The Political Denial of Science

[WeatherRusty]

Both sides can spread alot of BS, but there is no "mainstream" science. IPCC/Gov't are self-delcared "mainstream".

Wonder why democrats are against this? http://wattsupwithth...al-records-act/

Democrats didn't even read their OWN health care Bill, nor write their OWN bill, its so laughable. It will most likely cost Obama the 2012 election.

I'm sorry, if a Bill contains BS statements such as "unequivocal warming" and "obviouslly due to man", then the bill will always be rejected....really now? How could you not expect a Bill full of BS and no science to pass?

Do you consider the National Academies of Science mainstream? The American Geophysical Union? American Meteorological Society? Just to name a few. I suppose they are all corrupt too?

I won't go to WUWT. Going there monetizes that website as well as increases it's hit rate. Something I wish not to do.

I am all for Nationalized health care, just like every other industrialized nation in the world has.

Amendments are not bills. There were 3 separate amendments. The Repubs voted all of them down unanimously, in total defiance of science. One stated that global warming has certainly happened without mentioning causality. They said the Earth has not warmed by voting the way they did. Even you admit the Earth has warmed. They won't. End of story.

[BethesdaWX]

Do you consider the National Academies of Science mainstream? The American Geophysical Union? American Meteorological Society? Just to name a few. I suppose they are all corrupt too?

I won't go to WUWT. Going there monetizes that website as well as increases it's hit rate. Something I wish not to do.

I am all for Nationalized health care, just like every other industrialized nation in the world has.

Amendments are not bills. There were 3 separate amendments. The Repubs voted all of them down unanimously, in total defiance of science. One stated that global warming has certainly happened without mentioning causality. They said the Earth has not warmed by voting the way they did. Even you admit the Earth has warmed. They won't. End of story.

You're deviating and blurring now.

Again, I said IPCC/Gov't in general. They are self-declared mainstream...there is no "mainstream", because there is no conensus outside the IPCC/Gov't/Activist agencies, and there are more scientists outside the IPCC/gov't than inside. And they will be denied tenure if they stray. Notice that the trend, more people are becoming skeptics, less believe in AGW. Recently, over 1000 former IPCC scientists, after retiring, & joined the skeptical side. I posted that link a few months ago.

There is a dividing line though. A document with Faulty Science shall not be passed, its that simple. The current warming is not "Unequivocal", and it is not "obviously man made". The document also stated to acceot the FACT that man is created UNPRECEDENTED warming, and it is OBVIOUSLY Man.

That is BS...so, the amendment will not be passed.

[skierinvermont]

You're deviating and blurring now.

Again, I said IPCC/Gov't in general. They are self-declared mainstream...there is no "mainstream", because there is no conensus outside the IPCC/Gov't/Activist agencies, and there are more scientists outside the IPCC/gov't than inside. And they will be denied tenure if they stray. Notice that the trend, more people are becoming skeptics, less believe in AGW. Recently, over 1000 former IPCC scientists, after retiring, & joined the skeptical side. I posted that link a few months ago.

There is a dividing line though. A document with Faulty Science shall not be passed, its that simple. The current warming is not "Unequivocal", and it is not "obviously man made". The document also stated to acceot the FACT that man is created UNPRECEDENTED warming, and it is OBVIOUSLY Man.

That is BS...so, the amendment will not be passed.

I think several people have already explained to you that there were 3 SEPARATE amendments. Two of which stated no more than the earth has warmed. Republicans rejected this as well. Republicans rejected an amendment which stated nothing else except that the earth has warmed. They are pandering to anti-science anti-intellectual elements in their constituency. Some of them might even believe it.

If you don't understand that AGW theory is mainstream, then you have a serious disconnect with reality. All of the peer-reviewed journals are packed full of studies supporting AGW. You would be hard pressed to find a single peer-reviewed journal article which disputes core aspects of AGW theory. Hard-core skepticism is essentially confined to a few blog sites and un-peer-reviewed journals. These lists of "scientist" skeptics are of people completely outside the field who have not conducted any original research in the field or published in the field.

Go ahead and look:

Journal of Climate

Science

Nature

Journal of Geophysical Research Letters

Bulletin American Meteorological Society

[BethesdaWX]

I think several people have already explained to you that there were 3 SEPARATE amendments. Two of which stated no more than the earth has warmed. Republicans rejected this as well. Republicans rejected an amendment which stated nothing else except that the earth has warmed. They are pandering to anti-science anti-intellectual elements in their constituency. Some of them might even believe it.

If you don't understand that AGW theory is mainstream, then you have a serious disconnect with reality. All of the peer-reviewed journals are packed full of studies supporting AGW. You would be hard pressed to find a single peer-reviewed journal article which disputes core aspects of AGW theory. Hard-core skepticism is essentially confined to a few blog sites and un-peer-reviewed journals. These lists of "scientist" skeptics are of people completely outside the field who have not conducted any original research in the field or published in the field.

Go ahead and look:

Journal of Climate

Science

Nature

Journal of Geophysical Research Letters

Bulletin American Meteorological Society

1) Have you read the 850 peer reviewed papers supporting Skeptical views on AGW? http://www.americanw...656&qpid=572016

All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue

Thats just a start, you could make many of those lists supporting skeptical views.........Your statement is a clusterf**k of BS, you can't seem to realize that not only are there hundreds of thousands of sketical climate scientists, but the whole AGW thing is just a hypothesis....thats all....Hypothesis isn't fact.

2) Did you read the amendment? "accept the Fact that the earth has warmed unequivocally, this is obviously man's fault... that is a a clusterf**k of BS, thus the bill should not, and will not, be passed.

3) Who said I agreed with the republicans on the fact that the earth hasn't warmed? Thats also a clusterf**k of BS, and they know it, its just politics and it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is when an amendment stating BS unproven claims attempts to be passed as fact...sorry, its done

Are these enough scientists for you

Ababneh, L.

Abbott, M.B.

Abrantes, F.

Aceves, H.L.

Addyman, P.V.

Adhikari, D.P.

Agnihotri, R.

Ai, L.

Airo, A.

Alden, H.A.

Alenius, T.

Alessio, S.

Alexander, C.

Almeida-Lenero, L.

Almogi-Labin, A.

An, Z.

Andersen, K.K.

Anderson, D.E.

Anderson, D.M.

Anderson, R.S.

Anderson, S.P.

Andersson, C.

Andreev, A.A.

Andrews, J.T.

Andrén, E.

Andrén, T.

Antognini, M.

Aono, Y.

Appleby, P.

Arnaud, F.

Arsenelault, D.

Astor, Y.

Austin, W.E.N.

Axford, Y.

Ayalon, A.

Ayenew, T.

Bahk, J.J.

Balsam, W.

Baltzer, A.

Bao, Y.

Baofu, N.

Baolin, H.

Bar-Matthews, M.

Barber, K.E.

Barclay, D.J.

Barnola, J.-M.

Baroni, C.

Barron, J.A.

Bartels-Jónsdóttir, H.

Bartholdy, J.

Bartholin, T.S.

Battarbee, R.W.

Baumgartner, T.R.

Beaty, R.M.

Becagli, S.

Beer, J.

Behling, H.

Beilman, D.W.

Bell, R.E.

Belt, S.T.

Benito, G.

Bennike, O.

Bentaleb, I.

Berge, J.

Bernasconi, S.

Bertin, X.

Bertrand, S.

Besonen, M.R.

Betancourt, J.L.

Bezada, M.

Bhattacharyya, A.

Bhushan, R.

Bickert, T.

Billeaud, I.

Birks, H.J.B.

Birks, S.J.

Bischoff, J.L.

Bjorck, S.

Bjune, A.E.

Blaauw, M.

Black, D.E.

Blanco, N.

Blazauskas, N.

Bodri, L.

Boettger, T.

Booth, R.K.

Borromei, A.

Borsato, A.

Bouaouina, F.

Bracht, B.

Bradley, R.S.

Brauer, A.

Bräuning, A.

Brenner, M.

Briffa, K.R.

Brook, G.A.

Brooks, S.J.

Brown, T.A.

Brutsch, S.

Bryson, R.A.

Brubaker, L.B.

Budeus, G.

Bukry, D.

Bunn, A.G.

Burnett, A.W.

Buster, N.A.

Byrne, A.R.

Büntgen, U.

Cage, A.G.

Cai, Q.

Cai, Y.

Calanchi, N.

Calkin, P.E.

Calvert, S.E.

Campbell, C.

Campbell, I.D.

Cane, M.A.

Cannariato, K.G.

Cao, Q.-Y.

Carbotte, S.M.

Carson, E.C.

Carter, T.

Castellano, E.

Catalan, J.

Causey, D.

Cermák, V.

Chambers, F.M.

Chang, X.L.

Chaudhary, V.

Chauhan, M.S.

Chaumillon, E.

Chen, F.H.

Chen, JianHui

Chen, Jiaqi.

Chen, Jun.

Chen, L.

Chen, S.-H.

Chen, T.

Chen, Z.

Cheng, G.

Cheng, H.

Chepstow-Lusty, A.

Chipman, M.L.

Chivas, A.R.

Chou, M.

Christiansen, C.

Chu, G.

Chuang, P.-P.

Cini Castagnoli, G.

Clague, J.J.

Clarke, G.H.

Clausen, H.B.

Cleef, A.M.

Clegg, B.F.

Cohen, A.S.

Cohen, M.C.L.

Collerson, K.D.

Conrad, M.E.

Cook, E.R.

Cook, T.L.

Cooper, G.R.J.

Corbett, D.G.

Cremer, H.

Cronin, T.M.

Cucchi, F.

Cui, H.T.

Cumming, B.F.

Cundy, A.

Curry, B.B.

Curry, W.

Curtis, J.H.

D'Arrigo, R.

Dabrio, C.J.

Dahl, S.O.

Dahl-Jensen, D.

Daimaru, H.

Dallimore, A.

Daniels, J.M.

Dansgaard, W.

Darbyshire, I.

Daryin, A.V.

Das, M.

Datsenko, N.M.

Davi, N.

Davis, M.E.

Dawson, A.G.

Dawson, S.

De Deckker, P.

de Vernal, A.

Dean, W.E.

Degiovanni, C.

Delany, D.L.

Deline, P.

deMenocal, P.

Demezhko, D.Yu.

Demory, F.

Denton, G.H.

Desmet, M.

Desprat, S.

Diekmann, B.

Dinelli, E.

Dippner, J.W.

Dominguez-Vazquez, G.

Drenzek, N.J.

Dullo, W.-C.

Dutta, K.

Dwyer, G.S.

Eden, D.N

Edwards, R.L.

Edwards, T.W.D.

Eiríksson, J.

Eitel, B.

Elliott, L.

Emslie, S.D.

Engstrom, D.R.

Eniou, Z.

Erasto, P.

Eronen, M.

Esper, J.

Ezat, U.

Fallot, J.-M.

Fang, X.

Fastook, J.L.

Feliks, Y.

Fengming, C.

Fiebig, J.

Field, D.B.

Figueroa, D.

Figueroa-Rangel, B.L.

Filippi, M.L.

Fjellsa, A.

Flower, B.P.

Flower, R.J.

Fontugne, M.

Fortin, M.-C.

Foster, I.

Fowler, A.

Fraedrich, K.

Franca, Z.

Francus, P.

Frank, D.C.

Frisia, S.

Fritz, S.C.

Frogley, M.

Gaggeler, H.W.

Gajewski, K.

Gao, S.

Garcia, M.J.G.

Garcia-Rodeja, E.

Gasiorowski, M.

Gavin, D.G.

Gayo, E.

Ge, Q.

Geirsdottir, A.

Gemmer, M.

Gerstengarbe, F.-W.

Ghil, M.

Gil, I.M.

Giraudi, C.

Gischler, E.

Goldberg, E.

Golovanova, I.V.

Goni, M.A.

Goni, M.F.S.

Gonzalez-Samperiz, P.

Goto, S.

Gu, Z.

Graumlich, L.J.

Gray, S.T.

Gregory, T.R.

Griessinger, J.

Grimalt, J.O.

Grinsted, A.

Grosjean, M.

Grøsfjeld, K.

Grudd, H.

Guijian, L.

Guilderson, T.

Guilizzoni, P.

Gulliksen, B.

Gundestrup, N.

Gunnarson, B.E.

Gupta, A.K.

Hadley, E.A.

Haflidason, H.

Hald, M.

Hall, B.L.

Hall, V.A.

Hallett, D.J.

Haltia-Hovi, E.

Hamamoto, H.

Hammer, C.U.

Hansen, C.V.

Hansson, M.

Hantemirov, R.M.

Hao, Z.

Harris, P.T.

Hass, H.C.

Hassan, F.A.

Hay, M.B.

He, S.-F.

Hebbeln, D.

Hebda, R.J.

Heikkila, M.

Heinemeier, J.

Heiri, O.

Heiss, G.A.

Helama, S.

Helle, G.

Hemer, M.A.

Henderson, A.C.G.

Hendy, C.H.

Herve, F.

Hickey, K.

Hidalgo, H.G.

Hille, S.

Hiller, A.

Hills, L.V.

Hodell, D.A.

Hoelzel, A.R.

Hoffmann-Wieck, G.

Holmes, C.W.

Holmgren, K.

Holmstrom, L.

Holopainen, J.

Holt, T.

Holzhauser, H.

Hong, B.

Hong, Y.T.

Honghan, Z.

Hood, J.S.R.

Hooghiemstra, H.

Hu, F.S.

Huang, J.

Huang, S.-Y.

Huang, Y.

Hubberten, H.-W.

Huffman, T.N.

Hughen, K.A.

Hughes, M.K.

Hughes, P.D.M.

Husum, K.

Hunziker, J.

Hutterli, M.

Ikeda, S.

Ingram, B.L.

Irino, T.

Irving, W.N.

Isaksson, E.

Islebe, G.A.

Isono, D.

Ito, E.

Ivanova, E.

Jackson, S.T.

Jacob, J.

Jacoby, G.

Jansen, E.

Jarockis, R.

Jaubert, R.

Jennings, A.E.

Jensen, K.G.

Jewson, D.

Ji, J.

Ji, S.

Jianfeng, H.

Jiang, H.

Jiang, H.B.

Jiang, J.

Jin, H.J.

Johnsen, G.

Johnsen, S.J.

Johnson, C.

Johnson, T.C.

Jolly, D.

Jount III, E.H.

Jun, Y.

Jones, P.D.

Jones, V.J.

Jordan, J.

Jordan, T.E.

Julia, R.

Jull, A.J.T.

Justwan, A.

Kadereit, A.

Kagan, E.J.

Kajimoto, T.

Kalugin, I.A.

Kamenik, C.

Kamite, M.

Kamiya, T.

Kandiano, E.

Kang, C.Y.

Kang, S.J.

Kang, X.

Kaplan, A.

Kaplan, M.R.

Karhu, J.A.

Karlen, W.

Karlsson, S.

Kaufman, D.S.

Kauppila, T.

Kawahata, H.

Kawamura, K.

Kekonen, T.

Kellerhals, T.

Kenward, H.K.

Khassanov, B.F.

Khim, B.-K.

Khlystov, O.

Khromova, N.

King, D.N.T.

King, J.C.

Kiseleva, N.K.

Kissel, C.

Kitagawa, H.

Kjallgren, L.

Knox, J.C.

Knudsen, K.L.

Knusel, S.

Kobashi, T.

Koffman, T.

Kohn, M.H.

Kolstrom, T.

Kondrashov, D.

Kong, Z.-C.

Konradi, P.

Korhola, A.

Koç, N.

Kremenetski, C.

Kremenetski, K.V.

Kromer, B.

Ku, T.-L.

Kubler, B.

Kuijpers, A.

Kukkonen, M.

Kullman, L.

Kumon, F.

Kunzendorf, H.

Kurdyla, D.

Kutzbach, J.E.

Kutzbach, J.K.

Laird, K.R.

Lamb, H.F.

Lambert, P.

Lambiel, C.

Lami, A.

Lamy, F.

Langdon, P.G.

Lange, C.

Langone, L.

Laperriere, L.

Lara, R.J.

Larocque, I.

Larsen, J.A.

Lassen, S.J.

Latorre, C.

Le Boeuf, B.J.

Le Roux, J.P.

Lebreiro, S.

Lee, J.-Y.

Lee-Thorp, J.A.

Lefèvre, C.

Leipe, T.

Leng, M.J.

Leng, X.T.

Leonard, J.A.

León, T.

Leroy, V.

Li, B.-Y.

Li, G.X.

Li, H.-C.

Li, H.E.

Li, M.-Q.

Li, Q.

Li, S.-F.

Li, X.-S.

Li, Y.Y.

Li, Z.

Lihua, Z.

Lin, P.-N.

Lin, Q.-H.

Linderholm, H.W.

Lindholm, M.

Linsley, B.K.

Liu, C.-Q.

Liu, J.

Liu, L.

Liu, T.

Liu, T.S.

Liu, X.

Liu, Yong

Liu, Yu

Liu, Z.

Lloyd, A.H.

Lloyd, J.M.

Lockett, P.

Loope, D.B.

Lopez-Pamo, E.

Lorrey, A.

Loso, M.G.

Loutre, M.-F.

Lowell, T.V.

Lu, H.

Lucchini, F.

Luckge, A.

Luckman, B.H.

Lund, D.C.

Lund, S.P.

Lundblad, K.

Luoto, T.P.

Luterbacher, J.

Ma, C.-M.

Ma, H.

Ma, Y.Y.

MacDonald, G.M.

MacGregor, A.

Machtle, B.

Mackay, A.W.

Maddy, D.

Magny, M.

Makaya, M.

Maley, J.

Malmgren, B.A.

Malmström, M.

Man, Z.

Manca, M.

Mangini, A.

Marchetto, A.

Martin, T.

Martinez-Cortizas, A.

Martma, T.

Mashiotta, T.A.

Mason, J.A.

Masse, G.

Masson-Delmotte, V.

Mathewes, R.W.

Matthews, J.A.

Matsumoto, E.

Mauquoy, D.

Mayes, M.T.

Mayewski, P.

Mazepa, V.S.

McGann, M.

McHugh, C.

McKay, N.P.

Mediavilla, R.

Meeker, L.D.

Meitao, L.

Melles, M.

Menier, D.

Merilainen, J.

Meyer, G.A.

Meyer, N.

Michelutti, N.

Mickelson, D.M.

Mielikainen, K.

Mikkelsen, N.

Millar, C.E.

Miller, G.H.

Miller, H.

Miller, U.

Millet, L.

Mischke, S.

Moberg, A.

Moller, P.

Moore, J.C.B

Moore, J.J.

Mordenti, A.

Moreno, A.

Mosley-Thompson, E.

Muller-Karger, F.

Mullins, H.T.

Murayama, M.

Murdmaa, I.

Musazzi, S.

Nakaegawa, T.

Nakamura, T.

Naurzbaev, M.M.

Nefedov, V.S.

Neil, H.

Nelson, D.M.

Nester, P.L.

Newton, A.

Ngomanda, A.

Ni, J.

Nicolussi, K.

Nievergelt, D.

Nilsen, F.

Nitsche, F.

Noon, P.E.

Noone, S.

Nordberg, K.

Nordt, L.

Notaro, M.

Novoa-Muñoz, J.C.

Nowaczyk, N.

Nyberg, J.

Nørgaard-Pedersen, N.

Oba, T.

Oberg, L.

Odada, E.

Oglesby, R.J.

Ogurtsov, M.G.

Ohtani, Y.

Ojala, A.E.K.

Okamoto, T.

Okuno, M.

Olafsdottir, K.B.

Oliveira, P.

Olvera-Vargas, M.

Oppo, D.W.

Orombelli, G.

Ortiz, J.

Oschmann, W.

Oslisly, R.

Overpeck, J.T.

Overturf, B.

Page, M.J.

Palmer, J.

Panin, A.V.

Pant, R.K.

Pantoja, S.

Partridge, T.C.

Patridge, W.

Patterson, W.P.

Paulsen, D.E.

Payette, S.

Pederson, D.C.

Peeters, F.J.C.

Peltola, H.

Peramaki, P.

Perez-Cruz, L.

Persico, L.

Peteet, D.M.

Peterson, L. C.

Petit, J.R.

Phadtare, N.R.

Pienitz, R.

Pierau, R.

Pierce, J.L.

Pla, S.

Plessen, B.

Podritske, B.

Pohjola, V.

Polissar, P.J.

Polyak, L.

Pontevedra-Pombal, X.

Poore, R.Z.

Porter, S.C.

Possnert, G.

Power, M.

Proust, J.-N.

Qian, W.

Qiang, M.

Qin, D.

Qin, N.-S.

Qin, X.G.

Quamar, M.F.

Quattrocchio, M.

Quinn, T.M.

Rabenkogo, N.

Railsback, L.B.

Ramesh, R.

Rampino, M.R.

Ran, L.

Reech, N.

Reeder, P.P.

Reimer, P.J.

Rein B.

Reinhardt, L.

Ren, J.

Reynard, E.

Reynolds, C.P.

Reyss, J.L.

Richey, J.N.

Richter, T.O.

Rico, M.

Riera, S.

Rioual, P.

Risberg, J.

Risebrobakken, B.

Rittenour, T.

Robert, C.

Rodrigues, T.

Rolland, N.

Roncaglia, L.

Rosen, P.

Rosenbaum, J.

Rosenthal, Y.

Rosqvist, G.

Roth, M.

Rousse, S.

Rowe, C.M.

Rørvik, K.-L.

Röhl, U.

Rubenstone, J.

Rull, V.

Russell, J.M.

Ryan, W.B.F.

Ryves, D.B.

Saarinen, T.

Saarnisto, M.

Sabbe, K.

Saito, S.

Saito, Y.

Saito-Kato, M.

Saliège, J.F.

Salinger, J.

Sandgren, P.

Santisteban, J.I.

Sarnthein, M.

Saurer, M.

Savinetsky, A.B.

Scapozza, C.

Schevin, P.

Schilman, B.,

Schleser, G.H.

Schmidhalter, M.

Schmidt, R.

Schoeneich, P.

Scholz, D.

Schwede, S.

Schwikowski, M.

Scott, L.

Seager, R.

Seiriene, V.

Selegei, V.

Seppa, H.

Sepúlveda, J.

Seret, G.

Severi, M.

Severinghaus, J.P.

Shah, S.K.

Shao, X.

Sharma, J.

Shemesh, A.

Shen, C.

Shen, J.

Shi, J.

Shi, X.-H.

Shinn, E.A.

Shinozuka, Y.

Shishov, V.V.

Shiyatov, S.G. Shotyk, W.

Sial, A.N.

Sicre, M.-A.

Sidorova, O.V.

Sienkiewicz, E.

Sigl, M.

Singh, I.B.

Sinha, A.

Sinkunas, P.

Sirocko, F.

Sithaldeen, R.

Slagle, A.

Slagstad, D.

Smart, C.W.

Smith, D.E.

Smol, J.P.

Smolyaninova, L.G.

Snowball, I.

Solari, M.A.

Solomina, O.

Somayajulu, B.L.K.

Sonechkin, D.M.

Song, H.

Sorensen, S.A.

Sorrel, P.

Spielhagen, R.F.

Spotl, C.

Sridhar, V.

St. Jacques, J.-M.

Stager, J.C.

Stahle, D.W.

Stancikaite, M.

Steffensen, J.P.

Sterken, M.

Stevens, L.

Stiger, M.

Stoner, J.S.

Stott, L.D.

Sturm, M.

Sumin, W.

Sun, J.

Sun, Q.

Sun, X.Y.

Sundqvist, H.S.

Svanered, O.

Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E.

Swarzenski, P.W.

Swinehart, J.B.

Takahashi, H.A.

Talma, A.S.

Tan, L.

Tanabe, S.

Tandong, Y.

Tappa, E.J.

Taricco, C.

Taylor, A.H.

Teece, M.A.

Tegu, C.

Telford, R.J.

Tessier, B.

Tesson, M.

Thompson, L.G.

Thomson, R.E.

Thordarson, T.

Thorndycraft, V.R.

Thouveny, N.

Thunell, R.C.

Tian, J.

Tiegang, L.

Tierney, J.E.

Tieszen, L.

Tiljander, M.

Timonen, M.

Tinner, W.

Topf, A.L.

Trachsel, M.

Traini, C.

Traversi, R.

Treydte, K.S.

Tubbs, J.

Tuomenvirta, H.

Turon, J.-L.

Tyson, P.D.

Udisti, R.

Umer, M.

Unkel, I.

Urban, D.L.

Urrutia, R.

Vaganov, E.A.

Valero-Garces, B.L.

van Geel, B.

van Weering, T.C.E.

Vance, R.E.

Vanhoutte, K.

Vare, L.L.

Varela, R.

Vartiainen, M.

Verdes, P.

Verleyen, E.

Verneaux, V.

Verschuren, D.

Verstege, A.

Vigliotti, L.

Villa, I.M.

Vinther, B.M.

Virkkunen, K.

Vivaldo, G.

Vogel, J.C.

Vollweiler, N.

von Fischer, J.

von Gunten, L.

Voss, M.

Vu, Q.L.

Vyverman, W.

Wacker, L.

Wadhams, P.

Wagner, B.

Wagner, G.

Walker, I.R.

Walker, R.C.

Wambach, E.

Wang, F.-B.

Wang, L.

Wang, Q.-C.

Wang, S.

Wang, S.L.

Wang, W.

Wang, W.-C.

Wang, Y.-S.

Wang, Y.

Wansard, G.

Wastegard, S.

Wayne, R.K.

Weber, N.

Weber, O.

Webster, J.W.

Weckstrom, J.

Wefer, G.

Wehrli, M.

Weijian, Z.

Weimer, L.M.

Weiner, N.J.

Wells, S.G.

Wen, X.

Werner, K.

Werner, P.C.

West, D.L.

Westerberg, L.-O.

Westfall, R.D.

White, J.

Whitlock, C.

Wiles, G.C.

Willard, D.A.

Williams, D.

Williams, P.W.

Willis, K.J.

Wilson, A.T.

Wilson, R.

Wilson, R.J.S.

Winter, A.

Witkowski, A.

Witon, E.

Wolf, A.

Wolfe, A.P.

Woodworth, M.P.

Wu, J.-T.

Xia, X.-C.

Xia, W.-L.

Xiaozhong, L.

Xoplaki, E.

Xuexian, H.

Yadava, M.G.

Yafeng, S.

Yamada, K.

Yamamoto, M.

Yamano, M.

Yan, S.

Yang, D.Y.

Yang, T.-N.

Yang, Y.

Yang, Z.-J.

Yao, T.

Yasuda, Y.

Yasuyuki, S.

Yi, L.

Yi, S.

Yiou, P.

Yoon, H.I.

Yoshioka, T.

Zabenskie, S.

Zamelczyk, K.

Zapata, M.B.R.

Zhang, C.

Zhang, E.L.

Zhang, J.

Zhang, P.

Zhang, P.-Z.

Zhang, Qi-Bin

Zhang, Qiang

Zhang, X.

Zhang, Y.

Zhangdong, J.

Zhao, J.-X.

Zhao, L.

Zheng, J.

Zhou, A.

Zhou, L.P.

Zhu, H.-F.

Zhu, L.-P.

Zhu, X.-D.

Zhu, Y.

Zhu, Y.-X.

Zicheng, P.

Zumbuhl, H.J.

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda is on record stating he is not sure the Earth has warmed during the period of proposed AGW. He agrees with the Republicans who are in denial of melting ice sheets and glaciers, the thermometer record, rising sea levels and species migrations.

[tacoman25]

Bethesda...seriously, making the longest post ever does not win the argument.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda is on record stating he is not sure the Earth has warmed during the period of proposed AGW. He agrees with the Republicans who are in denial of melting ice sheets and glaciers, the thermometer record, rising sea levels and species migrations.

what the frick dude? When did I say that? Never.

[WeatherRusty]

what the frick dude? When did I say that? Never.

There is a dividing line though. A document with Faulty Science shall not be passed, its that simple. The current warming is not "Unequivocal", and it is not "obviously man made". The document also stated to acceot the FACT that man is created UNPRECEDENTED warming, and it is OBVIOUSLY Man.

That is BS...so, the amendment will not be passed.

------------------

unequivocal - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion;

[VAwxman]

My opinion is that the concept of AGW, as in, it has occurred, is mainstream, but with the caveat that we don't know what the degree of it has been. Almost everyone I know (myself included) agrees that, yes, CO2 is responsible for some of the warming. The physics to me does make sense that it should be correlated to warming. But, (and I feel like every post I make says this same thing) what percentage can be attributed to AGW vs natural GW? It just isn't clear if CO2 is to blame for a small percentage or a large percentage to me.

[BethesdaWX]

------------------

unequivocal - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion;

meaning, unequivocally due to MAN was my point. I'm sure there is a certain amount of AGW, but going any farther than that is absolutely unknown.

basing a bill of an unproven hypothesis that the current warming is unprecedented and due to man...will not pass.

[BethesdaWX]

My opinion is that the concept of AGW, as in, it has occurred, is mainstream, but with the caveat that we don't know what the degree of it has been. Almost everyone I know (myself included) agrees that, yes, CO2 is responsible for some of the warming. The physics to me does make sense that it should be correlated to warming. But, (and I feel like every post I make says this same thing) what percentage can be attributed to AGW vs natural GW? It just isn't clear if CO2 is to blame for a small percentage or a large percentage to me.

Agreed, although I tend to side on the lighter end of the AGW spectrum.

[skierinvermont]

Your link to a supposed 850 journal articles refuting AGW doesn't work. You probably copied and pasted the url from the wrong tab.

Posting long lists of names doesn't prove anything if they aren't people who are in the field and have published original research.

Again, you continue to fail to understand that there were 3 amendments, 2 of which stated NOTHING else except that the earth has warmed. Denying that the warming is due to humans (the first amendment) is to be expected from a bunch of industry lobbyist funded politicians. Denying the plain and simple fact that the earth has warmed (the second two amendments), well that is a new level of embarrassment for the U.S. Congress.

[tacoman25]

Your link to a supposed 850 journal articles refuting AGW doesn't work. You probably copied and pasted the url from the wrong tab.

Posting long lists of names doesn't prove anything if they aren't people who are in the field and have published original research.

Again, you continue to fail to understand that there were 3 amendments, 2 of which stated NOTHING else except that the earth has warmed. Denying that the warming is due to humans (the first amendment) is to be expected from a bunch of industry lobbyist funded politicians. Denying the plain and simple fact that the earth has warmed (the second two amendments), well that is a new level of embarrassment for the U.S. Congress.

My question is: why did they feel the need to include the amendment about "unequivocal" global warming? What was the point, if as Congressman Waxman said: "it's so obvious, there is no need to offer it"? Seems just as political as the rejection of it.

This statement from the original article tells it all: The amendments, offered at an Energy and Commerce Committee markup of legislation to block Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules, are part of an effort by House Democrats to get Republicans on the record on climate science.

Clearly, the amendments were made not because they are necessary, but because one side wanted to have an edge for legislative purposes. The EPA as an organization is very controversial to Congress (and to the American people), so Democrats wanted to have this amendment as evidence for further congressional action having to do with the EPA. It was purely a political maneuver (though watered down from its original statement), and now the fact that Republicans voted against it means the Democrats can point to it as evidence that the other party is completely "anti-science". Win-win.

It amazes me that people can't see through the smoke.

[tacoman25]

My opinion is that the concept of AGW, as in, it has occurred, is mainstream, but with the caveat that we don't know what the degree of it has been. Almost everyone I know (myself included) agrees that, yes, CO2 is responsible for some of the warming. The physics to me does make sense that it should be correlated to warming. But, (and I feel like every post I make says this same thing) what percentage can be attributed to AGW vs natural GW? It just isn't clear if CO2 is to blame for a small percentage or a large percentage to me.

Precisely.

The inference from most AGW alarmists, though, is that the warming is almost completely due to humans. Little room is left for natural warming; when the stats are trotted out on how much we have warmed the past 100 years (or whatever time frame), they are simply tied into some statement on AGW.

[skierinvermont]

My question is: why did they feel the need to include the amendment about "unequivocal" global warming? What was the point, if as Congressman Waxman said: "it's so obvious, there is no need to offer it"? Seems just as political as the rejection of it.

This statement from the original article tells it all: The amendments, offered at an Energy and Commerce Committee markup of legislation to block Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules, are part of an effort by House Democrats to get Republicans on the record on climate science.

Clearly, the amendments were made not because they are necessary, but because one side wanted to have an edge for legislative purposes. The EPA as an organization is very controversial to Congress (and to the American people), so Democrats wanted to have this amendment as evidence for further congressional action having to do with the EPA. It was purely a political maneuver (though watered down from its original statement), and now the fact that Republicans voted against it means the Democrats can point to it as evidence that the other party is completely "anti-science". Win-win.

It amazes me that people can't see through the smoke.

Oh I agree the dems offered them mostly for political reasons. On the other hand, Congress passes all sorts of redundant resolutions all of the time recognizing or honoring certain historical facts. Given all the controversy over this issue, it would be a good thing if Congress stood up and said we recognize the basic facts. The earth has warmed.

[nzucker]

Oh I agree the dems offered them mostly for political reasons. On the other hand, Congress passes all sorts of redundant resolutions all of the time recognizing or honoring certain historical facts. Given all the controversy over this issue, it would be a good thing if Congress stood up and said we recognize the basic facts. The earth has warmed.

But why should the GOP have to give up a bargaining chip by passing amendments that are designed for the Dems' political maneuvering/exploitation?

In other words, they didn't reject the amendment because they disagreed with the concept of the earth warming, they rejected it as a tactic/strategy.

[BethesdaWX]

Your link to a supposed 850 journal articles refuting AGW doesn't work. You probably copied and pasted the url from the wrong tab.

Posting long lists of names doesn't prove anything if they aren't people who are in the field and have published original research.

Again, you continue to fail to understand that there were 3 amendments, 2 of which stated NOTHING else except that the earth has warmed. Denying that the warming is due to humans (the first amendment) is to be expected from a bunch of industry lobbyist funded politicians. Denying the plain and simple fact that the earth has warmed (the second two amendments), well that is a new level of embarrassment for the U.S. Congress.

850 peer reviewed papers Supporting skeptical views on AGW. And no, you didn't read the amendments...want me to post them?

http://www.popularte...supporting.html

Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic’s arguments against AGW alarm.

Formatting: All papers are cited as: “Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors”. All “addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers” are preceded by a ” – ” and italicized. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological.

Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication.

“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for

this type of denial

to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.”

John H., comment at RealClimate.org

[BethesdaWX]

But why should the GOP have to give up a bargaining chip by passing amendments that are designed for the Dems' political maneuvering/exploitation?

In other words, they didn't reject the amendment because they disagreed with the concept of the earth warming, they rejected it as a tactic/strategy.

Exactly.

That and the fact that the Amendment stated "the warming is obviously due to humans, this Fact is obviously correct"....that BS, yet the dems pass it off? They're actually breaching trust to the public via the BS.

[nzucker]

Exactly.

That and the fact that the Amendment stated "the warming is obviously due to humans, this Fact is obviously correct"....that BS, yet the dems pass it off? They're actually breaching trust to the public via the BS.

People often make assumptions about stances on bills and amendments without understanding the vastly complex parliamentary maneuvers that occur in the Senate and House; when I took a class on Presidential Politics and read a book about the McCain-Feingold finance bill, I realized how much of the voting and conferencing is strategic. What amendments come on and which are passed have little to do often with the actual positions the representatives might have about an issue like AGW.

[skierinvermont]

Exactly.

That and the fact that the Amendment stated "the warming is obviously due to humans, this Fact is obviously correct"....that BS, yet the dems pass it off? They're actually breaching trust to the public via the BS.

You continue to lie. Stop lieing. As has been poined out to you 8 different times by 3+ people... one of amendments stated NOTHING except that the earth is warming.

This is the full text of the amendment offered by congressman Waxman.

Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

Please highlight the portion of the amendment which states that warming is caused by humans.

[skierinvermont]

People often make assumptions about stances on bills and amendments without understanding the vastly complex parliamentary maneuvers that occur in the Senate and House; when I took a class on Presidential Politics and read a book about the McCain-Feingold finance bill, I realized how much of the voting and conferencing is strategic. What amendments come on and which are passed have little to do often with the actual positions the representatives might have about an issue like AGW.

Perhaps you should read the actual statements of the Republicans on the content of the amendments itself before spouting off about your vast knowledge of 'parliamentary tactics.'

[skierinvermont]

But why should the GOP have to give up a bargaining chip by passing amendments that are designed for the Dems' political maneuvering/exploitation?

In other words, they didn't reject the amendment because they disagreed with the concept of the earth warming, they rejected it as a tactic/strategy.

Acknowledging the EPA's finding that the earth has warmed isn't a bargaining chip to be toyed with. It is the truth, and the U.S. Congress shouldn't play games with the truth. Given the GOP's attempt to defund the EPA and prevent it from regulating carbon, it would seem pertinent to make a statement that Congress recognizes the earth has warmed, but does not deem carbon regulation as necessary.

The reason the amendment is necessary in the first place is that the public statements of GOP congressmen has falsely introduced great doubt into basic scientific facts, such as the fact that the earth has warmed. They didn't reject the amendments because they found them redundant, they rejected them because they have and are continuing to introduce doubt into basic scientific facts, such as the fact that the earth has warmed. If it were actually clear that the U.S. Congress accepts these core scientific facts, then the amendment wouldn't be necessary.

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly.

That and the fact that the Amendment stated "the warming is obviously due to humans, this Fact is obviously correct"....that BS, yet the dems pass it off? They're actually breaching trust to the public via the BS.

Seriously, are you being intentionally difficult or what? Read Skier's posts and tell me there was one amendment again! Better yet, read the OP article (again?).

[nzucker]

Acknowledging the EPA's finding that the earth has warmed isn't a bargaining chip to be toyed with. It is the truth, and the U.S. Congress shouldn't play games with the truth. Given the GOP's attempt to defund the EPA and prevent it from regulating carbon, it would seem pertinent to make a statement that Congress recognizes the earth has warmed, but does not deem carbon regulation as necessary.

The reason the amendment is necessary in the first place is that the public statements of GOP congressmen has falsely introduced great doubt into basic scientific facts, such as the fact that the earth has warmed. They didn't reject the amendments because they found them redundant, they rejected them because they have and are continuing to introduce doubt into basic scientific facts, such as the fact that the earth has warmed.

Of course it's a bargaining chip. Why else would the Democrats do it? It's not like saying the earth has warmed changes how much the planet's temperature goes up by 2100, if I drive to work tomorrow, if global carbon emissions rise more. These amendments are totally symbolic. So to say it is not a political tool makes no sense. Also, the GOP is clearly against a carbon tax which is the main stance symbolized by the bill recognizing the EPA's stance.

If GOP congressmen have introduced false beliefs about GW, then they should be voted out. The fault lies mostly with your countrymen, not with the idiots they routinely elect. Most Americans don't believe in global warming so who do you expect is going to be in Congress?

[BethesdaWX]

Seriously, are you being intentionally difficult or what? Read Skier's posts and tell me there was one amendment again! Better yet, read the OP article (again?).

I read your link from the hill

and huh? I never said that, I said the BS claims attempting to be passed are not how we play things.

[skierinvermont]

Of course it's a bargaining chip. Why else would the Democrats do it?

Because the U.S. Congress has intentionally introduced great doubt into basic scientific facts, like the fact that the earth has warmed. The amendments are an attempt to show that the U.S. Congress does recognize basic scientific facts. The U.S. Congress makes symbolic statements all the time and symbolic statements are important.

The amendments were being added to a bill which prevents the EPA from regulating carbon. It would seem pertinent to, at such a time, make a statement that Congress recognizes the earth has warmed, but does not believe regulating CO2 is necessary.

[BethesdaWX]

Because the U.S. Congress has intentionally introduced great doubt into basic scientific facts, like the fact that the earth has warmed. The amendments are an attempt to show that the U.S. Congress does recognize basic scientific facts. The U.S. Congress makes symbolic statements all the time and symbolic statements are important.

The amendments were being added to a bill which prevents the EPA from regulating carbon. It would seem pertinent to, at such a time, make a statement that Congress recognizes the earth has warmed, but does not believe regulating CO2 is necessary.

lol

No republican ever said the earth hasn't warmed...thats not why they rejected the Bill, show me one friggin quote saying such.

Take this crap of a thread to the politics section please

[skierinvermont]

In other words, they didn't reject the amendment because they disagreed with the concept of the earth warming, they rejected it as a tactic/strategy.

This is the whole point... they rejected it because they want to continue with their strategy of intentionally introducing doubt into basic facts, such as the fact the earth has warmed.

Second of all, if you read the public statements of certain Congressmen, you will see that many of them are unsure as to whether the earth has warmed and/or that humans are contributing. (As opposed to your claim that they "don't disagree with the concept of the earth warming")

[tacoman25]

Oh I agree the dems offered them mostly for political reasons. On the other hand, Congress passes all sorts of redundant resolutions all of the time recognizing or honoring certain historical facts. Given all the controversy over this issue, it would be a good thing if Congress stood up and said we recognize the basic facts. The earth has warmed.

I'm sure the GOP sees it as a slippery slope, and that's why they refuse to vote for it. Not saying that this is the right choice for them, but it's all for political reasons, from both sides. It's not like one side is all about the science and the other doesn't give a crap. It's how our goverment works, the two main parties will oppose the other as often as possible, given the chance. A lot of times it doesn't add up logically.

[nzucker]

This is the whole point... they rejected it because they want to continue with their strategy of intentionally introducing doubt into basic facts, such as the fact the earth has warmed.

Second of all, if you read the public statements of certain Congressmen, you will see that many of them are unsure as to whether the earth has warmed and/or that humans are contributing. (As opposed to your claim that they "don't disagree with the concept of the earth warming")

I agree that they are idiots...but the problem is so is the country that elected them, so you're not going to get far without changing that.