maybe you didn't get the joke.
the video wasn't about how many hurricanes we're having, it's about associating the damage from a hurricane with a given name; how it's unfair to castigate innocent people like Ivan and Andrew and Katrina and Sandy when they're not responsible for causing harm. the video suggests that the names should more accurately reflect the real sources of harm, *namely* (see what I did thar?), people in positions of influence who by their actions in concert with their beliefs that it is not caused by man-made activity are increasing that harm, but getting away with it because other names are being associated with the hurricanes.
but you probably already knew that, just as you probably already know that no one is suggesting that hurricanes are caused by climate change.
Marco Rubio, a denier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubio
Regarding "man-made global warming."
"I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it," Rubio said.
|
Michelle Bachmann, simple simpleton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bachmann
"The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It's all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax."
...
"There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle...And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth."
|
David Vitter, political hack/denier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitter
Evidence from liberals supporting climate change is often based on "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage," Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) charged Friday.
Vitter openly mocked an assertion by his Senate colleague Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who said she can feel a change in climate as manifested by increased turbulence in her plane flights.
"Unfortunately, that's sort of the ridiculous pseudo-science garbage that's so common on the left on this issue," Vitter said
|
Collin Peterson, not a denier, not a Republican, a profiteer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterson
"They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn."
|
John Boehner, an illusionist, misdirecting the audience with "carcinogen". He's not stupid, he's trying to distract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boehner
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical," Boehner said Sunday morning on ABC. "Every time we exhale, we emit carbon dioxide."
|
Rick Perry, stalwart business-first, last, always, monomaniac, unafraid self-acclaimed "skeptic" (just not businessmen who are scientists)
ironically, Forbes magazine site offered this cookie before continuing on to the story:
Quote:
Forbes Thought Of The Day
“ All business proceeds on beliefs, or judgments of probabilities, and not on certainties. ”
— Charles W. Eliot
|
hahahaha!!
the story
the author reiterates Perry's skepticism, but attempts to validate it with reference to Fred Singer's (A legendary denier of many things) sock puppet outfit "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change"'s study saying 31 thousand scientists support Perry's position. now *that's* comical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry
“For us to take a snapshot in time and to say that what is going on in the country today, the climate change that is going on is man’s fault and we need to jeopardize America’s economy, I’m a skeptic about that…and I’m not afraid to say I’m a skeptic about that,”
|
Paul Ryan, denier *and* conspiracy theorist
Quote:
Ryan attacked the work of climatologists, suggesting that scientists might even be engaged in a conspiracy of sorts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
At issue… are published e-mail exchanges from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). These e-mails from leading climatologists make clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.
The CRU e-mail scandal reveals a perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion. The e-mail scandal has not only forced the resignation of a number of discredited scientists, but it also marks a major step back on the need to preserve the integrity of the scientific community. While interests on both sides of the issue will debate the relevance of the manipulated or otherwise omitted data, these revelations undermine confidence in the scientific data driving the climate change debates.
|
|
James Inhofe, denier and author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inhofe
A perfect example is the entire global warming, climate-change issue, which is an effort to dramatically and hugely increase regulation of each of our lives and business, and to raise our cost of living and taxes. In The Greatest Hoax, Senator James Inhofe will reveal the reasons behind those perpetuating the Hoax of global warming, who is benefitting from the general acceptance of the Hoax and why the premise statements are blatantly and categorically false.
|
Jeff Sessions, denier and misunderstander of scientific method
(an observation, Sessions' pushback on legislative efforts to restrain the runaway acceleration in CO2 concentrations has been described as "Obama's Agitprop", more evidence of the closemindedness of the deniers)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sessions
“A forest fire is no proof of global warming,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican. “Give me a break.”
|
Paul Broun, anti-scientist placeholder (some would say stumbling block) on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broun
"God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."
...
Paul Broun (R-Georgia) says that “Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community.”
|
Darrell Issa, that circle fly orbiting Obama's ass angling for a bite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Issa
One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.
|
Lamar Smith, *Chairman* of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smith
Contrary to the claims of those who want to strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of energy for all Americans, there is a great amount of uncertainty associated with climate science. These uncertainties undermine our ability to accurately determine how carbon dioxide has affected the climate in the past. They also limit our understanding of how anthropogenic emissions will affect future warming trends. Further confusing the policy debate, the models that scientists have come to rely on to make climate predictions have greatly overestimated warming. Contrary to model predictions, data released in October from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit show that global temperatures have held steady over the past 15 years, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Among the facts that are clear, however, are that U.S. emissions contribute very little to global concentrations of greenhouse gas, and that even substantial cuts in these emissions are likely to have no effect on temperature. Data from the Energy Information Administration show, for example, that the United States cut carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent between 2005 and 2012 while global emissions increased by 15 percent over the same period.
|
they're being called out.
