A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Here we go again: Climate Change Denying GOP Congressman to Head

Posted: Mar 23, 2013

Are we stupid or what? Or, rather, AND what else? Future generations aren't going to blame a few greedy people, or even the gullible voters who enabled them. They're going to blame US. All of us. Rightly.

Climate Change Denying Congressman to Head Subcommittee on Climate Change

Posted by Tim Murphy, Mother Jones on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Rep. Chris Stewart has written Glenn Beck-endorsed end times novels. Now he might be dealing with the real thing.

Wikimedia Commons

As the new chairman of a key House subcommittee on the environment, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) will be one of the GOP’s leading actors when it comes to the Environmental Protection Agency and the growing threats from climate change. So with his first hearing as chairman on tap for Wednesday, what does the freshman Republican—and end times novelist—think about anthropogenic global warming?

He’s not sure.

In response to an inquiry from Mother Jones, Stewart’s office emailed a statement suggesting that more study was needed before he could safely say whether—as 97 percent of scientists believe—humans are responsible for rising global temperatures. And even if they are, he explained, that doesn’t mean we should act:

The world’s climate is changing. That has always been true. Our global climate is always in flux, and always will be. So while I accept that our climate is changing, I also understand that a great deal of research still needs to be accomplished to understand why, as well as to discover the impacts man might be having on that change.

Climate change is also an extraordinarily complicated discipline. Because of this, it is vital that we ensure that policy decisions are based upon sound science. Before we make any long-lasting policy decisions that could negatively affect our economy, we need to be certain that the science behind our decisions is sound.

He elaborated on those views in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune: "I'm not as convinced as a lot of people are that man-made climate change is the threat they think it is."

But if Stewart isn't sure how he feels about climate change, he's dead-set in his view of the EPA: He wants the agency dissolved. In August, following a campaign event in the southwest corner of the state, Stewart told the St. George News that the Environmental Protection Agency should be eliminated because, as he put it, "The EPA thwarts energy development."

During his congressional campaign, Stewart highlighted the Endangered Species Act as the mark of a regulatory state gone wrong. "There is no better example of the overreach of government than in environmental law," he said in an interview last April with the Freemen Capitalist, a conservative website.

"Heavens!" Stewart said. "Go down to Southern Utah and talk to those folks down there about the Utah prairie dog and see what kind of impact and economic impact—and I mean real economic impact—that these rules and regulations concerning our environment have on people's lives down there."

A campaign questionnaire he sent to the Utah Farm Bureau that fall sent much the same message: We're protecting too many creatures. "The goal of protecting species from extinction is certainly noble, but efforts to protect species currently harm people."

Before entering Congress, Stewart, who eased past his Democratic opponent in November, was best known as an author. His six-volume Great and Terrible series, in which an agent of Satan sets off electromagnetic pulse that throws Earth into chaos, was endorsed by no less an authority than Glenn Beck, who compared the books to the Rapture epic Left Behind. He's currently juggling his work on Capitol Hill with another book project—the memoir of former child abducteeElizabeth Smart.

Still, even if he'd like to see the Environmental Protection Agency go the way of the Utah prairie dog, Stewart has shown at least some ability to coexist: The Shipley Group, a consulting firm where he served as president*, received has received $6.3 million in federal funding since 2001—some of it from the EPA.

"I suppose we're just gonna keep our eyes and see what comes," says Matt Pacenza, policy director of the environmental advocacy group HEAL Utah. "I wouldn't say we're optimistic, but you never know."

*Correction: This article originally identified the Shipley Group as a lobbying firm, and Stewart as its founder.

;

He does have a point - It's not black and white

[ In Reply To ..]
Climate change is not black and white. There are many reasons for climate change (warming AND cooling). He is absolute correct when he states "While I accept that our climate is changing, I also understand that a great deal of research still needs to be accomplished to understand why, as well as to discover the impacts man might be having on that change. Climate change is also an extraordinarily complicated discipline. Because of this, it is vital that we ensure that policy decisions are based upon sound science. Before we make any long-lasting policy decisions that could negatively affect our economy, we need to be certain that the science behind our decisions is sound".

He's not saying he doesn't believe man contributes to that. He's just saying research still needs to be done, which is correct. Policies DO need to be based on sound science proof. Not Algore's interpretation of the truth, which btw he stands to become the first carbon tax credit billionaire from his phony carbon credits (no wonder he wants to tax everyone for breathing).

Look...The earth has cycles of warming and cooling. There are many factors that contribute. Like volcano's for example. Volcanos are not erupting because we drive cars or are breathing. Yet volcano's have a lot to do with earth changes. Or take a look at the Conga. Pollution is there, but it is not caused by man. Nature contributes more than man.

I found this when doing my research on this subject and this explains it well. I remember the scientists talking about this a few years back.

The Earth has its cycles and warms and cools with, or without man being here. We weren't polluting the Earth when the last Ice Age ended. It is in a warming trend, although in the last 5 years the Earth has actually cooled by .035 degrees c. Do we as man kind pollute and contribute to the warming? Yes. Can we stop global warming? No. Can you stop 3000 volcanoes from polluting the atmosphere? Or cosmic dust that enters the atmosphere every day? The scientists that are crying the sky is falling have an agenda. If you take a closer look at these people you will see that. As far as the inane idiots that blame Pres. Bush, grow up and quit doing drugs. It has made you totally stupid. Just in the rift in the Congo pollution happens and it isn't caused by man. Nature contributes more than man does. Now, if you want to look at some countries that pollute way more than we do, look at China and India. By the way, this is where the Kyoto agreement was a joke. The biggest polluters of mankind weren't even in the agreement. No matter what we do, cooling and warming are going to happen and there isn't anything we can do about it. Eventually we will have another Ice Age. When that happens people will be hoping for global warming. As far as the number of scientists who cry out that the sky is falling, it is spit down the middle. There are scientists that aren't funded by grants to make them biased in either direction and all of them say that this all is a bunch of crap. They do say the Earth overall is in a warming cycle and that we do contribute to it, but if man weren't here it would still happen. Just the volcanoes on land, there are 3000. Underwater volcanoes, who knows. They only have a chart of most, but not all of the underwater volcanoes. Just in the Pacific Ring of Fire, there are hundreds of underwater volcanoes. So, really it is a waste of time to go crying the sky is falling. Should we be more responsible with the Earth? Of course. We are lousy care takers. But that also does NOT mean that we should go back to horse and buggy days. Should we look at alternatives? Most definately. But let"s do it in an intelligent manner and quit doing stupid crap like blaming a president because of your political agendas. These same things that cause pollution give you the very cars, homes, food, clothes, phones and the computers we all use. That is reality. Cars are a small part of the big picture.

I believe everyone should do their best to try and not pollute, but we cannot stop it. Climate change/global warming is only political because you have certain people who want to tax everyone to enrich themselves. They won't be paying the taxes, but they will be getting the money in from everyone else and guess what? That money will be going into their own pockets and will not change or improve the earth in its warming or cooling periods. Do you really think that by paying someone some cash the earth is going to heal (especially when those funds are just going into someone's pockets).

Besides there are other planets that are warming too and that is not caused by mankind. What it all boils down to is some people trying to tax the you know what out of people to get rich off of this. It is what is called a "scheme". People need to wake up and realize this.

You make an interesting argument - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
And in many ways I agree with you. The earth is a major polluter and in all things there should be balance. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I also acknowledge the fact that there is no such thing as zero impact and aiming for it is pointless. I also don't believe in carbon tax. It's pointless. I believe in ending all subsidies to fossil fuels and continuing to invest in green energy to divert society away from harmful pollutants (which are bad for air quality any way). I'm fine with clean coal if it's actually clean (sadly, mining of coal will likely never be clean.) I'm also fine with replacing coal and oil with more natural gas as a transition fuel, though our techniques of extracting said gas need to be thoroughly and independently tested. Nuclear breeder reactors, if done safely, can help alleviate the demands of fossil fuels. Molten metal batteries to properly store energy at transfer stations could help. I'm open to any idea that is scientifically and environmentally sound. If it's financially sound, all the better.

However, I don't think the vast majority of scientists who believe in climate change are in some way getting rich off of it. Regardless, most of the primary debunkers of man-made climate change are funded by the very industries producing the most pollutants. If you argue that we shouldn't trust the people biased for it, why trust the people biased against it?

Also, I find the middle statement there about some sort of league of drug addicts accusing Bush of causing global warming to be offensive. I think Bush has a poor environmental record, but I don't think he caused climate change. I haven't heard any even somewhat serious person accuse him of that. In fact, while I'm sure someone somewhere at some time has probably said that, I've never seen it. How do you know they're on drugs?

While I'm not sure who you might be singling out in your statement that people are lining their pockets with tax revenue (besides, technically, every government employee everywhere), I think that's a more generalized and not climate change related problem. Do politicians not make money from legislating for the NRA or fossil fuels or tobacco or any of the other thousands of lobbies? We need lobbying reform, but I seriously doubt climate science is quite so corrupt as you believe it is when compared with the opposition or just about any other major lobby.

About these scientists who don't receive grants, I find it hard to believe that there are scientists that don't work for a company, receive donations from corporations or accept government grants. Science is expensive and once they've accepted money, there will always be the risk of confirmation bias or partisanship. Thus, I find it equally hard to believe that big solar's scientists are somehow less trustworthy than big oil's scientists in a good ol' fashion science off. Most of the time when people hold up examples of unbiased scientists, they don't consider their source of funding to be a corrupting force for personal reasons (e.g. "I love cigarettes, so I think tobacco company scientists are trustworthy.")

It should be noted that no organization of national or international standing has rejected the findings on man-made global warming. Also, well-above three quarters of all scientists agree that global warming has a substantial human driven element to it.

Horse and buggy days? Who said anything about that? I'll recycle and call for major social reforms, but you can pry my computer from my cold dead planet. The only people calling for that are uber-hippies and the Amish and no one listens to either of them. Not even us dirty liberals.

Regarding Al Gore, that's a tough one. Can you trust the word of anyone who is invested in something and therefore would benefit from its use, yet can you trust anyone who wouldn't try their own product? If a person is concerned about the environment, do they have to choose between either advocating for green industry or investing in it? Doesn't that mean that no one who is heavily invested in oil (which is practically every human being on the planet) can advocate for its continued use? Yet how can we deny the corrupting power of a person developing a monetary interest in their agenda? It's a conundrum for the ages.

Finally, as for Rep. Stewart himself, I don't see why he is on the committee. He doesn't believe in its goals or its purpose, so why be part of it? Why not just oppose it rather than try to infiltrate it like the really obvious saboteur he is? He's even against the EPA. I can understand wanting to change how the EPA works or disagreeing with some of their decisions, but simply being against environmental protection is not something I can get behind.

I would be curious to see a list of animals he thinks should be saved from extinction. Of course protecting endangered species interrupts human business. If they weren't in the way, they wouldn't be endangered. Because of the Endangered Species Act and animal conservation efforts we still have bald eagles, wolves, buffalo, bears, beavers and countless other iconic American animals whose brush with the second amendment nearly proved fatal:)

"That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation." -Teddy Roosevelt

He really does not. An hour of honest study would change - a sensible person's mind. A day's would

[ In Reply To ..]
confirm it beyond any doubt. Because terrible changes are well underway. When that article says that 97% of scientists now believe man is involved in climate warming, it's stating the simple truth. And by definition scientists require real proof and real explanations for seeming contradictions.

BTW, if you're inclined to be afraid of anything, this should be it. It's big and it's awful.

As for this scoundrel, fortunately for us, this dreadfully inadequate, dishonest little man is not taking over that powerful a job. He's certainly in a position to cause trouble, and no doubt will, but many of the big decisions are made by others.

He has a point like someone saying we can't be sure - the earth really rotates around the sun.

[ In Reply To ..]
And need to study it some more.

BTW, the same thing happened in the 16th Century as now. Although many others came along after Copernicus and proved it was true again and again, for a couple of CENTURIES many insisted this was all a lie so they could hold to their preferred notions. The more a person disliked change of any kind, the more he hated this evil new idea that the earth was not the center of the universe, only listened to those who told him what he wanted to hear, and villified those who knew otherwise.

The big difference between then and now, of course, is that all the resistance and foolery of those days made no difference whatsoever. The planets continued to revolve as always.

Besides there are other planets that are warming too - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
That one little phrase makes my head spin.

Oh, my. I missed that. The first minutes alone convinced me - the wrong side was showing him off. :) nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

how so? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It's a fact. How is a fact making your head spin?

we're not living on other planets - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
In fact, there are no other planets in our solar system that can sustain human life. Thus, what goes on on other planets is hardly germane to sustaining human life on this one. (Earth, fyi.)

And there are other, more complex reasons why this - is just more nonsense meant to deceive. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
HowSo, you could ask yourself where you read that and then go try another, reputable publication for balance.

Maybe Scientific American, which is pretty readable and enjoyable, unlike, say, the International Journal of Climatology. That latter publishes all its articles on line, though, so if anyone's discussing temperatures of other planets in the context of our own global warming a search there may find it (just good luck understanding what they're saying). I only find myself there in a search for terms or names.

Or you could check out the NOAA's (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) climate site--link below. It's full of good information written for the people it serves.

You don't need to live on another planet to know this - You really need to do some research

[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090415064514AAmTTYJ

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

well, that's a good thing - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
for as I mentioned, the conditions on other planets are so extreme they cannot sustain life. I would certainly agree that one does not have to actually be on Mars to know this is true.

A remarkable confluence of astronomical proportions makes the earth uniquely habitable in our solar system. We have a remarkably balanced planet that does not customarily vary, say, by more than 600 degrees from one hemisphere to the next.

With this in mind, it's understood that variations in global warming patterns are natural and are influenced by all kinds of things that have to do with living on a planet.

However, science has demonstrated, and it is widely agreed, that humans are having a measurably significant impact on our planet's balance. This fact cannot be overlooked by comparing the conditions of our inhabited planet to other orbiting bodies in our solar system.

"SEO Black Hat"? :) Come on. You need to post from a scientific - journal or site, explaining IN THE CONTEXT OF

[ In Reply To ..]
EARTH'S GLOBAL WARMING a link of that warming to the warming of other planets that obviates any significant contribution by man.

Thus, it should discuss how controlling for all factors except changes in solar radiance still results on the warming we're seeing. (The ACCELERATING warming, BTW--we're in trouble!) You see, solar output is always changing, so of course it's routinely taken into account by all scientists as they study this issue. All honest scientists, anyway.

Courtesy of the WWW, I can now produce thousands of articles to support global warming due to man written by reputable scientists and published in reputable journals. Articles with data to support the argument, or footnoting data publicagtions, not just reporting that "someone said," like the one you listed about that far-off Russian scientist.

Can you produce one? You have 20 years to find it. I'll be waiting right here.

I posted more than just that. National Geographic, Live Science - c'mon yourself - sheesh!

[ In Reply To ..]
Just because you don't like what a site has to say does not meant the information is not right. How many more times are posters going to have to explain that.

I don't care whether or not you like a site. The information is correct and can be cross referenced with other sites.

You can produce "thousands of articles". Thousands? Wow, that's amazing, since there are probably only a few hundred. I however can produce many to support what the scientists are saying.

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

"Climate research institutions know that they must present scary climate forecasts to receive continued funding - no crisis means no funding." " Scientific research that suggests climate change is mostly natural does not receive much if any media coverage. These factors have caused the general public to be seriously misled on climate issues resulting in wasteful expenditures of billions of dollars in an ineffective attempt to control climate"

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

http://www.space.com/3159-global-warming-pluto-puzzles-scientists.html

http://www.munfw.org/archive/40th/unep4.htm

Look, nobody is saying that man does not contribute, but man is not the ONLY contributor. Get it? No, I don't think you do. The fact still remains that scientist have been tracking warming and cooling in other planets. If you are interested you research how they do that, but know you are not interested.

A lot of those links maybe too scientific for you and hard to understand, but it the facts are facts. I know you don't like to hear that. Sorry to say Algore has no training in the field. He will however rake in the tax money in his phony scheme, so hope that works out for ya.

Sorry, I will stick with what the scientists say.

As for me posting "thousands" of links until you find one you will think is okay, well you keep sitting there waiting. You can even hold your breath if you want to.

fyi, the Nat'l Geographic article is bigger than its title - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
The article itself is actually refuting the findings of the scientist they are discussing.

I missed that; checked the NG offering, of course, but left - on seeing it was just chitchat. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

(?) the link I looked at was NG Daily News - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
It was an old article, but it was more than chit chat to my read. It debunks Abdussamatov's theories and shows them to be "completely at odds with mainstream scientific opinion" regarding climate change.

Chit chat? It's an article. - Not sure what you mean.

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Okay, I'll bite - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I would like to see your "thousands" of articles. Since you state you can produce over a thousand, I'll just take the first thousand.

Since I've got no jobs, I have the time to research everything you put up.

Remember now, you said "thousands". Can you produce?

I'll be waiting right here.

No prob. Start with Scientific American and NOAA. They'll - keep you busy for several days. While

[ In Reply To ..]
you read, gather names of people and reports discussed **on those sites** to further your search, read those, and do the same. You'll never get to the end of it, just as none of us will live to see the seasons we grew up with return, no matter how hard we go to work on this problem right now.

You know, that 97% of all scientists now believe we are causing great danger and damage to ourselves through climate warming is REAL. What they think of that 3% who supposedly insist we have nothing to do with it isn't stated, but one can imagine. Like any other lunatic fringe, some are bought, some are crazy, and some aren't even real. If there's a real genius worth listening to in that group, he's being misunderstood.

Where's the link? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You didn't provide a link(s). Maybe you just forgot. Those and the other 998 links you wrote of?

I'll wait.

NOAA link - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point."

1 link? Where are the thousands of links? - I provided 8 links

[ In Reply To ..]
Not sure if you are the one who said they can provide thousands of links. For that poster, what gives? Why don't you provide what you said you could? You said you can provide thousands of links.

My post was talking how man is not the ONLY contributor to the climate changes. He's just a small part of it. Never once did I say mankind did not contribute, but you have to understand how the planet cools and warms and how scientist are measuring it along with other planets. We are not the only planet going through this.

You also need to understand the money involved in this. Who is funded and who is paid to produce misleading information so they will continue to get funding (i.e. no crisis, no funding). If you don't understand any of that I don't know what to tell you. If you are trying to prove me wrong by saying I said man does not contribute then you will lose because that's not what I said. If you are trying to say man is the only contributing factor that is wrong too.

Mankind does not contribute to the volcanoes (included the underground volcanos) or the conga. Earthquakes are not caused by cars or man breathing. The sun has a lot to do with this. The sun is also affecting other planets. It's everything put together.

There is more to this than just the simpleton's "it's man fault that the planet is cooling or heating".

Until you understand the environment and how everything works together you will never understand global warming/cooling.

Trying again. - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm not the poster you're haranguing for links, but they gave you *instructions* on how to find that number of sources (and many more besides).

Here again is the info that I posted regarding the sun's effects. Humankind is not "just a small part of it," we are the main cause.

Nice try - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You can call it what you want, asking, "haranguing", whatever. All I'm saying is if someone says they have thousands of links then post at least one of them. We are not all mind readers. If someone says they have thousands of links at least prove it by posting one or two. If they can't even do that, then that means they have none. As for instructions, I could post instructions on how to knit a sweater if you'd like. You don't post "instructions", you post links to back up your claims. You know, the same links that they themselves demand of others.

Now....Stanford Solar Center? Really??? Do you even know who is funding them? They were just awarded a 25M (million) dollar grant for solar power.

Looks like someone in the kindergarten could have done a better job at creating a chart. I hope that's not what the 25 million was spent on. Surely they could have done a better job. Along side the graph on their website it states "The U.N. Report confirms human activity to blame or earth's warming climate (from Voice of America), yet the link goes nowhere. How is anyone supposed to be able to verify information. Do they expect people to just take their word for it and "trust them" without being able to research to prove what they are saying is true. Voice of America is a broadcast institution of the US Govt.

How about some scientific proof that humankind is the main part of it (not just what the government who wants to tax us to breath is saying). Cos I'll tell ya, something smells fishy.

Did you read my link? From NASA. It states:

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

How about reading what scientist say, not politicians, especially those who are trying to make billions by taxing people (hence putting money in their bank accounts).

Someone gave you the NOAA link. - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
That graph is fine. You're like any other denier, so I won't be bothering anymore, but here's the study that was linked in the paragraph I cited. Hopefully that's "what scientist say" enough for you (though I know it won't be).

From page 40: "6.4. Climate Change
[164] ...Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC-related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes."

No I'm not a denier - you guys don't get it - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I never ever once in any of my posts ever denied that man has a roll in this, but you guys are the deniers trying to prove me wrong, most likely because I agreed with a republican that more research needs to be done. You are so busy to cut down anyone who doesn't agree with you with you're "thousand links" (which by the way you never posted nearly a fraction of what you said you had. Only 1 link was posted.

But if you stopped long enough to try and stop proving someone wrong (without facts to back you up) you would realize I never said man didn't contribute. What I said was there are a LOT of contributing factors. Mankind is NOT THE ONLY thing that contributes. There are many planets that are warming and cooling, not just earth. The earth has been warming and cooling long before man. Yes, mankind is part of it, not ALL of it.

Done with all you "deniers" that your only intent is to prove someone is wrong, when you don't even read their messages, claim you've got thousands of links and can't even provide more than 1.

Denying that mankind is the MAIN cause is still being a denier. - plenty of links on the Stanford site, etc.

[ In Reply To ..]
And denigrating Stanford because they got a huge grant, that makes a lot of sense. They got that grant because they're so scientically reputable. (next up, MIT bashing) Besides, what would their getting a grant in 'solar energy research' have to do with their believability in terms of 'climate change'? Not seeing the supposed conflict of interest there.

Really smart of the Saudis to realize that oil is not an inexhaustible resource and look to being at the forefront of alternatives. Now *that* makes sense; they should be among the most likely to know that fact.

Also, PLENTY of facts have been provided. You apparently either didn't read them or comprehend them. (You can lead a horse to water...) We definitely read *your* messages. Every single response to your posts has been relevant and pertinent. You may want to backtrack and see what you've obviously missed, for whatever reason.

No its not. Its called facing the truth - buh bye....denier

[ In Reply To ..]
you are the true denier being blindly led down the same path. Again I do not deny that mankind has contributed. But the facts are it's not the main contributor. I wish I had a dollar for every time that has to be explained.

The planet went through a warming period before mankind was around and now it's going through a cooling period.

Since you deny this when the facts are there in black and white in front of you, you deny the truth.

Done explaining.

39,000+ links. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
edit: Revised. When I added "peer reviewed" to help refine my search, I ended up with even more results than my original 33,000+ hits without it.

By the way, the third one down, the C3headlines site, is right up your alley, "mankind is not the main cause" poster. Just helping. :}

Links - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/sep/05/the-line-between-fact-and-opinion-has-been/?print=1

http://biofuel.md/en/articles/climate-change-global-warming

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22climate+change%22+%22not+anthropogenic+causes%22&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=%22climate+change%22+%22not+anthropogenic+causes%22&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=

Like your NG link, you've included refutation of your own beliefs. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

(1) Jim Pickens. Okay, yep, you've got a real denier there.

(2) Oops. "Recent studies sustain the theory that the cause of global warming is human activity. Study by researchers from the UK, Canada and Australia showed that the probability of natural, not anthropogenic causes of climate change on the planet is not more than 5%. "

(3) Oops. "Since GCRs [galactic cosmic rays] can’t argue back and present their own reasons why they’re not causing GW, they make easy fall guys for denialists. ... So any and all data pointing to GW is just weird anomalies with the overall trend “not warming, maybe even cooling.” And if one accepts GW, then it is due to some other “not me” factor, certainly not anthropogenic causes."

(4) Well, maybe half of all 13 (!) of those (including Baptist and LDS sites, what a surprise) are more deniers. Jolly good show. (Bing? Really? Over 11,000 results on Google with the exact same search, including quotation marks limiters. It's now evident what the main problem with your research is. It's also necessary to actually read the material inside the links, not just go by the titles or search terms.)

it's clear the OP does not understand what she is reading or citing - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]

did you read any of the responses? - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
Plenty of posters have addressed your issues respectfully and repeatedly, and you have done nothing but insult them and act like a brat. People have gone OUT OF THEIR WAY to provide links for you, and you continue to pretend otherwise.

No one is trying to prove you wrong. People are trying to educate you with regard to the role of anthropogenic climate change.

Evidently you missed my post above, in which I state: "it's understood that variations in global warming patterns are natural and are influenced by all kinds of things that have to do with living on a planet." (Did you catch that? I am demonstrating that I understand YOUR point.)

I go on to say: "However, science has demonstrated, and it is widely agreed, that humans are having a measurably significant impact on our planet's balance. This fact cannot be overlooked by comparing the conditions of our inhabited planet to other orbiting bodies in our solar system."

Here's the broken link you couldn't find. - SM

[ In Reply To ..]

Little trick: Take your mouse, left-click and drag to highlight the title/term, right-click, and either copy (to paste into Google later) or perhaps you have the option to "Search Google...", which will take you right there.

Broken links aren't a conspiracy. They're just something that sometimes happens when a website reorganizes its pages, changes servers, etc.

here's another quote from your NASA link - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
"The models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century."

Meanwhile, climate feedback is not the CAUSE of global warming. I hope you realize that.

"How about reading what scientist say" - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
I provided a link as to what scientists say. I am reposting it here as you appear to have missed it.

you are asking for links... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The Stanford Solar Center article provided by the poster above lists copious links on the topic. Are you resisting on purpose, or are you not paying attention?

Stanford is very well respected and is doing - ground-breaking work.

[ In Reply To ..]
Not just in the green energy arena, either. Have you heard of their particle accelerator? I had the opportunity to see it myself last year.

I haven't kept up on the global warming argument that's going on here (for the record, I believe man is the main cause), but I did have to pipe in about Stanford.

Also, you say at the end to listen to what scientists say, not politicians. Those men and women at Stanford are certainly scientists.

no, I am not the one you asked - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
I am just a simpleton, well apprised of the vicissitudes of climate change, stepping in with a link to be helpful.

I wouldn't worry about volcanoes - underground or otherwise - until you get a better grasp on what's happening on this planet.

Of note, the conga is a drum.

I'm a little slow on the uptake right now. Anyone know what ''conga'' - was really supposed to be?

[ In Reply To ..]
I wouldn't expect an answer from that poster, so any other clues would be appreciated.

What do you mean does anyone know what "conga" was really - supposed to be?

[ In Reply To ..]
I'd like to help. Unsure what your question means.

From this post above... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

"Mankind does not contribute to the volcanoes (included the underground volcanos) or the conga. Earthquakes are not caused by cars or man breathing. The sun has a lot to do with this. The sun is also affecting other planets. It's everything put together."

http://general.mtstars.com/342256.html

[edit]: Never mind. I kept going back, back, back and found this. Apparently it was meant to be "the Congo."

"Or take a look at the Conga. Pollution is there, but it is not caused by man. Nature contributes more than man."

http://general.mtstars.com/342118.html

Perhaps if it had also been capped in the second instance, even if still misspelled, I would have got it. Or maybe with a few extra hours of sleep under my belt. (I tangented off trying to think of some geography terminology similar to "magma," e.g., that was unknown to me.) Apparently the poster was referring to non-point-source pollution in the Congo River, which also includes municipal wastes, etc., not just soil erosion, so mankind most certainly does also contribute to pollution in the Congo, and also through point-source pollution such as from barge fuel, etc.

: ) - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I knew she meant the Congo River, but she didn't understand what she was talking about, and I was too busy running from the underground volcanoes.

who knows - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
it all got blurry for me after hearing the poster explain that earthquakes aren't caused by people breathing.

:) I finally figured it out, it was "the Congo" (River). - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There were some really far-fetched analogies and major false equivalencies going on there, for sure.

SEO Blackhat - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
SEO Blackhat, if you even read the article, was referring to information from National Geographic, MIT News, Space.com, as well as other sources.

Did you even read the article or research anything, or just try and discredit it because it didn't come from BSNBC or CNN? Who knows maybe you just didn't like the logo so didn't read it. If you had read the article you would know that the information is accurate.

That's the funny thing about some links. Maybe they have a funny looking logo, but when the information presented can be cross referenced and found to be accurate (i.e. true) then sometimes you have to look past the funny looking logo.

Try NOAA and Scientific American, and don't try - to slur me with TV shows. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

fyi, the SEO blackhat article... - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
...makes reference to lots of different sources. The problem is, SEO blackhat evidently did not understand the articles they were referencing.

For example, the quote from National Geographic magazine was lifted out of context from an article that is, in fact, actually debunking what SEO blackhat thinks it is proving.

It's sloppy work on their part, resulting in a completely meaningless and weak-minded piece (from 2007).

SEO Blackhat WAS referring to a NG article - which apparently THEY didn't read.

[ In Reply To ..]
Did you read it?

it's like she doesn't even read the posts - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

climate change pie chart - priceless

[ In Reply To ..]
13,950 articles peer-reviewed articles.
24 reject global warming.

It's true that we're at a peak in the solar cycle (resulting in - ''other planets...warming'').

[ In Reply To ..]

Rather than that being a main cause for climate change on Earth, though, it's only an additional minor factor that's potentiating what's being caused by humans. But it couldn't have come at a worse time and gives us even less time than might have been hoped for to clean up our act.

...A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

he is a noted end-times novelist... - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
In addition, he has written more than one book on American history that contains the word "miracle" in the title.

I know he's a smart guy, but it remains hard for me to understand why a scientific subcommittee should be chaired by someone who injects the notion of "miracles" into American history when crediting human endeavor would suffice.

Numinous belief systems have no place on scientific subcommittees. It's clear from his remarks that he has difficulty with the science surrounding climate change, and it's clear from his writings that he favors divine intervention over reason.

come to think of it... - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
It would be like placing someone who isn't convinced about animal welfare at the head of the SPCA.

Many people are able to reconcile their religion, - which is about that which cannot be measured,

[ In Reply To ..]
and science, which is about that which can be. The sort of person who flat denies the validity of science is someone I wouldn't trust to fix my plumbing, though (plumbing actually takes some understanding), much less assume this position.

This is clearly a sop to The Base, most of whom don't seem to care about any issues these days, including religion, nearly as much as they care about getting in the way of anyone and everyone to the left of them.

Similar Messages:

Nov 17, 2016
Ellison formally announced his bid Monday, saying the party needs to rebuild its ties to voters... However, Ellison’s past associations and comments may trouble more moderate voters. Ellison’s 2006 run for his seat was plunged into controversy after the conservative PowerLineBlog.com found he had once identified with Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and in 1998 was referring to himself as Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammed. The Washington Post reported that Ellison had defended ...

Oct 15, 2016
I suppose some will think this belongs on the Faith Board, but it is also a political issue. I am so sick of hearing about climate change and all that we can do as human beings about it. These politicians should read their Bible; that is if they even own one, and they would soon discover that man did not create this world and man is not going to change what God made. There has been climate change since the beginning of time and just because we, who are now living in these times ...

Apr 28, 2011
I would think that with record tornados, hurricanes, snow falls, temperatures, polar ice cap melting, everyone would be willing to work toward a solution. All I see is corporations wanting to do more drilling, fracking, polluting and deregulating, and people wanting cheap fuel and goods at any cost. ...

Oct 30, 2012
This is no time to decentralize and throw all the states on their own. Are these guys' brains engaged, or is states-right ideology being applied where the most basic common sense says it doesn't belong? This is just the beginning. Climate change means many more and worse natural disasters of the sort we are seeing right now and many others. FEMA's job is specifically to COORDINATE responses to diisasters too big for the resources of individual states. When 1000-mile-wid ...

Dec 11, 2012
Very brief article sheds light on climate change denial, demonstrates no scientific controversy surrounding climate change: ...

Aug 19, 2015
The Republicans thought they could just ignore it and it would go away. ...

Aug 09, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/08/climate/nine-takeaways-climate-report.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=keywee&mccr=dommob&kwp_0=488202&kwp_4=1759607&kwp_1=751275 ...

Jan 12, 2010
Please take action to support a comprehensive climate and energy bill. In the last year alone, new evidence has emerged that the climate crisis is nearer—and scarier—than we had believed. Please take action now to urge your Senators to support comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation that will reinvigorate our economy and create millions of new jobs. The stakes are high. We must start cutting our carbon emissions now, or we may soon lose the ability to prev ...

Jul 10, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKUPUznJZoE ...

Jan 13, 2013
Below is a list of 37 (out of the 67) GOP hypocrites who voted against the $9 billion Sandy relief funds, STRICTLY DEDICATED to flood insurance guarantees, after they had supported and/or praised emergency aid services for other disasters that affected their own constituents. Unlike the ad hominem attempts to somehow discredit climate change by launching personal attacks against one of its most ardent spokespersons, the hypocrisy exposed here amongst this large group of pols leaves no doub ...

Mar 14, 2013
to the vested interests who've been funding it. By Climate Desk, The Atlantic March 11, 2013 | 10:23 a.m. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel) Back in 1999 Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann released the climate change movement's most potent symbol: The "hockey stick," a line graph of global temperature over the last 1,500 years that shows an unmistakable, massive uptick in the twentieth century when humans began to dump large amounts of greenhouse gases into ...

Oct 14, 2016
...(and other honest-science-denying climate-changers won't like this either)... FACT: Before Matthew, it had been 10 YEARS 11 MONTHS since the last hurricane had struck the US. ...which destroys the predictions of the CC lunatics... ...who, shamefully, tweeted and posted their DISAPPOINTMENT AND RAGE that Matthew wasn't worse, because they feel that we "need an apocalyptic disaster" to awaken all the rest of us... ...meaning those of us who, despite the failed American ed ...

Nov 25, 2015
As Americans prepare for their Thanksgiving Day feasts, there's an issue on the horizon that could make that turkey more expensive: taxing meat to reduce climate change. Livestock is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, adding about the same amount of emissions as that of all the world's vehicles, according to a new report from the U.K. policy institute Chatham House. But many consumers aren't aware of the link between their dinner plates and climate change, the re ...

Apr 01, 2012
Stop letting the politicos fool with your intelligence. Many republicans are now starting to repudiate the standard right wing mantra. Climate change is real. ...

Sep 01, 2012
The GOP's 2008 platform's statement on climate change said, "common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. " March backwards to 2012 and we have...no statement on climate change at all, much less applying good sense to it. Quite the contrary, as in commercial concerns such as "take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations.”&n ...

Nov 25, 2012
5 Charts About Climate Change That Should Have You Very, Very Worried By Christopher Mims and Stephanie Gruner Buckley Two new reports highlight the alarming consequences of staying our current course. AP MORE FROM QUARTZ In China, Bridget Jones Is a Man and He's Big Business European Budget Talks Collapse After Barely a Day's Worth of Meetings China Ratchets Up Its Territorial Disputes With Cheeky New Passports Two major organizations rel ...

Mar 01, 2013
like that poor guy in Florida last night. From the NY Times, entire article at link below. Study of Ice Age Bolsters Carbon and Warming Link By JUSTIN GILLIS Published: February 28, 2013 FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ SAVE E-MAIL SHARE PRINT REPRINTS A meticulous new analysis of Antarctic ice suggests that the sharp warming that ended the last ice age occurred in lock step with increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the latest of many indi ...

Mar 17, 2015
Oh, wait, I can't post the entire article. My jet is idling on the tarmac whilst awaiting my arrival. Toodles... ...

Nov 25, 2016
We all know the ridiculous predictions about the polar ice disappearing. In the case of the north pole, we weren't told that they were predicated on less than 40 years of data, which in terms of climate trends isn't anything close to an adequate data set, and even now those are looking wobbly. We do have information about Antarctica from carefully recorded logs of explorers 100 years ago...and (I know this will surprise anyone who understands real science) the polar ice ...

Aug 09, 2017
NYT ran a story that says there is "concern among scientists" in the administration is that Donald Trump is going to suppress it climate change news. well, guess what... that climate assessment report has been public for weeks. The New York Times participated in a giant act of misdirection and deception. The New York Times made up not the news in the assessment, but they made up the fact that it hasn’t been released and that Trump will suppress it. It’s been available for months onlin ...

Sep 01, 2016
We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’ Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course. “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurri ...

Jul 27, 2016
or more. “Obama’s Paris junket is another example of wasteful and unnecessary presidential travel that abuses the taxpayers, the military, and the U.S. Secret Service”... Ironically, planes and cars carrying the representatives of 195 countries to the conference emitted 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide, by one estimate. ...

Oct 05, 2016
Actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio said Monday that those who don’t believe in climate change shouldn’t be permitted to hold public office. Fox News ...

Nov 14, 2015
Can someone explain that as it totally went over my head. ...

Feb 07, 2017
Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges. It looks like we're not done with Oblunder scandals just yet. ...

Oct 29, 2015
Scarier than you think, according to the Energy Department, which claims the holiday squash is responsible for unleashing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Most of the 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins produced in the U.S. end up in the trash, says the Energy Department's website, becoming part of the "more than 254 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced in the United States every year." washingtontimes.com ...

Jul 06, 2017
Remember that time Chelsea Clinton shared an article that said climate change is causing diabetes? Wow, we thought she’d really tapped out on THAT ONE, but oh no, she truly is her mother’s daughter … Check this out: ...

Feb 12, 2010
The video following this one is goo, also -- Bill Nye the Science Guy explains how it all works . . . . . please take note all deniers . . . it's actually pretty interesting science http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#35355023 ...

Oct 18, 2016
Of course, this is not shocking. ...

Feb 09, 2013
posed by rising sea levels, devastating storms, and drought is growing every day. Here are some excerpts to scan from a very good but long article in the National Journal (a politically moderate publication) about what climate change is costing us already, with link to entire article below. "In the 1980s, when then-Rep. Al Gore, D-Tenn., first sounded the alarm about climate change, it was a frightening specter, but it sounded far off, like someone else’s future. But that future is start ...