Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[Padawanbater2]

How can you trust the government politicians and the media, they're both habitual liars.

That's the benefit of understanding science, it doesn't require me to trust anyone. Trust does not play a part in the equation

I'm just saying the science is clearly divided

That's simply untrue. The science is very much settled on the issue of ACC

Try having an open mind and follow the money.

The fossil fuel industry benefits the most from misinforming public opinion, indeed, their whole industry and livelihood depends on it, not scientists

 

[jahbrudda]

no, it isn't.

So you do trust the government and the media.
That's a pretty radical position on a weed forum.

 

[jahbrudda]

That's the benefit of understanding science, it doesn't require me to trust anyone. Trust does not play a part in the equation



That's simply untrue. The science is very much settled on the issue of ACC




The fossil fuel industry benefits the most from misinforming public opinion, indeed, their whole industry and livelihood depends on it, not scientists

If you understand science so well, why are you so apprehensive to debate heckler or God1
And if the science is settled, please provide a citation.

It's a fact that the federal government out funds the petroleum industry by $billions, if you are well informed on this subject, you'd know this.
BTW, who's telling this, the media?

 

[Padawanbater2]

If you understand science so well, why are you so apprehensive to debate heckler or God1

I don't debate climate change deniers for the same reason I don't debate evolution deniers

citation then.

There's nothing that could be produced that would prove it to a denier, which is why I call you a 'denier' rather than a 'skeptic'. Skeptics will change their mind if enough valid evidence convinces them

The federal government out funds the petroleum industry by $billions.

The US government out funds every industry, so this is a nonsensical statement to make without validating it with a point that follows, so, what's your point? Are you implying all the money that goes into funding research or technology to address climate change is somehow automatically tainted simply because it comes from the government? If so, you know the drill, lets see the proof of that.

I've shown you half a dozen instances where the funding from the fossil fuel industry goes directly or indirectly into conservative politicians pockets through campaign donations, why do you dismiss that?

You've yet to show me any evidence of your claim, so lets see it

Show me how federal funding ended up in some scientists pocket after deliberately producing misleading scientific evidence that altered the actual conclusions

 

[jahbrudda]

I don't debate climate change deniers for the same reason I don't debate evolution deniers



There's nothing that could be produced that would prove it to a denier, which is why I call you a 'denier' rather than a 'skeptic'. Skeptics will change their mind if enough valid evidence convinces them


The US government out funds every industry, so this is a nonsensical statement to make without validating it with a point that follows, so, what's your point? Are you implying all the money that goes into funding research or technology to address climate change is somehow automatically tainted simply because it comes from the government? If so, you know the drill, lets see the proof of that.

I've shown you half a dozen instances where the funding from the fossil fuel industry goes directly or indirectly into conservative politicians pockets through campaign donations, why do you dismiss that?

You've yet to show me any evidence of your claim, so lets see it

Show me how federal funding ended up in some scientists pocket after deliberately producing misleading scientific evidence that altered the actual conclusions

You don't debate climate change deniers for the same reason you don't debate evolution deniers?

Come Padawan, everyone on this forum can see the real reason is because you'd embarrass the hell out of yourself.

And your'e hesitancy to provide a citation proving the debate is over is because it doesn't exist, unless it's the politicians and media you are getting this garbage from.

I think you just painted yourself in a very small corner young man.

 

[Padawanbater2]

(1 of 2)

"this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on the floor...and these were top people." -James Inhofe

Inhofe's voting record on energy & oil;

"No subsidies for wind and solar. (Sep 2014)
FactCheck: Bush made change to "climate change," not Obama. (Feb 2012)
Stop cap-and-trade from getting in via regulatory back door. (Feb 2012)
Restricting fossil fuels will not spur shift to other energy. (Feb 2012)
God promised to maintain cold & hot seasons. (Feb 2012)
Fight cap-and-trade on jobs, taxes, and gas prices. (Feb 2012)
Yes, we can produce our way to energy security. (Feb 2012)
China & India oppose binding carbon emission cuts. (Feb 2012)
Introduced Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. (Feb 2012)
Solyndra symbolizes Obama's war on American fossil fuel jobs. (Feb 2012)
Man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever. (Feb 2012)
Stand strong against mandatory cap-and-trade. (Jan 2008 )
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008 )
Voted NO on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Open the Outer Continental Shelf for oil & gas leasing. (Jun 2008 )
Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)"

"For everybody who thinks it's warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn't," -Mitch McConnell

McConnell's voting record on energy & oil;

"AdWatch: Fights EPA regulation on coal production. (Dec 2013)
Find more, use less: drill ANWR & off coast. (Sep 2010)
Supports coal-to-liquid fuels, nuclear tech, & electric cars. (Sep 2008 )
Has clout to implement GOP solutions for high gas prices. (Aug 2008 )
Gas Price Reduction Act: drill offshore; harness oil shale. (Aug 2008 )
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008 )
Voted NO on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Open the Outer Continental Shelf for oil & gas leasing. (Jun 2008 )

"Global warming is 'unequivocal'? It's just flat not true!" -Joe Barton

 

[Padawanbater2]

(2 of 2)

Barton's voting record on energy & oil;

"Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Establish a Carbon Storage Research Corporation. (Mar 2009)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)"

Here's one from Barton you yourself have claimed...

"Of all the greenhouse gasses, water vapor (H2O and clouds) is the most dominant and abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, by far, exceeds the total effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and all other greenhouse gases combined." -Joe Barton

Brady's voting record on energy & oil;

"Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011)
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)"

Blackburn's voting record on energy & oil;

"Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sponsored bill barring greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act. (Jan 2009)
Repeal weatherization assistance for low-income persons. (Nov 2011)
Member of House Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mar 2011)
Sponsored bill prohibiting EPA regulation of greenhouse gas. (Jan 2011)
Let states lease energy rights on federal lands. (Jun 2013)"

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm


Now, how would you interpret those results honestly?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You don't debate climate change deniers for the same reason you don't debate evolution deniers?

Yes, exactly. The science says both are a fact, there is nothing that could be presented to deniers that would change their mind and I feel my time could be better spent doing literally almost anything else

The US government out funds every industry, so this is a nonsensical statement to make without validating it with a point that follows, so, what's your point? Are you implying all the money that goes into funding research or technology to address climate change is somehow automatically tainted simply because it comes from the government? If so, you know the drill, lets see the proof of that.

I've shown you half a dozen instances where the funding from the fossil fuel industry goes directly or indirectly into conservative politicians pockets through campaign donations, why do you dismiss that?

You've yet to show me any evidence of your claim, so lets see it

Show me how federal funding ended up in some scientists pocket after deliberately producing misleading scientific evidence that altered the actual conclusions

Address this

 

[jahbrudda]

(2 of 2)

Barton's voting record on energy & oil;

"Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Establish a Carbon Storage Research Corporation. (Mar 2009)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)"

Here's one from Barton you yourself have claimed...

"Of all the greenhouse gasses, water vapor (H2O and clouds) is the most dominant and abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and, by far, exceeds the total effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and all other greenhouse gases combined." -Joe Barton

Brady's voting record on energy & oil;

"Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011)
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)"

Blackburn's voting record on energy & oil;

"Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sponsored bill barring greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act. (Jan 2009)
Repeal weatherization assistance for low-income persons. (Nov 2011)
Member of House Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mar 2011)
Sponsored bill prohibiting EPA regulation of greenhouse gas. (Jan 2011)
Let states lease energy rights on federal lands. (Jun 2013)"

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm


Now, how would you interpret those results honestly?

I asked for a citation that proves the science is settled and you give me a politicians voting record, WTF?
I interpret this as meaningless political garbage, how else could one think anything different?

And you never address the real reason you won't debate heckler or God1,
the excuse you gave about not debating deniers, well, nobody on this forum believes that for a minute.
Is your ego too big to admit you don't no as much as you thought about science?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I asked for a citation that proves the science is settled and you give me a politicians voting record, WTF?
I interpret this as meaningless political garbage, how else could one think anything different?

You won't accept anything that agrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus because you are a denier

The political records are more examples of republican politicians taking bribes to fabricate a debate that doesn't actually exist.

Where is your evidence for scientists taking bribes from the federal government to fabricate the data in favor of ACC?

And you never address the real reason you won't debate heckler or God1

I gave you the reason in post #748, literally the first one above your last post. It's a waste of time

the excuse you gave about not debating deniers, well, nobody on this forum believes that for a minute.

Well, fortunately for me I'm not interested in turning deniers into believers. Deniers are the last people required for significant change to take place, it'll happen with or without you, deny all you like

 

[god1]

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and isn't it much more abundant?

The difference is in the resonant frequency of the molecules. The definition of a green house gas is one that attenuates the re-radiation energy from the earth's surface. The H2O molecule doesn't attenuate the ir energy as much.

Think of a broad band generator with various frequency bandpass filters stacked in parallel feeding a load.

 

[NoDrama]

Are you sure about that? What's your definition of "trapping" heat?

Know of any gasses that are currently at a temperature of absolute zero here on earth? NO? Then the gas must be "trapping" heat in it. By trapping I mean it holds heat for a period of time. I don't mean trapping in a literal sense where the heat can no longer escape from the gas and is permanently heated like eco loons try to assume. No gas can do that.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I love how numbers are presented.

97% consensus! (Not exactly)

34 national Academy of Sciences support this!(out of 60+)

 

[sheskunk]

beenthere doesn't beleive in evolution either, i saw it right on his facebook page.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I love how numbers are presented.

97% consensus! (Not exactly)

34 national Academy of Sciences support this!(out of 60+)

97% of peer reviewed papers published that said 'yes' or 'no' said yes, yet you go with the 3% that said no

That's what a denier does, dismisses the overwhelming evidence against him to justify keeping a false belief

34 national science academies that reached a conclusion all reached the same one, unanimously, but if you want to take the Fiji academy of science's word for it instead of the collective consensus of the educated world, don't let facts get in your way

This reply is expected at this point, and the opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus hasn't produced any evidence that supports their position, and damn sure haven't had 97% of peer reviewed papers to agree with them

 

[god1]

Know of any gasses that are currently at a temperature of absolute zero here on earth? NO? Then the gas must be "trapping" heat in it. By trapping I mean it holds heat for a period of time. I don't mean trapping in a literal sense where the heat can no longer escape from the gas and is permanently heated like eco loons try to assume. No gas can do that.

Hmm, apparently you have some other definition of "green house" gases. Think low emissivity Windows. Attenuation of low frequency ir; does argon or diatonic elements like oxygen and nitrogen behave that way on this planet?

 

[jahbrudda]

So in your opinion is there more absorption of radiation in water vapor or co2?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

97% of peer reviewed papers published that said 'yes' or 'no' said yes, yet you go with the 3% that said no

That's what a denier does, dismisses the overwhelming evidence against him to justify keeping a false belief

34 national science academies that reached a conclusion all reached the same one, unanimously, but if you want to take the Fiji academy of science's word for it instead of the collective consensus of the educated world, don't let facts get in your way

This reply is expected at this point, and the opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus hasn't produced any evidence that supports their position, and damn sure haven't had 97% of peer reviewed papers to agree with them

And around 2/3 of the papers reviewed said don't know/unsure/need more data. That is exactly why the debate is not settled.

There are 60+. And that's being generous.

Doesn't sound like the science is settled to me.

 

[Padawanbater2]

And around 2/3 of the papers reviewed said don't know/unsure/need more data. That is exactly why the debate is not settled.

There are 60+. And that's being generous.

Doesn't sound like the science is settled to me.

Then why can't the opposition provide any amount of credible evidence not tainted by financial conflicts of interest?

Why are republicans who take bribes from the fossil fuel industry the only politicians in office who oppose the overwhelming scientific consensus?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So in your opinion is there more absorption of radiation in water vapor or co2?

The answer to that question is not an opinion

Why haven't you responded to my last post directed to you?