not likely to address longer term issues where they or their constituents don't see relatively instant results....
> 
> The only thing we can hope is that all the new inventions, CAFE standards, technology, etc. helps a lot while they spend their time fighting each other and reality. I think that's gonna be the case......better late than never. As Churchill said "Americans will always do the right thing (after all other possibilities have been exhausted)". This is a perfect example...and there are many more...


oh the possibilities. after all it will touch everything according that those who believe it, rather than question why does .04% of the atmosphere mean so much. how have the models been so wrong (temp projections), why not question that they all missed virtual flat temps for the last seventeen years. where are we on dr. mann's hockey stick today. anybody ask him lately? good will come out of this. how fast is another question, are we forcing the play or would a more measured approach be in order?

politics. money. go together like love and marriage. let's all take only 3 breaths a minute and cut down our c02 emissions .


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 12, 2014)

speaking of money, how many showed up to get in line for the $ from dem donor tom steyer100,00,000.00. even the NYT mentions motivation. think he may have a motive besides his grandchildren http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/u...-on-climate-change.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 12, 2014)

kubuki theatre, not much more. the ones who stayed away are mostly ones in states which are not solidly deep blue states. being caught "on the record' could be detrimental to their re-election campaigns.

i watched a little bit of it , wasnt much to see. the whole thing was staged this way to stir the pot "a congressional infomercial" no legislation will come of it any time soon though as Reid will not bring anything to a vote in teh senate as he has no hope of passing anything on the matter , no GOP support and not enough dems supporting  to have a shot.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 12, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> kubuki theatre, not much more. the ones who stayed away are mostly ones in states which are not solidly deep blue states. being caught "on the record' could be detrimental to their re-election campaigns.
> 
> i watched a little bit of it , wasnt much to see. the whole thing was staged this way to stir the pot "a congressional infomercial" no legislation will come of it any time soon though as Reid will not bring anything to a vote in teh senate as he has no hope of passing anything on the matter , no GOP support and not enough dems supporting  to have a shot.


not about the money, just to bring those facts out? that's a 100mil I can see the hands out.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 12, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> not about the money, just to bring those facts out? that's a 100mil I can see the hands out.


 


of course it is , the "base" will donate for things such as this , same as a "pro-gun" or "pro life" debate of the same type would generate funding from the right wing "base" as well, though votes for bills on that side would probably not get a vote either for the same reason, not enough support  even by member of same party which cannot afford to upset independants or moderates in their districts as well.

so the money is there from the base in a "pay to play pep rally" for congressmen and senators in a secure position.  AKA "kubuki theatre"


----------



## bassJAM (Mar 12, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> speaking of money, how many showed up to get in line for the $ from dem donor tom steyer100,00,000.00. even the NYT mentions motivation. think he may have a motive besides his grandchildren http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/us/politics/26-democrats-plan-a-senate-all-nighter-on-climate-change.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0


 
Ahh, politics 101

Create a fake crisis.  Check
Convince people it's going to change our lives.  Check
Convince people to donate money for "the cause" thus ensuring reelection.  Check

Now I'm not denying that climate change exists.  History can pretty much prove that it's a fact.  But it's still very much a theory as to if humans impact climate change much, if at all, and a theory that even scientists can't agree on.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Mar 12, 2014)

bassJAM said:


> Ahh, politics 101
> 
> Create a fake crisis.  Check
> Convince people it's going to change our lives.  Check
> ...


Look up what scientists means when they say "theory".


----------



## bassJAM (Mar 12, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Look up what scientists means when they say "theory".



My point is there are many different theories supporting both sides, which leads me to conclude no one really knows at all.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Mar 12, 2014)

bassJAM said:


> My point is there are many different theories supporting both sides, which leads me to conclude no one really knows at all.


Actual scientists that study the problem, rather than those cherry picked by one group or another, agree in a very broad way.

I can find "scientists" that say that vaccines cause autism, or that the world is flat- the fact that there are two views on a matter of science does not immediately divide the validity equally between them.

My point was-  you should use the word "hypothesis", not theory.


----------



## bassJAM (Mar 12, 2014)

I got you, hypothesis is a better word to use.


----------



## begreen (Mar 13, 2014)

For the skeptics.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/expe...-warming-leads-to-longer-cold-snaps-1.1727176


----------



## gzecc (Mar 13, 2014)

Must be great when any change in weather will support your position.


----------



## begreen (Mar 13, 2014)

Is that really what they said?


----------



## bassJAM (Mar 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> For the skeptics.
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/expe...-warming-leads-to-longer-cold-snaps-1.1727176



Still doesn't prove humans are the cause of this.  I 100% believe that "climate change" happens.  I can even see that the cold spells because of the Earth warming up is _plausible_.  The Earth has gone through many climate cycles for millions of years on it's own, and scientist still don't know for sure the causes of any of it.  But suddenly THIS TIME humans are to blame?


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 13, 2014)

Yes BG saw that one on the local news. 

They were discussing how this could be the new normal for winters with a weakened jet stream. Well, until all the arctic ice is gone that is, then nature will seek a new balance. 

BB sorry to say your "tropics of Virginia", well….won't be very tropical at -30. 

The models they were describing for the jet stream sag have us in the west at pretty near normal winter temps (kinda, sorta, longer cold snaps here, more drought in Cali) but those of you in the east are going to get hammered repeatedly if those models are accurate. Folks in England need to get to work on growing gills.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 13, 2014)

I could hear the rumblings if the republicans held such a speech fest  amongst themselves with the koch bros dangling  the 100 mil out there.


begreen said:


> Is that really what they said?


one for the believers


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 13, 2014)

here is an interesting quote from the late Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford Univ.

'On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So *we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.* This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."


looks like the senators were listening


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> For the skeptics.
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/expe...-warming-leads-to-longer-cold-snaps-1.1727176


wsi gives explanation of why we were cold this year. via twitter about 30 min.includes el nino forecast. interesting stuff.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Mar 13, 2014)

bassJAM said:


> St The Earth has gone through many climate cycles for millions of years on it's own, and scientist still don't know for sure the causes of any of it.


 
Yes.  They do.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 13, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> Yes. They do.



Yep, about 97% of those scientists agree that it's us.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 13, 2014)

you'll forgive my skepticism after several years of hearing from the same 97% of scientists that the mild winters and such were going to be the new normal, we were told a winter such as this was no longer going to happen due to "global warming"

the problem with this "Science" is that when the weather changes , the theory is just changed to match it. if this was the expected thing according to the models they had produced , why was there no mention of it back when we were having mild winters over and over again. did they just decide not to tell us? I doubt it. they simply didn't know it would happen is a more feasible argument. moreover, I doubt seriously that 97% of scientists predicted this at all.


----------



## begreen (Mar 13, 2014)

It's easy for us to be arm chair skeptics. We have only partial data on these complex systems. And little in depth understanding of the models. The theory is not changing when the weather changes. That is not climate based. Dramatic swings in local weather were predicted to happen years back. We are now starting to live through this weather play.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 13, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> after several years of hearing from the same 97% of scientists that the mild winters and such were



I seriously doubt that climate scientists were making local or regional weather forecasts. Well….maybe that 3% were.



stoveguy2esw said:


> the problem with this "Science" is that when the weather changes , the theory is just changed to match it.



Climate scientists don't predict day to day, month to month (weather). They do look at trends, historical data, our position relative to the sun, our tilt relative to the sun, volumes of emissions & their source, & thousands of other factors, ice cores, ocean sediment cores, salinity & acidification levels in the oceans
& on & on. They apply the data to the models & make predictions for the future, not next day, week, month or year. They really are trying to predict long term trends (climate). Again possible exceptions for the 3%.



stoveguy2esw said:


> I doubt seriously that 97% of scientists predicted this at all.



Once again climate scientists don't predict your local weather or regional weather next day, week, month or year. Sorry to say that they could quite likely care less about any local, regional (weather) event. It simply is not on the time scale that they are looking at. Now start talking decades & yes they are interested in the overall trends & all the possible sources of influence on those trends/changes to the trend. Again exceptions for the 3% may need to be made.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 14, 2014)

begreen said:


> Dramatic swings in local weather were predicted to happen years back.



Yep at least 30 years ago by this old carpenters memory.

I poo poo ed them all back then, now when I fly north & see buildings I have built sinking into the what was then permafrost, I feel the need to wipe that poo off. Did me or anyone else no good whatsoever. I just confused the discussion with noise.


----------



## Ehouse (Mar 14, 2014)

bassJAM said:


> Ahh, politics 101
> 
> Create a fake crisis.  Check
> Convince people it's going to change our lives.  Check
> ...




Given the measurable impact of human activity in our short history, especially in the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, It would be surprising if we have had no effect at all.  It's now only a question of degree and effect.  The burden of proof lies with the naysayers.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Mar 15, 2014)

Frozen Canuck said:


> Yep, about 97% of those scientists agree that it's us.


 
Not across the history of the planet.  We are a very recent species.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 17, 2014)

some interest stats on one product. I thought this was pretty green?http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-pot-weed-statistics-climate-change


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Mar 17, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> some interest stats on one product. I thought this was pretty green?http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-pot-weed-statistics-climate-change



The clandestine nature of these trespass growers drives a lot of this. I think the idea is that legal growing of HEMP would be a greening up in comparison to other fiber production methods, but that would be a biologically inactive first cousin of pot


----------



## razerface (Mar 17, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> The burden of proof lies with the naysayers.



 thats right,,because the so called "climate change people" have no proof on their side,,,so they transfer it to everyone else, saying "prove I am wrong" when they have never proved they are right......


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 17, 2014)

Buncha people that can't even agree on how dry firewood should be are who I look to for facts on the cause of major impacts on the planet.


----------



## fossil (Mar 17, 2014)

And nary a scientist among them.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> Not across the history of the planet. We are a very recent species.



You are right teach. I should have said "agree that it's us this time around"


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 18, 2014)

this an old thread I brought up in the can, but related to this. they, the believers, are tying everything to climate change. even when congress sees bad economic policy. it's all about climate change? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/congress-flood-insurance_n_4981226.html if you don't read it, house voted 306-91, senate  72-22. pretty clear they thought it was a mistake. when was common sense their strong (suet)


----------



## splitoak (Mar 18, 2014)

Its because they get grant money from the feds....dont bite the hand...we have been burning fossil fuels for about 100 years or so...that is not even a blip in the earths history...to think man can stop the rise of the oceans..or stop the climate from changing by taking my money or shutting down fossil fuel production is laughable at best..C02 a pollutant..really?..trees need it for photosynthesis....its all b.s...another scheme ment ro make people rich off other peoples money........sorry for rant


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 18, 2014)

splitoak said:


> Its because they get grant money from the feds....dont bite the hand



Plenty more money available if the scientist's simply said we don't know what is happening & we need more money to study this. Following the logic above, why would science choose the path that gives them less money? If it's all about money that is.


----------



## razerface (Mar 18, 2014)

Frozen Canuck said:


> Plenty more money available if the scientist's simply said we don't know what is happening & we need more money to study this. Following the logic above, why would science choose the path that gives them less money? If it's all about money that is.




because they choose not to bite the left hand,,,,"the hand" being the part of gov't promoting climate change. If they say they don't know what is happening,,or disagree,,,they would get replaced. It is always all about the money,,,did you think they do not getting any more money? You think they are done?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 18, 2014)

Frozen Canuck said:


> Plenty more money available if the scientist's simply said we don't know what is happening & we need more money to study this. Following the logic above, why would science choose the path that gives them less money? If it's all about money that is.



the guy who asks for$ to scrub coal , get back in line. the guy who boils h2o with the sun , sure come on in. re-read Eisenhower farewell on tech.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Mar 18, 2014)

Holy flying conspiracy theory(ies) Batman(s). The little blue marble is a scary place indeed with all "them" science types out to get you, steal all "your" money, educate all "your" children.

Nasty evil folks indeed, we should really form a movement, lets call it the folks who just barely managed to complete grade school, who are gonna teach all them science types the right way to do science movement! Ya know, show em how the good ole boys get er done! Show em good. Yep that's a nice short title that we can remember. Nice acronym too.

It's ok we don't need to know any science or have even the slightest inkling to learn anything at all, we will just make up the rules of science as we stumble (move in the only correct direction) along & always keep our ace in the hole, DENIAL. As long as we have that, we can (in our minds) disprove anything science says. 

Me, I want to take on that fake science about gravity first. I know better. I think it is floatation not gravitation. They can't prove me wrong!

Then move onto the ridiculous notion that the sun does not revolve around the earth that those dirty rotten nasty science types say is a fact, I know better. The earth is the centre of everything, always has been always will be. They can't prove me wrong!

After that I want to tell those darn science types that indeed the earth is flat as opposed to their ridiculous notion that it has a roundish shape. I know better. After all ships still disappear at sea, they must be sailing off the edge, never to be seen again, right? They can't prove me wrong! 

What say the rest of you in the movement?, what evil science would you like to take on & deny first? Gotta be at least a billion of them!, right?

BTW a major part of being a scientist is proving the other scientist wrong. Proof of hypothesis, proof of theory, adherence to the scientific method & on & on. If it wasn't against the membership rules of the movement I might even allow myself to think that one scientist enjoys proving the other wrong, but it is against the rules so I will deny that. Bring on the conspiracy theory.

Seriously (for a moment before I rejoin the movement) if this old carpenter with a minimum of education, can after a great deal of study (for me),  figure out that the vast majority of agreed upon information (data) supports the hypotheses & theories of one side….I really expect the majority to get there as well. After all with my minimal education you really shouldn't be expecting me to haul all the freight in a science discussion. Kinda like shoving the cart out in front of the horse & being upset with the horse for the results.

Ok back to the deniers camp I go, it's more fun there. So much less thinking for my old brain to do. I can see why so many like & defend it.


----------



## razerface (Mar 18, 2014)

Frozen Canuck said:


> Holy flying conspiracy theory(ies) Batman(s). The little blue marble is a scary place indeed with all "them" science types out to get you, steal all "your" money, educate all "your" children.
> 
> Nasty evil folks indeed, we should really form a movement, lets call it the folks who just barely managed to complete grade school, who are gonna teach all them science types the right way to do science movement! Ya know, show em how the good ole boys get er done! Show em good. Yep that's a nice short title that we can remember. Nice acronym too.



i get very tired of you talking ,talking,talking,,,but you never say anything.

Now you are calling everyone who does not agree with you stupid and uneducated. I won't even bother to read the rest of your answer since I am sure my uneducated dumbass can't understand it.


----------



## fossil (Mar 18, 2014)

And that'll about do it, folks.


----------

