Our senate is preparing to vote on whether climate change is happening. It’ll be interesting to see if the Republicans think they can vote it into non-existence.
In other news that sucks, the Republicans are also getting ready to vote away what little regulation has been imposed on the banks.
We are so screwed.
No, you’re not screwed, you’re the greatest country ever. Just ask them as you spiral toward the toilet vortex.
Seriously though, you people have to get these idiots out of power, somehow. You have the most insane politicians. The most frightening thing though is how the pathetic state of public education in the US is going to manifest itself down the road a number of years. Makes me glad I’m getting old. I may not live to see the worst of it. But I despair for my children, even we don’t live in the US. We are still heavily influenced.
To paraphrase John Oliver, you might as well have a Senate vote on whether hats exist.
Although to be fair, at least it appears the point of the vote is to embarrass Republicans, not a brazen attempt to tell Federal agencies to pretend climate change doesn’t exist. Though when I put it that way I see this potentially backfiring . . .
It’s a political move by the Democrats and, as much as I hate that such things are necessary, apparently a good one. The White Old Party will have to vote yes, AGW is a thing, and have Obama veto the bill anyway, or vote no and save him the trouble.
I should add that we have our own idiots to get out of office. It’s just that your idiots are capable of more damage than our idiots.
I hope they repeal the first and second laws of thermodynamics while they are at it. I would like to be able charge the batteries in our motorhome by plugging it into it’s own inverter.
Science is true, whether you vote for it or not.
The only thing a conservative learns from their mistakes is how to repeat them.
Wow. So all of those Senators that have fallen back on the disclaimer that they are not scientists have been busy little beavers becoming scientists over the break.
I’m glad to know that the new congress is tackling the big problems right away: taking away benefits from disabled people, giving billionaires more perks (also supported by some Democrats), and deciding whether reality is real. Perhaps they should tackle some other important stuff like illness, aging, and death, saving us billions.
They seem intent on impaling themselves on the veto pen in a bid for martyrdom. They do love to play the victim, and it works far more often than it should. I know plenty of people who will happily follow that narrative to its sad, silly conclusion.
@3: It’s an amendment to the bill; voting no won’t stop it.
This sounds weirdly like those safety notices announcing that “The State of California has determined that this product causes cancer”. Only way more serious.
*Facepalm*
Sorry, didn’t mean to embed that.
What fools these mortals be! – Puck
“Puck” aka W. S., the greatest writer & commentator of all time.
Can they vote that perpetual motion is possible? It might solve our energy problems.
They alreasdy believe in renewable energy. Slave labor.
Our last Republican president had the power to wish mean grownups into the cornfield.
Or, anyway, large parts of the news media behaved as if he did.
Hooray! The do-nothing congress is finally doing something and not holding up every single bill!
Your congress is basically run by toddlers who think that if they close their eyes real hard nobody can see them
It may be a solution to make easy money.
Make a law to solve the Millenium Prizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems). That’s 6 Millions dollar for the congress, and some cut on research budget : who needs scientific when law can solve everything ?
In Europe too, that would be a good idea. Why fund the CERN if we can make a law stating that the Higgs boson exists ?
Next on the agenda:
Pi = 3
Could they also vote on whether God exists or not?
A vote on gravity to follow.
I don’t see why they would think otherwise — they tried it in NC.
Obviously, these votes will show no differences due to party affiliation. Because, as Everyone Knows, both parties are Exactly The Same and we Can’t Tell The Difference.
Right?
Naked links to YouTube get embedded by the silly FtB software. Use a proper <a href=””> tag to prevent that.
You know, that one has precedent.
Sorry, Galileo.
The Republicans are not the ones bringing this up for a vote, it is the Independent (and liberal-leaning) Bernie Sanders who has introduced this particular waste of time. It also isn’t a vote on whether climate change exists, it is a vote on whether or not congress thinks climate change is impacting the planet (I assume they mean negatively) and whether or not congress thinks that humans are contributing to climate change.
Interestingly, it seems the Republicans simply want to vote on bills rather than have backdoor holdups. I, for one, would like to see congress vote instead of play games. That leads to more transparent government because everyone has to go on record with what they believe/don’t believe rather than use backroom dealings to quietly kill things and avoid having to commit.
^Yes, that may be why Ol’ Bernie suggested the vote in the first place, to out all the wingnuts for the public and media
The idea, pflynn, that in your congress there exists any individual that could be called ‘liberal’ in anything but name is a lie that you should stop telling yourself; the distinction in nomenclature is merely dialectical, the meaning is the same.
So, it is, in fact, a vote on whether climate change exists or not. Climate change, by definition, impacts the planet and is caused by humans.
What would be interesting would be to see your congress voting on matters of substance in a way that positively impacts the lives of Americans (and, by extension, others). It is decidedly uninteresting that the Republican members of congress vote at all, or want to vote rather than have (and I admittedly have no idea what the following means and hope it’s nothing to do with constipation) ‘backdoor holdups’; it’s part of the job.
Jeremy Claywell,
You might very well be right. It will certainly be interesting to see where people stand on the issue, but it will be more interesting if they actually discuss why they take the positions they do. It’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice to see both sides bringing up research and injecting science into the debate.
Why would the climate change deniers bring science into it? Keeping science out of policy is their whole point.
Thomathy, Such A Mo’
I’m not sure what you mean by “in your congress there exists any individual that could be called ‘liberal’ in anything but name is a lie that you should stop telling yourself; the distinction in nomenclature is merely dialectical, the meaning is the same.” Liberal and conservative are simply manners of degree, so what passes for liberal in one instance may not in another. I think that it is rather clear what constitutes liberal/conservative regarding climate change.
It also isn’t a vote on whether climate change exists, it is a vote on whether or not congress thinks climate change is impacting the planet (I assume they mean negatively) and whether or not congress thinks that humans are contributing to climate change.
“So, it is, in fact, a vote on whether climate change exists or not. Climate change, by definition, impacts the planet and is caused by humans.” No, climate change by definition is not caused by humans. Climate change is simply a change in climate and has many causes, Anthropogenic Climate Change is, by definition, climate change caused by humans.
“What would be interesting would be to see your congress voting on matters of substance in a way that positively impacts the lives of Americans (and, by extension, others). It is decidedly uninteresting that the Republican members of congress vote at all, or want to vote rather than have (and I admittedly have no idea what the following means and hope it’s nothing to do with constipation) ‘backdoor holdups’; it’s part of the job.” I don’t disagree that this vote on climate change is a waste of time and inconsequential. The reference to backdoor holdups refers to deals made out of the public eye to kill legislation without a vote. It is better to just have them vote, even if it is meaningless, so that they are forced to go on record. It need not be a part of the job to do things in the shadows.
Of course they can. They stopped the sea from rising in North Carolina didn’t they?
When quoting someone:
<blockquote>Paste quoted words here</blockquote>
Produces:
Daz,
Thanks for the tip. Is there a reason I can’t use standard quotes?
pflynn
Blockquotes are the standard for quoting on the internet. Not sure what you mean.
What’s interesting is the level of arrogance it takes to imagine that a political body can vote on whether or not a scientific fact is true or not.
Actually, is it arrogance or is it ignorance? Perhaps just a lethal combination of the two?
pflynn, because using the blockquote function it is much easier to distinguish between the quoted text and your response.
@ #35
Actually, it’s not at all clear, from my perspective, what constitutes liberal/conservative distinctions in American politics, especially considering issues like climate change. The positions of individuals within both parties confound what boundaries might actually exist between the two.
If you’re going to except me to consider that you are here in good faith, you will have to stop making the ridiculous distinction between ‘anthropogenic climate change’ and ‘climate change’. I don’t for a moment believe that you think that when anyone uses the term ‘climate change’ that they aren’t talking about the current, human caused problem.
This is political theater, but it is not without consequences. In essence, Sanders is not just identifying the anti-science morons, but forcing the less moronic to choose between what they know to be true and what they must say to get re-elected (or at least not face a primary challenge).
It also places the idjits on record for the time when the truth bites their peckers off.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space, don’t we already know who the anti-science and vote-pandering are in congress? I’m not sure there are consequences at all. Is the American public, some significant percentage of which doesn’t believe climate change is happening, really going to care that their representative agrees with them?
The only way this could have consequences, I suppose, would be if it were anything other than theatre, like a serious and significant vote. Will there be deputations on the facts and evidence by authoritative sources so that the anti-science are shown to be voting against the evidence in a direct way? I’m not even sure, then, that the American public would care, being so significantly anti-science itself.
Conservative/liberal and republic/democrat aren’t perfect synonyms.
I don’t expect you to consider anything and don’t particularly care if you think I am “here in good faith” or not. There is a difference, even among scientists who study this for a living, between changes in the climate due to human activity and changes due to natural cycles. The idea that ALL climate change is due to human activity is simply wrong and that was the point I was making. Congress isn’t voting on whether the climate is changing, they are voting on whether humans are the cause of that change. The first isn’t in question in this vote, and second is.
pflynn @44:
Indeed. And the idea that ALL daylight is due to the sun is simply wrong. Some of those photons come from stars.
Anyway, the actual question is a bit more nuanced than you imply. From the OP link (my bolding);
Considering that 97% of the climate scientists agree that AGW is happening, your denialism is showing. The only problem is that many folks don’t like what is required to alleviate AGW. They have political, not scientific, objections. Why haven’t you picked that up? Oh, yes, the golden mean, where both sides are correct. But that doesn’t work for science versus non-science.
Did you notice they aren’t even homonyms, you little troll?
JC @26, I remember that nonsense from North Carolina politician. It was funny in a black comedy way. Ditto for Scienceavenger @36.
Here’s some stupid stuff Republicans are doing all on their own, without Bernie Sanders help:
Link.
pflynn @ #44
You suck at reading for comprehension.
I didn’t say that all climate change is due to human activity. The present problem of climate change, however, is due, almost exclusively, to human activity. It so happens that when discussing climate change in the present, colloquially, people mean that change which is due to human activity. Denying that human activity represents the single largest contribution to the worsening problem of climate change that we are facing now is, in effect, denying climate change.
Jeremy Claywell: Yes, that may be why Ol’ Bernie suggested the vote in the first place, to out all the wingnuts for the public and media.
As I recall, the last vote to force the Congress to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change failed, or was tabled, or somehow deflected. So I think the Sanders measure is important.
And by the way, distinguishing between climate change and AGW is important. A standard trope of Denialists is, “Of course climate change is real. Climate always changes.” Thus they contend (wrongly) that the current change is natural, just like in the distant past, and nothing’s to be done.
caseloweraz, I suppose the distinction is important, but when people are intentionally obfuscating the present reality of climate change by insisting that unless ‘anthropogenic’ prefaces it it’s just ‘climate change’, it’s also important to shut down that kind of semantic weaseling.
caseloweraz,
That is precisely my point. There is a difference between climate change and AGW and it is an important distinction.
Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo,
Congress isn’t voting on whether there is a changing climate because there is no doubt that the climate is, has, and will always change. They are voting on whether humans are having an impact on said change because that is what is important in policy decisions. There is no intention to obfuscate the present reality of climate change. In fact, it seems that by specifically pointing out that they are voting on whether humans are the cause or not, they are getting to the true root of the issue and forcing people to take a stand without a means of waffling.
pflynn #52:
We get it; you’re a pedant. Please stop.
If they are going to vote to retool reality more to their liking, why not just vote for perpetual motion? That would get us off of fossil fuels so AGW would stop automatically.
Daz,
The same might be said of you.
No there isn’t.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a type, a subset, of climate change.
You aren’t a pedant. You are an idiot.
I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the Tea Party/GOP voting on AGW. It’s an own goal or them shooting themselves in the foot.
1. Because AGW will happen, whether they believe it is happening or not. Reality doesn’t care about votes.
2. This will haunt them for about forever. Especially when more and more things start going wrong due to…AGW climate change.
3. It’s really irrrelevant anyway. It’s too late to stop AGW and we aren’t going to do anything but adapt. Adapt is nonnegotiable because we have no choice here.
It’s not at all obvious that we could have done anything anyway. Our entire civilization runs on fossil fuels and we know it is rather fragile. A few greedy banks on Wall Street crashed our economy for a decade in 2009 without even trying.
Raven,
Why would you say that there isn’t a difference?
Then they are voting to say the science showing AGW is happening and human burning fossils fuels adding to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a large contributing factor, is all an illusion dreamt up by scientists for their political agenda-whatever that is.
The science is rock solid. The politics of denialism just shows how desperate they are to deny reality.
Your denialism is showing. Meaning you don’t understand reality.
pflynn,
The topic of climate change in politics is the same as the topic of AGW and what to do about it. Everybody knows that.
pflynn,
Not a matter of vote. Only people studying climate change will be able to answer that (which they have).
Saad,
I agree that it isn’t a matter of a vote whether it is happening or not, but it is a matter of whether they believe it is happening or not. It seems to be, as was pointed out already, just a means of getting people to expose their views on the issue. Of course it isn’t going to change what the science has to say. That has never been a part of my point.
A vote on gravity to follow.
We could also dust off “Heliocentrism: fact or fiction?”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls,
Where did I deny any science? I was only discussing what was going on in congress, no whether any particular brand of science is real or not.
I’ve just done a stupid thing; I followed the link from the OP about the AGW vote and started to read the comments..
Got to take my brain for a bath now. It feels……grubby!
Where do you acknowledge that the science is right? If you don’t do that, you are denying the science. So, put up or shut up.
pflynn @ #53, please, stop repeating yourself. I have read and I have responded to that point several times (on the distinction between climate change and anthropogenic climate change as the former is generally understood. You are making a distinction without a difference. You are being a pedant. It is, at best, annoying and it certainly doesn’t further the conversation. Don’t labour the point any further unless you’re going to make some counter-argument against the generally understood meaning of ‘climate change’ as it pertains to discussions about the present reality.
Which is something that doesn’t need to be done at all, I think, because the stance of those in congress is already well known. I suppose it’s true that it does force them to take a stance, but to what end, I don’t know. It already doesn’t seem to matter very much to the American public in general the stance of, especially, the Republicans in congress.
raven @ #58
It may haunt them forever, but at what point in the future will that matter? To go with your point 3., we’ve seen the quality of the Teflon the Republicans are coated with (it’s industrial grade), so why should we think that the segment of the American population that props them up presently will find fault with them in any amount of time that would matter? As we’ve seen in NC with the proposed (?) vote against sea-level rise, they don’t even seem worried about the consequences or adapting. And, after New Orleans, we can’t even say that piles of dead citizens leave even a mark.
The only thing I can see this vote doing is giving an excuse (as if it’s needed) for those who acknowledge climate change and our need to mitigate it and adapt to it say, ‘See!’ to none but each other. I know it’s cynical, but really, there’s nothing else to go on.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls,
First of all, you didn’t answer the question I asked, so its odd that you would expect an answer from me. Second, the point I was making was never about the science, it was about the reason congress was holding a vote. Third, if you want to talk science, let’s do that. Finally, which science do you want me to agree to? The science that says CO2 can cause warming or the science that says that we can currently predict how much warming is going to occur over the next 100 years? I agree with the first, but not the second.
Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo,
There is a difference. That you don’t acknowledge its existence doesn’t change the fact that a difference exists, particularly in the discussion congress is having.
How about you don’t “labour the point any further?”
pflynn, @ #70 I’m not sure how I should be responding to you anymore. The common understanding of the term ‘climate change’ as it is used presently is that which is caused almost exclusively by humans. If you need that written in a simpler way, please let me know and I’ll try.
On that point, since you don’t want to answer Nerd’s question, let me pose you one.
Do you believe that the present climate change is due almost exclusively to human causes?
Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo,
You are joking right? I answered Nerd’s question. Nerd hasn’t answered mine. As I said in the other thread, I’ve grown tired of our discussion and see no value in it. Read my response to Nerd and you’ll see that I have already answered your question.
Then citation mother fucking needed, that the models projections aren’t working by describing the current warming trends. Last I knew, they were actually underestimating what is being seen. That is what the science says, and it is only refuted by more science. If you won’t show any citations, or they come from the denialist websites/”literature”, your objection is political, not scientific.
pflynn @ #72
No.
Okay, you believe you answered Nerd’s question and you want your question answered. Good. You two can sort that out.
Will you answer the question I posed to you? It really only needs one word in response, before you flounce due to your exhaustion.
Do you believe that the present climate change is due almost exclusively to human causes?
Ah, intellectual dishonesty. The science says CO2 is causing warming. That tells me all I need to know about your agenda. And your honesty.
Define predict – it is true that we can not predict to 0.01 degree what the warming will be, but as Nerd has pointed out, so far the forecasts seem to be underestimating the degree of warming, Those who doubt the accuracy of the predictions seem to never consider the possibility that the actual warming my be greater than predicted. Funny that.
You mean like this? From today’s headlines.
One thing we do know already. AGW is one giant earth sized experiment, some of which we know, some of which we are going to find out the hard way. And we are all along for the ride whether we like it or not.
A link to a news story on rate of sea level rising increasing with man-cause global warming per Raven #77
http://isp.netscape.com/tech/story.jsp?floc=FF-1001-w&idq=/ff/story/1001%2F20150114%2F3776.htm&sc=w
When did I ever say that the models under-predicted warming? All I said was that they aren’t accurate. They may be inaccurate in either direction. The only thing that is clear is that they are inaccurate and the IPCC AR5 says as much.
Unfortunately, pflynn #79, makes a comment that sounds exactly like a climate ball one. Really, the models aren’t going to be perfect; complaining about innacuracy misses the point, which is that 1) they won’t ever be perfect, 2) They just have to be accurate enough to be useful, which they are.
I am embroiled in another argument where the denier keeps saying that the IPCC reports summarizing the risks as 67% or 95% are garbage because an engineer would never allow such a high risk of being wrong (33% and 5% respectively).
He’s completely impervious to arguments that he’s saying that engineers build to 10^-9 probabilities of failure, and using that as an argument to ignore a 95% chance of failure as being too uncertain.
It’s hilarious in a mind-blowing way.
Holy fuck pflynn, you are ridiculous.
The first rule of models is that all models are wrong, but some models are useful.
Climate models are no different, which the IPCC rightly acknowledges. However, they have demonstrated that the models are useful. Why would you treat the basics of modelling as some kind of gotcha? It’s not. You’re ridiculous.
Sorry, that isn’t a proper citation, since the report shows the models are very useful, and can model the climate over a long period of time. Like a thousand years.
Your ignorance tells us that you presuppose the scientists must be wrong, since it doesn’t agree with your political agenda. You are an anti-science fuckwit, and it shows.
numerobis
Bullshit – petroleum reservoir engineers often have to live with with that level of uncertainty. I know that because I are* one. We calculate reserves and recommend spending millions of dollars based on measurements of at best a metre into the formation and the occasional 20 cm diameter core from wells that are 100s to over a 1000 metres apart. In my particular specialty (pressure transient analysis) I am lucky if i can determine permeability within 20%. I once heard my boss and an engineering technologist attempt to explain round-off error to the company’s head of accounting. He had added a column of numbers in the reserve report and had his panties in a bunch because his total was different than the computer print out. These were numbers with an uncertainty of as much as 50%, a concept that he could not grasp.
*Old joke – Engineer at convocation “Four years ago I couldn’t spell engineer – now I are one.”
pflynn @ 52:
Excellent point! Now, what were you suggesting we do about the bits we aren’t causing?
Oh… right…
But, hey, who am I to insist that reality interfere with the Terribly Important Point you were making?
Anri,
So let me get this straight. You thought the point I was making was irrelevant and unworthy . . . and then you decided to spend some time making a response to that very point, a response that adds nothing to the discussion and is therefore irrelevant. Yeah, that makes sense.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls,
The AR5 says no such thing. It says that the models are getting MORE accurate, but it never says that they can predict the future with any degree of accuracy. That has been well established and the AR5 says as much.
As to the rest, you haven’t any clue what my agenda is, so that would make you the fuckwit for assuming you can read minds.
Just like your inane bullshit,
Fuckwit, they have predicted the warming for the past half century, and the weather continues to get warmer. Your idiocy in not paying attention to the facts is why your views are dismissed as political fuckwittery. They have no basis in scientific fact. Just in your delusional mind.
We can’t predict the path of hurricanes with our models. But our models reflect the possibility of the direction of the hurricanes. But since it’s not a 100% accurate model, I suppose we just do away with it?
And that’s why we should do nothing?
I can’t predict how long I’ll live after retirement, so I’m not saving any money at all. It’s not like each additional dollar would be a good investment for the most likely scenario (that I will live after retirement, whether it’s for 5 years or 25). And it’s also not like investing now makes the entire process easier by giving me a longer time to build up my assets. Heck, I’d be foolish to save for retirement in light of the uncertainties!
malta,
Who said anything about doing nothing? You, like so many others, are reading things that aren’t there. Try not to add your own misunderstandings to what others write.
Your failure to acknowledge the data, and the solutions necessary. Either you are part of the solution, which to date you haven’t shown, or you are part of the problem. Definitely the latter.
I am trying to parse this:
‘it never says that they can predict the future with any degree of accuracy” is not the same thing as saying they can not predict the future with any degree of accuracy. I smell a weasel. Also, what does “any degree of accuracy” mean? This is meaningless bullshit – the models surely can predict the temperature rise over 100 years within a degree C or so?
pflynn
That is because you are being so fucking coy about what is there.
Me! I said something about doing nothing. Specifically, I asked a question: “And [the degree of uncertainty] is why we should do nothing?” Then I gave a sarcastic example of why doing nothing was a bad idea.
I phrased the question this way because, based on your earlier posts, I suspect you favor inaction. But it’s still a question. You could have said no. You could have said that inaction was the right response for a different reason. I think we understand each other just fine.
So, I have only one question for you: are you saving for retirement?
Sniff. The smell of a type one concern troll is in the air.
well Pflynn I have read two threads in which you butt in and say way too much about some obscured point of your own or you carefully avoid stating your point simply and clearly so we do not misunderstand you or put words in your mouth.
As you said we have no idea what your agenda is, that is because you have either no idea how to communicate it or you are simply afraid to.
Either way, unless some one is threatening you and preventing you from clearly saying what you mean and where you stand I will have to say that you and your comments are as welcome to one fly to a picnic and as consequential.
uncle frogy
it spell checked OK and scanned fine but typos still sneak in like to for as.
damn
uncle frogy
Nerd @95
And I smell a weasel.
@83
Because he greatly underestimates his audience. He’s like the Bible thumper who thinks all you need do is crack his Holy tome and you’ll be persuaded. He doesn’t understand that you’ve seen and fisked it all before, and that far from being a challenge, its a tedious bore.