• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate votes 91 to 1 saying climate change is not a hoax.

NIMBY said:
Not at all--it is science deniers like you that are oh so gullible to McConnell's tactics.
Mitch has given his Senators a chance to sound 'normal', so they won't sound 'scary', his words.

But when it comes to any real actions on climate change, nothing will get through either chamber.
I hope this helps--this vote was about the 2016 election--a hoax indeed--in my own words, CCD .
Click to expand...

Nothing would have been done on climate change if both houses were democratic, either. Nobody really believes that alarmist crap, not enough to sacrifice anything, anyway. And by "alarmist crap" I refer to catestrophic anthropogenic global warming, not climate change. Climate change is reality, CAGW is a bad scientific theory. The purpose of CAGW is to fund third rate scientists and bureaucrats, funnel lots of money to universities and NGOs, and pay for conferences in luxurious resorts.

Climate change is so far down on the list of concerns that some public pollsters have stopped asking about it.
 
Anomalism said:
Senate affirms climate change is not a hoax

By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax | Science/AAAS | News

Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax' - NBC News

Senate says climate change real, but doesn't agree on cause

US Senate Passes Amendment Declaring Climate Change Is 'Real And Is Not A Hoax'

Senate: Climate Change Is Real; Human Role Up for Debate - US News
Click to expand...

They tried to pass an amendment to the effect that man's activities significantly affect global temperatures, but that wouldn't pass. They tried one that said, in effect, that man's activities affect global temperatures (even if only a little) and that didn't pass, either. But they could get almost everyone to agree that the climate is changing.

In fact, to say the climate is changing is a tautology. Climate is change. As Sen. Inhofe said, climate is changing; climate has always changed.

I could have voted for an amendment that said that man's activities affect climate change to some extent. The problem is that we don't really know what that extent is now or what it will be in the future.
 
Threegoofs said:
Thanks for your professional opinion on this.
Click to expand...

Oh, the envy some people must have of those who can look at the facts and draw their own conclusions. What have they got? Nothing. All they can do is present the conclusions of other people as fact.
 
LowDown said:
Nothing would have been done on climate change if both houses were democratic, either. Nobody really believes that alarmist crap, not enough to sacrifice anything, anyway
Click to expand...

Many are willing to have others compelled to sacrifice deeply for this cause. Few are willing to make any sacrifices of their own.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Is it your contention that I am wrong? That this area is not on the ring of fire?
Click to expand...

Odd that none of the papers seemed to mention that. Also odd that warming ocean water was the mechanism for one. Even odder that only you seem to possess the sekrit knowledge that it's volcanoes.
 
LowDown said:
Oh, the envy some people must have of those who can look at the facts and draw their own conclusions. What have they got? Nothing. All they can do is present the conclusions of other people as fact.
Click to expand...

Yes. Silly how one relies on experts for scientific analysis. Who does that, amirite?
 
LowDown said:
Oh, the envy some people must have of those who can look at the facts and draw their own conclusions. What have they got? Nothing. All they can do is present the conclusions of other people as fact.
Click to expand...

I promise you there's no envy. Every person that posts stuff against the consensus hits up the same few blogs and repeats the stuff verbatim.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Silly how one relies on experts for scientific analysis. Who does that, amirite?
Click to expand...

Is Al Gore an " expert " ?

I think he's a lunatic. He wants to spend 90 TRILLION DOLLARS to rebuild major citys.

Wants to get rid of the Car.
 
Fenton said:
Is Al Gore an " expert " ?

I think he's a lunatic. He wants to spend 90 TRILLION DOLLARS to rebuild major citys.

Wants to get rid of the Car.
Click to expand...

No. No. And no.

I can see why you are against all this. You haven't the foggiest idea of the problem, the issues, or the remedies.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Silly how one relies on experts for scientific analysis. Who does that, amirite?
Click to expand...

Of course, if you don't understand the science then it's reasonable to rely on what the mainstream says. If you did understand the science you'd have a different opinion.
 
LowDown said:
Of course, if you don't understand the science then it's reasonable to rely on what the mainstream says. If you did understand the science you'd have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

LOL. Virtually every scientific organization agrees with me. Keep up the denial.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. Virtually every scientific organization agrees with me. Keep up the denial.
Click to expand...

They are all wrong. That much is obvious to anyone who cares to look at the facts. Take a chance; think for yourself.
 
Jetboogieman said:
That is a pretty arrogant statement to make.
Click to expand...
An arrogant statement I agree with.

I have earned my arrogance, and maybe LowDown has as well.

Can you claim you earned your arrogance?

Our knowledge may seem exaggerated to others, but... That's their shortcoming. Not mine.

...

I just had to jump in with that. I use that line every now and again, that I have earned my arrogance.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
An arrogant statement I agree with.

I have earned my arrogance, and maybe LowDown has as well.

Can you claim you earned your arrogance?

Our knowledge may seem exasperated to others, but... That's their shortcoming. Not mine.
Click to expand...

I think agreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus isn't arrogance.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You post nothing but far right wing drivel from echo chambers.

Nothing scientific.
Click to expand...

Then ask me, and see if you can keep up.

Are you up to the challenge?

Maybe you're too busy chasing the prophets? I mean worm hole aliens?
 
Anomalism said:
Senate affirms climate change is not a hoax

By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax | Science/AAAS | News

Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax' - NBC News

Senate says climate change real, but doesn't agree on cause

US Senate Passes Amendment Declaring Climate Change Is 'Real And Is Not A Hoax'

Senate: Climate Change Is Real; Human Role Up for Debate - US News
Click to expand...

What this proves is "Money talks and bull**** walks."

BloomCounty3_zps1b60e1d3.jpg
 
Jetboogieman said:
I think agreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus isn't arrogance.
Click to expand...

But the scientific consensus is not overwhelming.

Have you been part of those threads?

One of the 97% claims is based on two questions. Now I'm going by memory, so my recall and paraphrase may be a little off but:

1) Do you believe mankind has had a significant effect of temperature.

2) have temperatures increased over the last 200 years.

Look at the definition "significant." Any scientist in his right mind will say yes. If we use two significant digits in scientific calculations, and if anthropogenic warming is only 1%, then it is significant!

Who would deny that temperatures haven't increased in the last several hundred years since industrialization? However, is individualization the cause? Nobody disagree that the sin went though a significant increase in output from around 1900 to 1950/60...

I'm very surprised that the consensus wasn't 100%!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom