Climate change supporters suffer losses

The wheels are coming off this whole climate change BS and the voters soundly rejected it. America is waking up.

"Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.
Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short.The nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate spent at least $85 million on six Senate races.Out of those six races, only two candidates willing to take action on climate change won their races."

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday."


Talk about a sore loser. :lamo

lifeisshort said:

The wheels are coming off this whole climate change BS and the voters soundly rejected it. America is waking up.

"Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.
Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short.The nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate spent at least $85 million on six Senate races.Out of those six races, only two candidates willing to take action on climate change won their races."

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday."


Talk about a sore loser. :lamo

Click to expand...

This is very bad news, being that human influence on the climate, in a negative way, is only going to become a more pressing issue in the years to come. I don't understand why you would take such a lackadaisical and dismissive stance to such a serious issue?

lifeisshort said:

The wheels are coming off this whole climate change BS and the voters soundly rejected it. America is waking up.

"Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.
Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short.The nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate spent at least $85 million on six Senate races.Out of those six races, only two candidates willing to take action on climate change won their races."

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday."


Talk about a sore loser. :lamo

Click to expand...

Not that many single-issue voters around any more. I couldn't tell you the position of anybody I voted for on climate change.

Declan said:

Not that many single-issue voters around any more. I couldn't tell you the position of anybody I voted for on climate change.

Click to expand...

To many AGW is their focus in life but their numbers are far smaller than they think. This election proves it.

lifeisshort said:

To many AGW is their focus in life but their numbers are far smaller than they think. This election proves it.

Click to expand...

Oh I think the only thing shown so far in this thread is that you selectively confuse correlation with causation when it suits your bias. I am very skeptical about AGW but even I can see that.

lifeisshort said:

To many AGW is their focus in life but their numbers are far smaller than they think. This election proves it.

Click to expand...

What this election proved is that people (especially the GOP) are reluctant to pay for things now and would rather pay for it later, or die off and not pay at all.

Offloading of environmental costs is an American tradition. The problem is that in this case, once the bills start coming due, it will be too late to fix it.

Threegoofs said:

What this election proved is that people (especially the GOP) are reluctant to pay for things now and would rather pay for it later, or die off and not pay at all.

Offloading of environmental costs is an American tradition. The problem is that in this case, once the bills start coming due, it will be too late to fix it.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think you are giving the average person enough credit.
Weather they know it or not, people subject the AGW concept to a Risk/cost benefit analysis,
at least at an informal level.
At that level the concept comes up wanting.
The real risks from AGW would be if the predictions were coming in in the mid to high range of the
IPCC's predictions (3 to 4.5 °C).
The actual empirical data is coming in at the extreme low end 1.6°C, so is not as alarming.
In addition while warming has occurred, most of that change has been in nighttime lows,
and smaller that normal human perception.
They are trying to sell a risk, that most cannot perceive, and if someone actually looks at
the instrument data, it does not reflect the alarmist nature of the claims.

longview said:

Actually, I don't think you are giving the average person enough credit.
Weather they know it or not, people subject the AGW concept to a Risk/cost benefit analysis,
at least at an informal level.
At that level the concept comes up wanting.
The real risks from AGW would be if the predictions were coming in in the mid to high range of the
IPCC's predictions (3 to 4.5 °C).
The actual empirical data is coming in at the extreme low end 1.6°C, so is not as alarming.
In addition while warming has occurred, most of that change has been in nighttime lows,
and smaller that normal human perception.
They are trying to sell a risk, that most cannot perceive, and if someone actually looks at
the instrument data, it does not reflect the alarmist nature of the claims.

Click to expand...

You're right about the risk/benefit ratio.

Guys like you pretend you know more than the top scientists in the world to deflect the potential risk you will never live to see and reap the benefits of not having to pay the costs.

Threegoofs said:

You're right about the risk/benefit ratio.

Guys like you pretend you know more than the top scientists in the world to deflect the potential risk you will never live to see and reap the benefits of not having to pay the costs.

Click to expand...

Your words and the words of those "top Scientist" do not change the data that does not reflect
the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC's mid to high range.
The models clearly do not account for all of the variables, otherwise they would be more accurate.

longview said:

Your words and the words of those "top Scientist" do not change the data that does not reflect
the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC's mid to high range.
The models clearly do not account for all of the variables, otherwise they would be more accurate.

Click to expand...

Again, I think I'll stick to actual scientists than the uninformed opinion of an anonymous DP poster.

Most rational people would. You know.

Threegoofs said:

What this election proved is that people (especially the GOP) are reluctant to pay for things now and would rather pay for it later, or die off and not pay at all.

Click to expand...

DELUSIONAL!!!

Federal Programs can be paid for by borrowing and lesson the cost with debasement. States do not have the same luxury. Democrats prefer federal solutions as that allows them to implement programs that are not paid for honestly, and hence, do not cause voter anger immediately after implementing the program

Threegoofs said:

Again, I think I'll stick to actual scientists than the uninformed opinion of an anonymous DP poster.

Most rational people would. You know.

Click to expand...

I can only go where the data leads.
So far the predictions of the amplification of the direct response of CO2,
which is the basis of the catastrophic predictions, is unsupported in the data.
The concept of a long latency between the direct response of CO2 and the
ECS, is also poorly supported, as roughly 10% of the direct response has been
around for over a century.

longview said:

Actually, I don't think you are giving the average person enough credit.
Weather they know it or not, people subject the AGW concept to a Risk/cost benefit analysis,
at least at an informal level.
At that level the concept comes up wanting.
The real risks from AGW would be if the predictions were coming in in the mid to high range of the
IPCC's predictions (3 to 4.5 °C).
The actual empirical data is coming in at the extreme low end 1.6°C, so is not as alarming.
In addition while warming has occurred, most of that change has been in nighttime lows,
and smaller that normal human perception.
They are trying to sell a risk, that most cannot perceive, and if someone actually looks at
the instrument data, it does not reflect the alarmist nature of the claims.

Click to expand...

I don't even see that much risk in the top end of the projections.

The significant warming is expected in the cold places. That's a good thing in most peoples books. More rainfall over the dry bits of world is also seen as good by most of us.

Threegoofs said:

What this election proved is that people (especially the GOP) are reluctant to pay for things now and would rather pay for it later, or die off and not pay at all.

Offloading of environmental costs is an American tradition. The problem is that in this case, once the bills start coming due, it will be too late to fix it.

Click to expand...

The election proved you true believers are a true minority

Tim the plumber said:

I don't even see that much risk in the top end of the projections.

The significant warming is expected in the cold places. That's a good thing in most peoples books. More rainfall over the dry bits of world is also seen as good by most of us.

Click to expand...

You may be correct, but there is a lot more uncertainty at the higher ranges.
For less than 2 °C, I think the only visible sign, would be some changes in the planting zones.

lifeisshort said:

The wheels are coming off this whole climate change BS and the voters soundly rejected it. America is waking up.

"Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.
Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short.The nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate spent at least $85 million on six Senate races.Out of those six races, only two candidates willing to take action on climate change won their races."

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday."


Talk about a sore loser. :lamo

Click to expand...

Hi Lifeisshort! I missed this tidbit in the news. Thanks for posting it. It's no secret the global warming agenda has been losing steam in the U.S. for a number of reasons. Maybe some has to do with the fact that what they claim, people are not experiencing. And then things like the ship full of global warming scientists who went off on an exploration to Antarctica in Dec. 2013 to study melting ice, ended up stranded in exceptionally thick ice. The team was rescued by helicopter but as far as I know the 22 crew members of the ship are still stranded. And most recently you had the climate scientists working with the UN come out with predictions that this would be a mild winter due to global warming while the Midwest were experiencing record lows for the season and Maine was shoveling out of 3 feet of snow. Here in the Midwest along with a good part of the country experienced a very cool Summer with record breaking rainfall amounts. But every time some area experienced a hot period, they spin it to be due to global warming. What people have been made aware of are the consequences for passing regulations pouring out of the EPA are harming people's livelihoods and poor people now have to pay $4 for a light bulb. The EPA is set to release a stack of new regulations in regard to global warming that are really going to hurt the economy and the poorest to middle class will be hurt the worst. I believe this global warming agenda is another reason of many why they felt the need to change the face of the Senate. But the good news, (and there is always good news) guess who looks like will be leading the Environment and Public Works Committee?

Senator James M. Inhofe, an the Oklahoma Republican who once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the gestapo, is likely to lead the Environment and Public Works Committee when the GOP takes control of the US Senate next year.

If approved, Inhofe would replace Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an avowed environmentalist, producing one of the most stark post-election changes in the Capitol. Committee assignments will not be made until Senate party caucuses meet in Washington after the election recess.

Inhofe, who has served in the Senate for two decades, is an iconic figure to both environmental and energy lobbyists. He chaired the committee from 2003 to 2008, when Republicans controlled the Senate. Inhofe, a former congressman and mayor of Tulsa, came to Washington to do battle with federal bureaucrats, particularly those at the EPA whom he said threatened the energy industry in his home state.


Many Republicans, including the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, share his skepticism of the EPA and its plan to address carbon emissions, which became apparent in 2009.

Click to expand...

Promiment climate change denier likely to head US senate environment committee


No wonder the dude at the Sierra Club was bitter! :lol:
Looks like the Calvary has arrived just in time!

Crossroads said:

This is very bad news, being that human influence on the climate, in a negative way, is only going to become a more pressing issue in the years to come. I don't understand why you would take such a lackadaisical and dismissive stance to such a serious issue?

Click to expand...

What do you offer as proof?

lifeisshort said:

The election proved you true believers are a true minority

Click to expand...

It's science, not faith.

There is an equal among of science saying yay as is saying nay to global warming. So this means that there is nothing conclusive, so doing anything is foolish.

But than you look at the proponents of both camps. One produces something that every person on the face of this planet needs, and the other wants to invent new taxes and regulations to collect more money from fines.

One camp consists if real conservationists, hunters, fisherman, boy scouts and so forth, the other consists of extremely wealthy people, one of which has a jet built to carry 200 people around parked in his drive way for private use.

So I have to go with the camp that has nothing to gain but providing me with the best price on things I need. And that is the camp that says it's a hoax.

If you want credibility demand that the people who speak for you not be hypocrites.

lifeisshort said:

The wheels are coming off this whole climate change BS and the voters soundly rejected it. America is waking up.

"Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.
Green groups funneled an unprecedented amount of money into top Senate races that determined control of the upper chamber but fell short.The nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate spent at least $85 million on six Senate races.Out of those six races, only two candidates willing to take action on climate change won their races."

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said on Wednesday."


Talk about a sore loser. :lamo

Click to expand...

"sinister voter suppression tactics"......

really?

They can prove this?

Oh wait, these are the same guys who swore by a movie that won a nobel prize that said the world would be pretty much over by 2014.....

Proof is not their strong suit, in fact their not playing with a full deck.

I am amazed that the world's greatest nation, the leader of the democratic world, leader in military and technology can't get its **** together and prevent third world "sinister voter suppression tactics".....

Not just voter suppression buy sinister voter suppression tactics .....


what would that be then, Exxon workers dressed as satan chasing people away from voting booths?

CLAX1911 said:

There is an equal among of science saying yay as is saying nay to global warming. So this means that there is nothing conclusive, so doing anything is foolish.

But than you look at the proponents of both camps. One produces something that every person on the face of this planet needs, and the other wants to invent new taxes and regulations to collect more money from fines.

One camp consists if real conservationists, hunters, fisherman, boy scouts and so forth, the other consists of extremely wealthy people, one of which has a jet built to carry 200 people around parked in his drive way for private use.

So I have to go with the camp that has nothing to gain but providing me with the best price on things I need. And that is the camp that says it's a hoax.

If you want credibility demand that the people who speak for you not be hypocrites.

Click to expand...

There is most certainly NOT an equal amount of science.

Just look at any journal.

Or look at the multiple published studies that shows that the literature is OVERWHELMINGLY shwoing wrming.

Threegoofs said:

There is most certainly NOT an equal amount of science.

Just look at any journal.

Or look at the multiple published studies that shows that the literature is OVERWHELMINGLY shwoing wrming.

Click to expand...

So all journals are in consensus? Or all journals you accept as credible are? Let me guess they are only credible to you if they say that first global warming is real andsecond that it is caused by man?

It's circular logic like that that makes me not trust you.

CLAX1911 said:

So all journals are in consensus? Or all journals you accept as credible are? Let me guess they are only credible to you if they say that first global warming is real andsecond that it is caused by man?

It's circular logic like that that makes me not trust you.

Click to expand...

Well, just look at the major interdisciplinary journals.

There are only a few of those. Incredibly prestigious, really hard to get published in, because they reject 98% of papers- and being a lead author in a paper there can be a career defining event
Nature, Science and PNAS. Those are the big three.

I challenge you to find a paper that disputes the consensus in these journals, at least in the last decade- probably two.

This isn't a point of argument, really. If you know the literature, it's just an argument of abject ignorance vs. Accepted fact. Guess which side you are on?

longview said:

Your words and the words of those "top Scientist" do not change the data that does not reflect
the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC's mid to high range.
The models clearly do not account for all of the variables, otherwise they would be more accurate.

Click to expand...

sadly, almost every movement that requires government control of private property or the actions of private citizens or entities as a means to their end, become co-opted by those who see government control of private property as their ultimate end. That is why many of us who have no use for socialism, communism, communitarianism or other collectivist diseases, are extremely skeptical of things like the environmental movement, the gun control movement or the animal rights movement because all three of those things are generally run by hard core lefties that use the perhaps benign or even plausibly reasonable goals of those organizations (on the surface) to increase government interference in our lives

Threegoofs said:

Well, just look at the major interdisciplinary journals.

Click to expand...

Why?

There are only a few of those. Incredibly prestigious, really hard to get published in, because they reject 98% of papers- and being a lead author in a paper there can be a career defining event
Nature, Science and PNAS. Those are the big three.

Click to expand...

Exclusivity equals credibility? Especially when the motive is personal gain? Sounds dubious to me.

I challenge you to find a paper that disputes the consensus in these journals, at least in the last decade- probably two.

Click to expand...

There are hundreds of disputes.

This isn't a point of argument, really. If you know the literature, it's just an argument of abject ignorance vs. Accepted fact. Guess which side you are on?

Click to expand...

Accepted fact.