Congress

Senate Votes 98 to 1: Climate Change Is Real and Not a Hoax

Senators vote 50 to 49 that it is "sense of the Senate" that "human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

|

Senate Chamber
sina.com

Members of the U.S. Senate voted today on various amendments to the legislation that would authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. That pipeline would transport more than 800,000 barrels of Canadian oil sands crude per day to U.S. Gulf coast refineries.

Among those amendments were three that basically asked the senators what they think about climate change science. ScienceInsider over at the American Association for the Advancement of Science reports:

By a 98 to 1 vote, the U.S. Senate approved Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's (D–RI) amendment that asked simply whether it is "the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax." The only senator voting no was Roger Wicker (R–MS). …

Votes on two other measures declaring that humans are changing the climate were much closer.

Senator John Hoeven (R–ND) offered an amendment affirming that climate change is real and humans are contributing to it. But it also included the State Department's finding that the Keystone XL pipeline wouldn't significantly worsen climate change, a provision likely meant to entice moderate Republicans into supporting the measure. In the end, the vote was 59 to 40 in favor, one shy of the 60 needed for adoption.

Hoeven's measure was seeking to serve as a more GOP-friendly alternative to a third climate amendment from Senator Brian Schatz (D–HI). Schatz's measure asked whether it's the "sense of Congress" that "climate change is real" and that "human activity significantly contributes to climate change." It also failed to reach the 60 vote threshold, on a vote of 50 to 49.

Of course, the senatorial votes on the reality or unreality of climate change are entirely irrelevant to whatever the scientific facts are. Instead the votes basically register what the senators think their constituents want to hear. Sheeesh. Perhaps the more relevant question is: Is the U.S. Senate a hoax?

NEXT: This somehow seems so very Texan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is this really what these people do all day? Fuck me.

    1. “Is this really what these people do all day? Fuck me.”

      This is the good stuff that they do. Give me a year of items like this versus a month of working on something like Obamacare.

      1. You’re absolutely right. I suppose I was just taken aback by the complete lack of any attempt to appear productive, but it is certainly better than them passing legislation that will actually affect anyone’s life.

    2. Yup, that’s what they do all day – fuck you…and me, and everyone else.

  2. “the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.”

    I guess that settles it. The senate ability to sense stuff is infallible.

    Question: Con artists getting in on the con or con artists fooled by a transparent scam?

    1. The Senate is settled.

      1. That’s it, thread’s over.

    2. The senate ability to sense stuff is infallible.

      Only if the Senate keeps the records to show its been ‘trained’ to sense climate change. If they have those records then their accuracy can’t be challenged.

    3. The senate ability to sense stuff is infallible.

      You bet. Just look at their track record of doing the right things.

      I know this has changed my mind on the matter. The Senate says it’s real.

    4. Wait. I thought it was the California legislature that declared scientific facts. Which is it? I haz a confused.

    5. If climate change really is catastrophic and causes the seas to rise, hopefully the Senate will be there to order them to recede.

      1. The climate changes every season. The globe warms every day, at least of half of it. These are not hoaxes. I agree.

        Ambiguous stupid resolution is ambiguous and stupid.

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

    Put me in mind of this. Legislation cannot determine truth, but it’s a great way to signal! I wonder if they realize that it will signal the same ignorance to future generations as that Pi Bill…

    1. Edward J. Goodwin; greatest troll in history.

    2. Mmmm – pi….

    3. Why don’t they pass a law banning cancer?

      1. If the war on poverty and the war on drugs are any indication, a law banning cancer would cause more of it.

  4. Of course climate change is real, you fucking morons, it’s been happening for billions of years, since the planet was formed. Did you really have to vote on that? Why can’t you move on to more important and unsettled things, like if Tom Brady’s balls are deflated? (I have a feeling they will get deflated after the Sea Chickens smash the fuck out of them).

    1. Fucking cyanobacteria polluting the atmosphere!

    2. The only real football championship game was played in Dallas last Monday.

      And it was awesome. And I was there.

      1. Holy shit! You’re alive!

        Where you been, brother?

        1. In hotels for about the last three months. But I’m still surviving. Making babies and all the other things I do so well.

          1. Wait, what happened?

            1. The same,thing that happens every year. Banjos is knocked up.

              1. dude…Me thinks you don’t know how women get pregnant.

                google it.

                /good to see you still kciking

    3. I see more people are boarding the Seahawks train. This is wise.

      1. The SeaChicks will be in an environment uninhabitable to them.

        On the road against a good team.

        1. Yes, that’s exactly right. Which is why they lost the Superbowl last year on the road to the very good Broncos. Man, that was such a shame.

          1. Brady won’t tank in the Super Bowl like Manning, Belicheck is a much better coach than Fox, and Nee England’s D is better than the Broncos.

            1. I didn’t want Brady and Belicheck to become the best ever, but its a small price to pay to watch the Hawks fall.

              Belicheck has never been outcoached in a Super Bowl. Miraculous plays have gone against them, but the chances of that kind of crap happening again is slim. I love GB, but they’re a team just waiting to collapse in big games. Not so with Belicheck coached teams.

              1. I can assure,you,that the Pats won’t come out flat next Sunday. Amirite?

              2. One set of smug bastards will get their comeuppance. I just don’t think Seattle can win a shoot out and don’t think Brady will get shut down.

                1. I always hated the Pats, but I will drink like the bitter tears of the arrogant College All-Stars, better known as the Seattle Seahawks.

                  1. *drink like wine

              3. That’s because he cheats.

    4. Do you really think this sub-glib horeseshit counts as a rebuttal to all of science? To me you’re saying, “I can’t think about ideas, meanings, or context, only the rote meaning of words as they are strung together.”

      1. Ah, back to sodomize the corpse of a thread, eh?

      2. Tony what do you think about the solar atmosphere/sunspot hypothesis? You call people who ignore the carbon hypothesis deniers but aren’t people who ignore the sunspot hypothesis also deniers?

        Carbon (and methane) are a tiny % of total greenhouse gases, yet it’s plausible changes in carbon levels from human activity can change the climate even if carbon is a marginal greenhouse gas as even small % greenhouse gas increases matter.

        Yet the earth is so close to the sun it’s strongly affected by sunspot activity which affects the formation of clouds. Clouds account for a huge % of total greenhouse gases; even slight changes in cloud formation patterns will have a greater effect on the climate than a large change in CO2.
        There’s even this one British guy who’s accurately predicted the climate based solely on sunspot activity.

        If man-made co2 global warming is a plausible hypothesis then wouldn’t the sunspot hypothesis be just as plausible? Why is this always ignored by left-wing environmentalists?

  5. Perhaps the more relevant question is: Is the U.S. Senate a hoax?

    The Sentate should take a vote on that.

    1. We could poll some millenials.

      1. I’m down on with that.

    2. The world’s greatest deliberative body.

  6. Meaningless votes?
    Deploy the Senators.

  7. Shit, if they voted that it was the “sense of the Senate” that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West I’d go outside and check.

  8. The best.

    The brightest.

  9. And what are the “scientific facts” about climate change again, Ron?

    Please show your work.

    1. Well, we have these models…

      1. Well, we have these models…

        They haven’t been right about anything yet, but we have them. And they say really bad shit is going to happen and stuff. And they don’t take crazy, unheard of shit like cloud cover into consideration, but they model the important stuff and stuff.

        1. I’m still waiting on Ron to,tell us what the fucking “facts” are.

          1. The “fucking facts” are that nobody really knows. The models do a shit job in prediction and there’s so much variability in the data sets that you can argue just about any position and have some data, somewhere to back it up.

            Ron would be nuts to take a firm position. But he’s not a senator, so he’s got that goin’ for him.

            1. I should also add that the datasets are ridiculously short and that we haven’t got a clue as to what all the variables are and how they interact.

  10. Can we get them to vote on whether String Theory is true and save the physicists a lot of time?

    1. can you vote “not even wrong”?

    2. to vote on whether String Theory is true

      Cheaper to get a box full of kittens. They will unanimously agree String Theory is awesome.

    3. They’d probably think it was a vote on whether string cheese is tasty, and most would vote yes. Because they’re just that smart.

  11. Of course, the senatorial votes on the reality or unreality of climate change are entirely irrelevant to whatever the scientific facts are.

    Do not underestimate the power of self-regard. The are the sort of people who not only think its appropriate to legislate what system of units we *measure* things in, but that they can change math and the laws of economics with a pen and a cell phone.

    1. The are the sort of people who not only think its appropriate to legislate what system of units we *measure* things in

      To be fair Article I, section 8 of the Constitution does state that’s one of their responsibilities

      1. Not quite.

        Congress can tell you how much a pound or kilogram *weighs*. They can’t mandate that you *use* either of those units though.

        1. But they can make sure contracts that use unrecognized systems of measurement do not get enforced.

          1. No, they can’t do that.

          2. How?

  12. The only senator voting no was Roger Wicker (R?MS). …

    Mississippi FTW , Motherfuckers!

    When does Wicker accept his “Profiles in Courage”{ award?

    1. Profile in courage? Dude represents Mississippi, it’s not like he’s going to be run out of town on a rail for this stand there.

  13. Was Sheldon Whitehouse the one who though Guam would tip over, or was that Conyers?

    Science, my ass.

    1. Hank Johnson (D-GA)

      1. Thanks. I know I could just Google it. I just like to test my memory every now and then.

        Looks like I failed.

  14. Of course, the senatorial votes consensus opinion on the reality or unreality of climate change are entirely irrelevant to whatever the scientific facts are.

    FTFY

    1. Of course a consensus doesn’t make something true itself, but do you really think that a majority of trained, working scientists thinking X on a subject they study is, what, uncorrelated with what’s actually the case?

      1. They were trained to think “X” on the subject. That makes their training dubious at best.

        And thats the ones that were formally trained in climate science. There are others like the head of the IPCC that were trained to drive trains yet have somehow become the voice of truth when it comes to climate.

        1. And also the voice of truth when it comes to writing erotic climate-science-based fiction too, apparently.

        2. “They were trained to think “X” on the subject.”

          All of them? There’s an awful lot that think this. It’s hard for me to buy they were all similarly brainwashed.

          1. Point to a college that teaches climate science from any viewpoint other than “CAGW is real and the science is settled”.

            Links to their curricula please.

            1. That teach that catastrophic agw is real? Do any teach that in the science classes? Most reputable scientific organizations that have weighed in on the issue don’t endorse catastrophic versions. Those are outliers, extremes.

              1. The IPCC is an outlier? Extreme?

                East Anglia. Penn State. They’re outliers? Bullshit. They’re where the preeminent scientists in the UK and USA respectively work and teach. And their conclusions all,say unless we change,our ways that CAGW is happening.

                You’re not really saying that people who say man must change or we’re fucked are the outliers in the field, are you?

                1. I thought the latest IPCC report predicted a rise of 3-4 degrees C in 100 years. Is that catastrophic?

                  1. According to them, without man changing his ways, we will render the earth uninhabitable. That’s the very definition of catastrophic.

                    1. 3-4 C doesn’t seem like uninhabitable to me.

                    2. Then you don’t live in a coastal city or on a Pacific island.

                      -AGW scientist

                    3. Well, yeah, as I said before from what I understand from the more reputable scientists endorsing AGW they see some serious consequences over time to some areas. But that’s pretty far from the kind of catastrophic ‘uninhabitable’ stuff you’re talking about.

                    4. First off, the proponents say CAGW and AGW are merely two terms for the same thing, one created by the evil corporashuns and Kochtopus designed to get a response from sheeple.

                      Then they say they’re not,saying it will be a catastrophe, buuuuuuuuut unless,we give them,total,control over the earth’s natural resources and/or economic systems, the world will be uninhabitable SOLELY due to mans impact on the climate because oceans will be too hot for fish,merge swaths of land will be flooded and weather patterns will completely change meaning mass starvation and war, death, famine and,other such biblical-level catastrophes.

                      I have a real skepticism for a,person selling me both a problem AND the solution to the problem without concrete evidence that the problem actually exists or the solution is the most sensible.

                    5. “the world will be uninhabitable ”

                      You keep saying that, but when I asked you who was saying that you pointed to the IPCC, and as we’ve discussed what they said was 3-4 C in a hundred years.

              2. By the way, here’s the difference between AGW and CAGW according to “the cool kids”:

                http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CAGW

              3. Most reputable scientific organizations that have weighed in on the issue don’t endorse catastrophic versions.

                If it won’t be catastrophic, why upend everything to try to stop it?

                1. I agree, I’m not for upending anything.

                  I think political actors are using, often misrepresenting, the scientific claims of the more reputable organizations. I also think any proposed solution restricting liberty would be unworkable and would sacrifice much more than could possibly be gained.

                  I’m just saying I think to the scientists who say warming is occurring and human activity plays some role are likely correct.

                  1. Then why aren’t the scientists from these “reputable organizations” standing up and saying their work has been misrepresented by the political actors?

                    The same political actors that funnel money to the reputable organizations to continue their self-affirming research?

                    1. I don’t know that they aren’t. I seem to recall some scientists complaining about extreme misrepresentations of that type, how it was silly and would discredit everything they were actually saying. Perhaps that doesn’t get covered much (journalists, after all, are going to often have a tendency to cover alarmists).

                      How do you explain someone like Ron Bailey. He was initially skeptical of AGW entirely. He’s more than willing to call extremists who make claims on their silliness. But in years of talking with many scientists and studying the issue, he came to the conclusion that more moderate theories of AGW are likely correct. Was he bought out? Did he just have to go to the CAGW cocktail parties that bad? Did he his livelihood depend on it (from the Reason Foundation???)?

                    2. Maybe Ron succumbed to the Avalanche of bullshit that was perpetually shoveled at him. Maybe he’s just not that scientifically smart. Who knows?

                      Either way, based on the actual science and the accuracy of the predictions the AGW proponents have made to this point, he’s wrong.

                    3. With respect, have you ever considered that you might be wrong? Misreading the ‘actual science’ and accuracy of the predictions and stuff?

                      Take someone like me, or a Senator. We see someone like Ron Bailey. He’s studied science for years, had access to lots of scientists and plenty of skeptics. His livelihood certainly doesn’t depend on him towing any party line on this. He says X, you say Y. Wouldn’t it be odd for me or a Senator to go with you here? And that seems to go with even more force when it’s some distinguished scientist, or hundreds of them, lining up on the other side.

                      I hope you’re right and they’re wrong, by the way. And spectacularly wrong. There’s lots of no-kidding evil and naive people that would love to use anything they can to try to fool people into restricting liberty, even if their proposals have little to do with any real problems or offer any real solutions. But I can’t help but think that maybe a lot of people who think like me are also letting similar hopes bias them worse than any collective science culture is doing to that profession…

                    4. Goddamit, either do it right – TOE THE LINE- or do it intentionally wrong – TOW THE LION – but don’t mix the TWO!! I hate that shit and it makes YOU look like a dumbass…

            2. 20 years ago at Florida Tech, in various space science classes, we were taught it was the Sun. Even one of our textbooks had a thing on sunspots and the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.

            3. University of Alabama.

      2. Oh? Like the consensus on *salt*?

        The consensus on ‘economic stimulus’?
        The consensus on light rail?
        The consensus on high speed rail?
        The consensus on infrastructure spending?
        The consensus on the food pyramid?
        The consensus on BMI?
        The consensus on the efficacy of lie detectors?
        The consensus on the damages payday loans cause?
        The consensus on the damage drug use causes?
        The consensus on the current feasibility of renewable energy sources?

        1. The Ether, dude. You forgot the Ether.

        2. Don’t forget:

          The Lipid Hypothesis
          BPA
          Aspartame
          Colony collapse disorder

          1. How’s about eugenics?

            1. Oh, eugenics works. We just need the *right* ‘Top Men’ to implement it.

        3. And don’t forget: Friends was once a hit show.

          (shudders)

          1. And somehow has rebounded as one.

            DAMN YOU NETFLIX!!! (shakes fist angrily)

            1. So that’s why I’ve seen it playing on my neighbors’ TV a lot. So let me get this straight: Community, a great show that has episodes I will watch again and again, isn’t play instant, but Friends, the most insipid, overrated show of the 90s, is play instant.

              DAMN YOU NETFLIX!!! (shakes fist angrily)

              1. “So that’s why I’ve seen it playing on my neighbors’ TV a lot.”

                maybe you should get your own TV and stop creepily staring through other people’s living room windows

                1. Never! I mean, you can’t beat it. It’s free, and I get to spy on my neighbors! It’s win-win!

              2. My experience is – if you *want* to watch it, its *not* on Netflix Instant.

        4. I’m not sure how many of those claims involved actual majority’s of scientists around the world. Often they were bureaucrats and/or interest groups.

          But sure, there have been times when a lot of scientists studying something were wrong about the thing. What do we draw from that? So, basically, if a majority of scientists in any field seem to arrive at a similar conclusion we should assume they’re wrong?

          1. No, but when a majority of scientists in a hugely politically charged field that has demonstrated *multiple time* an inabilty to PREDICT anything and even has difficulty showing a feasible mechanism to produce the effects it says should be happening, screams *consensus*! THE ARGUMENT IS OVER! Then we should give their claims some extreme scrutiny.

            ‘Scientists’ in the fields of Astrology, Reflexology, Homeopathy, Sociology, etc all have the same ‘trust the experts!’ mantra.

            You know who doesn’t? Chemists, Physicists, Geneticists, Astronomers.

          2. What do we draw from that? Giving zero weight to consensus, thats what. If consensus counted for anything we wouldn’t need science, we could just vote on everything.

            Do you have any training in science?

            Falsifiability. Once you dispense with that rational discourse is impossible. The global warming chicken littles have made an assertion that is unfalsifiable. No further examination is really necessary. Their assertion is crap. In no other field could a theory that has a 100% record of failed predictions be taken seriously. This isn’t science. For the true believers it is a religion. For the rest it is a cash cow and a road to power.

            Also, it is indistinguishable from a scam.

            1. Present mark with a crisis.

            2. Create a sense of urgency so the mark does not have time to think things through, they must act now.

            3. Present a path out of the crisis.

            4. That path out of the crisis always involves the mark writing a check to you.

            1. What’s your training in science? Would it be comparable to all those scientists who say AGW is going on? If it’s not why would I, or a Senator, believe you over them on this topic?

              Of course they’re being better trained or more experienced doesn’t make them right and you wrong. It just makes them more likely to be right than you to a third party.

              1. BS in Chemistry. Double minor Biology and Geology.

                None of this matters. You have eyes. Look out the window. Is snow a thing of the past? Are 1 billion people dead from the effects of GW? Is the SE US a desert? Are coastal cities underwater?

                When someone keeps making predictions that are wrong 100 percent of the time and they keep demanding that you pay them money you should start being suspicious. A little bit, just a little bit suspicious. One does not need to be a scientist to see this. One just has to not be a fool.

                1. I don’t think most scientists who say AGW is real made predictions that we would have no snow now or that billions of people would be dead. I think those are political actors or fringe scientists. I think it would be foolish to reject the much more measured claims because these fools and schemers made crazy claims in their name.

                  1. It would be foolish to dismiss them yes. Initially. After all of the predictions failed, and I mean every last one of them for years on end, it would be foolish not to dismiss them.

                  2. And yes, I think many of them did make sensational predictions of catastrophe.

                  3. I think those are political actors or fringe scientists.

                    They’re always fringe, unless they’re in your opponent’s camp, in which case they’re obviously mainstream.

                    But Erlich isn’t fringe.

                    The British Antartica Survey isn’t fringe.

                    The people who said the Artic would be ice free weren’t fringe.

                    The guy who made up the data showing polar bear extinction wasn’t fringe.

                    The Australian BoM isn’t fringe.

                    http://joannenova.com.au/

                    1. Here’s something on the Artic ice-free claim. As I thought, it seems that you had some people making these claims, most prominently idiot politicians like Kerry or Gore, but some scientists, but a lot of scientists who do endorse some version of AGW not in agreement.

                      http://www.politifact.com/trut…..free-2013/

                    2. Not in agreement as to how long it would take for the arctic to be ice free, but not about it being ice free.

                      Unexpectedly this happened:

                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..E-now.html

            2. Remember this shit?

              http://theconversation.com/we-…..apse-26957

              Not a word about it since. The greatest catastrophe in human memory and we have….crickets. Why is that?

              Because it came from true believers . The consensus, if they didn’t know explicitly why, certainly had a sense of it. You can’t keep the scam going if its too late, if you can’t maintain the sense of urgency. So, the true believers were told to shut the fuck up.

              Global warming has the blueprint of a scam and all of the earmarks of a scam. It is indistinguishable from a scam because it is one.

              1. Also, the true believers saw what they wanted to see. The truth is that the antarctic sheet is larger than ever seen before and what they saw as the catastrophic collapse was in fact the normal flow of ice sheet.

                A ship full of morons sailed down there to study the melting sheet only to be trapped by ice in an area not normally iced over. In the fucking summer for fuck’s sake. After they were rescued they proclaimed “It’s worse than we thought!”

                Those are the people who make up this bullshit consensus.

                1. + a whole bunch

        5. The consensus on phrenology?
          The consensus on eugenics?

          1. The consensus on geocentrism?

            1. But sure, there have been times when a lot of scientists studying something were wrong about the thing. What do we draw from that? So, basically, if a majority of scientists in any field seem to arrive at a similar conclusion we should assume they’re wrong?

              1. The difference between the failures of geo-centrism and AGW is that geo-centrism’s prediction *agreed observation* in the areas where it was tested.

                As a matter of fact – when observations were made that *did not* agree with geocentrisms predictions, that started the search for a better theory to explain observation, leading to helio-centrims.

                Newton’s theory of gravitation agreed with observation – until observations were made that Newton’s theory did not predict. That discrepancy lead to Einstein. And now we see that Einstein’s theory is incomplete.

                What do we see with AGW? Pause, what pause? Oh, *that* pause? well the heat must be . . . uh, must be hidden in the ocean! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

                1. The thing is the core of a theory is that it must make testable predictions. And a *good* theory *passes* those tests.

                  AGW simply does not make predictions that come true.

                  1. Doesn’t the Huntsville data, not exactly known for being in the pocket of political AGW types, show a fairly consistent warming trend?

                    1. Except for all the sources showing a pause in warming over the last 10-15 years.

              2. Oh boy, it’s time to play my favorite game, “intentionally intellectually dishonest or useful idiot”, again. Unfortunately sometimes the game plays you.

                (I re-wrote this comment several times wondering if being rude was prudent. So it goes.)

                1. You think all those scientists are being intellectually dishonest? Or are they useful idiots (and for whom)?

                  1. Lets you and I each apply for a grant. You propose to study an acceleration in sea level rise. I propose to study climate change driven by the sun.

                    Who do you suppose is more likely to get a grant?

                    Who do you suppose will get tenure? Who will get invited to faculty parties?

                    Don’t be naive Bo.

                    1. Are you really coming down to a science department version of Cocktail Partiez!?

                      We’re talking a lot of scientists, a lot of granting institutions. I just don’t buy they are all being as unified as your theory suggests.

                    2. I am not asking you to believe. Just look at it for yourself. Who gets the money? Who gets promoted? Who gets blackballed?

                      Too lazy to look him up now but a physicist who studies the sun keeps trying to tell everyone that his method has been making accurate predictions of earth’s climate 100% of the time for decades. Where is his press time?

                      There is no secret cabal of scientists coordinating all of this. The institutions and culture propagate it.

                    3. Could it be that this physicist doesn’t get covered because most of his peers think he’s wrong? And I don’t mean “‘the institutions’ told us he was wrong” but “we’ve looked at this guy’s claims and they’re wacky?”

                      And, who are ‘the institutions’ that are coordinating all of this?

                    4. You,do,know,there have been several complaints from scientists that said their papers would not be published if they contested the proponents of AGW, right?

                      You also know that there have been widespread accusations of peer-review scams that perpetuate the AGW claims without opening any methodology or raw data sets up,to scrutiny by skeptics, right?

                    5. The entire CRU email scandal at East Anglia exposed the widespread effort to limit access to any methodology and raw data to scientists already in support of the position.

                    6. Perhaps you’re exaggerating how ‘widespread’ those were? What I read about it suggested that it wasn’t as widespread as many of my ‘fellow travelers’ seemed to be thinking, but as I’ve not studied it in depth I won’t make any firm conclusions there.

                      I appreciate the civil discussion, and again, I hope you and Suthenboy are ultimately correct and this theory becomes totally discredited. But until the time comes when most people studying it get there I’m reluctant to make that claim, as pleasing as I would find it.

                    7. I am sure you have heard the ‘ol “If it seems too good to be true…” bit.

                      That concept holds true here. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, shits when it flies, is covered with feathers, thinks junebugs are a delicacy and lays eggs, then it most likely is a duck.

                      It is indistinguishable from a scam for a very good reason.

                    8. I looked at his data and his predictions. They were solid.

                      It doesn’t matter how wacky he is. Are his predictions correct. Yes, yes they are.

                      The AGW crowds predictions are 100% wrong.

                      A greater discrepancy cannot be imagined. Who are you going to listen to?

                    9. And here is a question for you.

                      Intuitively, does it seem more likely that climate is driven primarily by the sun or cow farts?

                      Read up on the sun a little bit. Or just go stand outside in it.

                      The sun is a giant nuclear reactor large enough to contain one million earths. The slightest fluctuation in its output causes ice ages and heat ages and it fluctuates all of the time.

                    10. It certainly sounds plausible that the sun could cause that sort of thing, given my limited knowledge. I guess I just assume that all those scientists who endorse AGW know about the sun and don’t find it a convincing explanation. Again, a lot of things scientists find are not exactly intuitive.

                    11. I can’t stress this enough. You are relying on ‘all those experts’. You aren’t trained in science, so that is understandable. We have presented you with numerous examples of ‘all those experts’ being wrong in their predictions, operating in bad faith, even telling outright lies. Their predictions have been not just wrong but wildly, spectacularly wrong.

                      This is why consensus in science means nothing. When people start talking about consensus in science they aren’t talking about science anymore.

                      When you have agreement in observation amongst many scientists it lends strength to a theory. Thats it. True scientists do not talk of consensus of belief.

                      The people you are relying on are not scientists. They are social activists masquerading as scientists.

                      You would do better to hang your hat elsewhere. Eventually there will be a reckoning for this. I just hope it comes soon enough that these charlatans receive the shame and exile they deserve while they still live.

                    12. “I looked at his data and his predictions. They were solid.”

                      Again, I don’t mean this as any offense, but would you be qualified to really make that judgement?

                    13. Moderately, yes.

                    14. That’s because those those institutions – academia – are populated and run by a bunch of Leftists.

                    15. That was meant as a comment on Suthenboy’s
                      There is no secret cabal of scientists coordinating all of this. The institutions and culture propagate it.

                  2. Is,it,not,distinctly,possible that many of the first ones are intellectually dishonest, as evidenced by the PSU and East Anglia email scandals as well as the refusal to hand over raw data, which was hastily followed by the destruction of said date.

                    And many of the second and third generation of AGW scientists just useful idiots that keep the wheelbarrows full of money coming in from the government’s of the World?

                    Remember, these same,people were,peddling global cooling as recently as three decades earlier than they started with the warmism crap.

                    1. The same people?

                  3. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

                    1. Tenured professors? Federal scientists in administrations that are not supporters of AGW? They’re salaries depend on it?

                      I mean, whose supposed to be pulling these strings of so many scientists?

                    2. Who is pulling the strings? the federal dollar.

                      Didn’t Obumbles redirect NASA to study AGW?

                    3. Federal dollars? And this was true during the Bush administration? That administration was no big fan of AGW. Scientists really faced loss of their livelihood from that administration if they demurred to the AGW line? I find that hard to believe.

                      And what’s worse, is you have many foreign scientists who agree with the ones here on this. Are they doing it because of the federal dollars?

                    4. POLICYMAKERS and the people who want to be the people those policymakers consult.

                      These are the people who stand to gain the most if CAGW is accepted – its a key to the whole cupboard, total control of the world economy.

                      These are the people who funnel money into grants for AGW research. And research that doesn’t show the need for more research doesn’t continue to get funded.

                      We’ve already seen examples from other disciplines showing how abysmal the data that scientist draw they ‘tentative’ conclusions can be. Reason’s done an article or two on the subject.

                    5. “And research that doesn’t show the need for more research doesn’t continue to get funded.”

                      Couldn’t they get funded by all the groups that have a real interest in AGW being undercut? A fair amount of grant money in science comes from private foundations and companies.

                    6. Not many people have an *explicit* interest in under-cutting AGW. At least not that and no other place they might want to spend that money on.

                      CAGW money supporters are the people who stand to *make* money off CAGW. Greenpeace promotes CAGW, scares people into giving it more money.

                      Exxon pays for a study that shows that there’s not A in AGW and they don’t make money off that.

                      Essentially, until there’s a way to make money off of CAGW denial those looking to undercut it will have a hard time getting funding.

                    7. Anyone who has followed Bo logic the last few days has got to be wondering if he’s really just a lefty concern troll.

                    8. Anyone who has followed Bo logic the last few days has got to be wondering if he’s really just a lefty concern troll.

                      Anybody who has read more than a dozen of his posts in the nearly two years he’s been shitting up threads should have already figured that out.

                      Same for Stormy Dragon.

  15. Related:
    Oil Co’s worried about the threat of ‘high oil prices’! Really, that’s what they claim!

    …”the heads of two of the world’s largest oil firms warned that the decline in investments [caused by low oil prices] in future production could lead to a supply shortage and a dramatic price increase.”…
    http://www.reuters.com/article…..1720150121

    So we need to keep oil prices up to keep them down? Smells distinctly like, uh, organic fertilizer.

    1. He was talking on a thirty year timeline, it,looks like. And he’s wrong to use a platform-based exploration model, which tends to have long startup times based on government compliance. Had he used restarting existing, but shuttered, fields in Texas and through the Dakotas, the restart of production is minimized.

      But, having said that,mid you can’t get anybody to extract, the day all of the profitable contracts expire, you will see a dramatic drop in overall extraction and refinement, which could lead to a rapid increase in prices…almost increasing half of what they’ve fallen in the last few months.

      A bigger concern should be the liquidation of rolling stock and pipeline that the extraction and distribution firms are starting to sell off. A lot of nations and some states have adopted CARB-level emissions standards that will make replacement costs quite high and will create a rapid increase in costs that may not be able to,withstand reduced prices…which is what OPEC are banking on.

      1. If you want to know how fast oil extraction in the US is going to be reduced, watch the auctions in Orllando next month and Fort Worth in February and March. If values are off 20% from last year on like items then you,can expect a huge reduction…and a fast one too. If they’re closer to flat from 2014, expect reduction to be much slower as wells become less productive.

        1. Sloopy,
          I understand in-elasticity in supply for oil and for many other businesses, extraction or otherwise.
          But the crocodile tears over a possible spike in prices is amusing when the real concern is a loss of current profits.
          Exxon has owned the printing press for the last 8 years or so, and I’m sure the drop in prices is going to make the CEO’s job ‘way more difficult than it has been.
          More power to him when he’s shoveling the coins into the swimming pool; now we get to see how good he is.

          1. Meh. I don’t necessarily agree when so,much of the costs associated are fixed costs imposed by government entities here that aren’t imposed in other nations. It’s not like Exxon is operating on an even playing field.

            Having said that, this guy is disingenuous in the way he presents restarting production because he is using the most expensive exploration and extraction method from a startup perspective when there are plenty of wells that can be restarted by flipping a switch. Moo bad they’re not where the Total wells are located.

            This will have a much more severe impact on his company that it will on Valero, Exxon or,others with a portfolio that includes land-dominated fields. When your profit center is the North Sea, you’re fucked when you shut down wells for several years.

            1. And Total is pulling the overwhelming majority of,their oil out of the North Sea fields. Off of floating platforms that will be scrapped or towed to port when they cut off production.

              1. Towed to port.

                http://www.popularmechanics.co…..d-17608914

                Apparently North Sea rigs can’t be left or sunk in place and must be removed.

                1. Thanks for that link. I bet that’s something to watch.

                  This just further proves my point. This dick from Total is just whining for a price,increase because his company has a shitty portfolio compared to his competition. Fuck him.

      2. Sorry for all the misplaced commas. I’d blame my iPad but that would just result in Epi trolling every Apple user ad nauseum. And nobody here wants that.

        1. Uh, Ken, it’s a jerkPad. Use the correct name. And learn how to type on it.

          1. I thought douchePad was the preferred nomenclature.

            1. Wanderer, this isn’t a pad that built the tablet sector.

              1. Forget it Donny, you’re out of your element.

    2. Even Oil Barons need a minimum wage.

  16. This is of course going to not go over well with most here, but what are they supposed to do? Stand up and declare that most scientists studying this are involved in some bizarre conspiracy or collective delusion? It’s not like they were asked to buy in to ‘Catastrophic AGW,’ just a mild version that there’s likely warming going on and human activity plays some part in it.

    1. How about they just shut the fuck up and not get involved, since this isn’t an enumerated power or anything a government should be involved in?

      How about that?

      1. Pfft, I’d rather them vote on sense of the Senate bills all day long and every day of every session than actual legislation.

        1. Given those two choices I would agree. My first preference is they vote for an open-ended adjournment.

          1. So Obama can fill every position with a recess appointment?

            I’d rather be gangbanged by the entire NYPD.

            1. That’s not going to be off the table no matter what Congress does.

              1. Recess appointments or gangbangs?

                  1. Congress has gotta sleep sometime – they’ll just be ‘deemed’ in recess then.

        2. Or they could shut the fuck up and not get involved.

        3. The problem is that these bills give political cover to those pushing the CAGW idea.

          The problem with CAGW is two-fold.

          1. The *actual* data does not match up with model predictions *now* so its hard to see how we shold trust them going forward.

          1a. There’s not yet a suitable non-‘we’re just making shit up’ explanation for the discrepancy. If we knew what natural cause (beyond the natural desire to have oyur grant renewed) then that could be incorporated into the models.

          2. Even if CAGW is real – the people proposing *solutions* to CAGW are not ‘experts’ in *that* field. So there’s no fucking reason to listen to these guys talk about ‘renewable energy’, recycling, ‘the end of capitalism’ because they know fuck-all about *economics* which is what is going to tell us what needs to be done and when.

          3. The current ‘consensus’ among *economists* is that *if* CAGW is real, the best response (ie the one that destroys the least wealth, reduces wealth growth the least and, ultimately, provides the lowest cost in human life) is to *ignore* it, get rich, and let our grandkids take care of it. Compound interest means that our grandkids will be in a better situation to be rich in a hot world, whereas if we impoverish ourselves to keep things ‘cool, they’ll be poor in a cold world.

          1. The *actual* data does not match up with model predictions *now* so its hard to see how we shold trust them going forward.

            Yeah, when crying wolf, there better be the occasional canis lupus around. The screeching doomsayers have done a great disservice to their cause. Even if it turns out they were partially correct, I’ve been lied to so much on this topic, I have a hard time giving a fuck about any of it.

          2. “3. The current ‘consensus’ among *economists* is that *if* CAGW is real,[…] our grandkids will be in a better situation to be rich in a hot world, whereas if we impoverish ourselves to keep things ‘cool, they’ll be poor in a cold world.”

            Standing ovation, not a golf clap.
            As someone who is convinced the climate is warming (albeit MUCH slower than predicted) and that humans likely play a part in that, I am NOT convinced that ANY of the proposed regressive policies would do anything to change the process and I’m REALLY convinced they will harm both freedom and prosperity.
            We’re not “doing nothing”; the US has cut emissions simply as a result of better engineering and higher prosperity. Assuming that helps, it’ll do far better to allow that to progress than to force people to burn cow poop and eat shoe leather.

          3. 1. I agree the data doesn’t match up with CAGW, I’m talking about non-catastrophic versions.

            2. Full agreement.

            3. Full agreement, with the caveat that with economic growth our grandkids may figure out a way to deal with any actual negative effects in a way that doesn’t impoverish anyone.

            1. Define “impoverish”, Bo. Because if,it means to,provide them with more food, better medicine and a higher standard of living than any generation before them (basically what the market has done for at least 1000 years) then I think people should embrace impoverishment.

              Or are you talking relative to the “1%ers”? In which case that entire argument is bogus.

              1. I’m saying in a way that doesn’t inhibit or damage economic growth.

            2. 1. The NON-CAGW version isn’t even an issue. Not even minor enough to perfomr some political theater over. The non-CAGW version is just ‘ heh, the weather’s a little different from when I was a kid’.

              That’s why CAGW is all the rage. NON-CAGW doesn’t merit POLICY, therefore there’s no-one who might gain power and money from creating and implementing policy.

              3. There’s no need for that caveat – the possibility that our grandkids could deal with negative effect in a way that don’t impoverish anyone is *implicit* in their ‘ better situation to be rich in a hot world’.

              At the very least any who *are* impoverished in the ‘rich, hot’ scenario are *less* impoverished than they would be in the ‘poor, cold’ one.

              1. 1. There are some real concerns with non-catastrophic AGW. Significant though non-catastrophic warming could have serious consequences for some people in the world.

                3. I don’t think the only options need be rich and hot and poor and cold. We can’t now what technological advancements will come with continued economic growth. Carbon emissions could become largely moot with no restrictions on anyone.

                1. All of which are going to come from the ‘don’t do anything now’ response – the one where, *if* you take CAGW seriously, is going to lead to the ‘hot’ world.

                  Once *there*, wealth and technology may be able to bring temperatures back to ‘what they should be’ (on a baseline measured in *hundreds of years, ignoring that 10,000 years ago this place was mostly an iceball).

                  Again, these arguments are taking the CAGW argument seriously – and as such we *are* going to go through a hot phase if we do nothing. Economist just point out that we’ll be several orders of magnitude richer in this ‘disaterous’ world than if we spend the money *now* to stabilse temperatures and that the hot/rich world will be a better place to live for the majority of humanity than the cold/poor one.

                  Of course *anything* could happen. And to keep going on about how we’re not limited to hot/rich, cold/poor is to miss the central purpose* of the comparison, which is to show the overall effects of *RESPONSES* to CAGW, *assuming* CAGW is true – its the CAGW people who are claiming that the future will be Hot/Cold.

                  1. Whatever we do, we can’t harm the bottom line of oil companies.

                    Just make it simple.

                    1. Tony|1.21.15 @ 11:48PM|#
                      “Whatever we do, we can’t harm the bottom line of oil companies.
                      Just make it simple.”

                      Yeah, lefty shitbags are stupid enough to cut off the nose to harm someone else’s face.
                      Fuck off, asshole.

    2. I think the overarching theme here is that the vote was simultaneously meaningless and pointless.

      So business as usual in The Greatest Deliberative Body on Earth!

    3. What are they supposed to do? Not waste time with meaningless, symbolic gestures. Unless I missed something, nobody in the Senate is a climate scientist. None of them are scientists of any stripe, if I’m not mistaken. So, this is simply an opinion, no more or less credible than any other non-expert’s. Even worse, this looks disturbingly like a confession of faith, which just makes the whole thing creepier and more suspicious.

    4. Vote “present” and tell the good Senator to shove his false dilemma sideways?

  17. In other news: derp.

    Jesus, what a clusterfuck of inanity.

    1. Bo’s just doing the job that Tony is too drunk to do.

  18. If top-men invented portable dilithium-crystal fusion reactors today, the price of oil would drop to slightly above it’s price to market. $15/barrel? It would take all of WWIII to not have Chinese and Indian teenagers buying it up for muscle cars and top-fueled dragsters.

    1. What would the bottoms do?

      1. Pit boys. Ticket salesmen.

      2. Pit boys. Ticket salesmen.

    2. Dilithium crystals are not used in FUSION YOU WANNABE BASTARD.

      L2Trek.

  19. Okay, I didn’t watch the SOTU last night, nor the responses, so I started the Youtube video of Joni’s reponse, and died of boredom at the 2:34 mark. After reviving, I started Rand Paul’s response video, and feel myself fading out.

    I’m too lazy to read back through the threads here on Reason.com, and I’m working, so I can’t just pause and read everything, anyway. SO…did anyone say anything at all interesting with regard to the SOTU? Something I can listen to while I work?

    1. Too dangerously sedating for driving. Use amphetamines first!

    2. I couldn’t hear any of it over this weird typewriter noise whenever I had aH&R tab open.

      1. SIV, I was trying to help you with that last night. That sound was from the Live Twitter Feed. Every time a new tweet was uploaded, that sound was made. You just needed to use the sidebar next to the picture of the mountains to scroll down to see them.

        1. Twitter delenda est.

          1. Indeed.

    3. Nope. Listen to music or a good podcast like Serial or Hardcore History.

    4. Listen to Obama call out the cynical idiot party for being cynical idiots. It will do you good.

      1. He called out the Democrats and Republicans?

  20. As meaningless as this kind of thing is, how much crazier is it to actually filibuster this type of thing?

    1. I actually find it pretty hilarious. Although I thought the filibuster had been eliminated.

      1. For congressional appointments only I believe.

  21. How people fall for this shit is beyond me. It is a scam and very transparently so.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..d-not-end/

    That is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been a zillion more wild claims, all of which failed to materialize.

    It is a scam, people. A classic scam that follows blueprints laid out in scamology 101 exactly.

    1. It would be one thing if the policy and the science were kept separate, but they’re not. The scientists (and “scientists”) who beat the drums hardest on CAGW are motivated to influence policy. If you toe the line, you gain political influence, you get promoted, you get authority, you get a raise. If you express any doubt or concern over study methodology or conclusions drawn from data, you’re blackballed. I suspect part of this is because the fear of imminent demise resulting from CAGW is used as a lever to promote other agendas, all of which tend to result in a larger, more powerful central government. Shockingly, the biggest advocates of CAGW are federal employees.

  22. It is a scam, people.

    Take the premise of AGW “alarmists” at full value. Bounce my scare quotes, bounce the skeptics, then what?

    To stop humans from burning oil, natural gas, coal, trees, dry grass, and dung is going to take a nuke-clear campaign that would shock Ivar the Impaler.

    1. They aren’t interested in stopping any of that. What they are interested in is getting paid and gaining power.

      Rationed energy via carbon taxes.

  23. Sheldon Whitehouse: in this case, I think we have to go all out. I think this situation absolutely requires a really stupid and futile gesture be done on somebody’s part.

    John Hoeven: We’re just the guys to do it.

    1. Not a single Animal House fan in the room?

      For shame.

    2. Did we give up when the Chinese bombed Pearl Harbor?

      1. wait, I thought it was the Germans?

  24. Anyway, the proper study of man is anything but man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.

    -Tolkien (apparently)

    1. (Nevermind I guess its confirmed)

  25. OT: Those evil, greedy corporate dudes are exploiting us again…

    http://www.slashgear.com/micro…..-21365662/

    Microsoft’s HoloLens is a pretty neat concept, and already showing a lot of promise. Via a headset and virtual environment, we’d be able to do all kinds of things like assemble or design something to be 3D printed, and it certainly has a lot of gaming angles. As far as virtual environments go, there might be no cooler one than mars, and that’s what NASA and Microsoft have in mind. Using HoloLens, NASA wants to let Earth-bound scientists work in space ? virtually.

  26. The other day, in the progressive stronghold of the Montclair district of Oakland, CA, I saw this guy wearing a t-shirt that said “STOP PLATE TECTONICS.” hee.

  27. no one thinks that the climate is static and never changes, though apparently there are plenty of retards out there that know what the climate SHOULD BE and that we should destroy our economies to make it stay that way.

  28. Here’s my take on it, as unpopular as it may be: CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere (an easily reproducible experiment), but how does it affect a complex system with counter-intuitive feedback loops? Well, I downloaded temperature data for my region going back 80 years and ran my own statistical analysis, and sure enough I found a statistically significant (if modest) warming trend in the data.

    So, based on my own investigaton into the data, I’m persuaded that the phenomenon is real.

    If it is real what is the risk? I tend to doubt the alarmist prespective. The risk in my mind is price volatility in certain markets (agri-biz, some manufacturing, certain real estate markets, logistics, etc) and volitiliy breeds innovation and profits, even at the cost of short-term and localized hardship.

    I don’t, however, think that global treaties and carbon limits are effective at managing the hardship. Market solutions are better. But while oil produces a lot of CO2, it is also the most cost effective way of producing power (Watts) and states have a lot invested in producing power–watts corrupt, but absolute watts corrupt absolutely, just ask Saudi Arabia and Iran. So there is a strong incentive for states to subsidize and protect energy production, which stifles innovation.

    I personally think that climate change represents a threat to price stability and economic growth in the next 100 years. But I think that free markets represent the best means to counter this treat.

    1. Keep in mind – a real warming trend by itself does not provide evidence that any part (no matter how large or slight) is caused by *human* activity.

      And that’s a *key* part of AGW policy. If its just GW, or AGW where the A part is infinitesimal – well, there’s no money in that.

      Only in AGW where A is a significant potion of GW is there any reason to make a big deal about it.

      So you can even accept that there’s GW going on (even CGW!) and not accept AGW, let alone CAGW.

      1. The trajectory of science denial in this case has followed almost precisely that of the creationists’. Keep moving the goalposts. Once you could no longer deny that basic physics were indeed at work and the planet was warming, you simply move on to denying humans play a role, a position that is not supported by anything (in case you need it spelled out, you’d have to posit a natural explanation). Even so, the consequences don’t depend on who or what caused it. That’s a moral question alone. But you’re not even using it that way–you’re using it as a distraction for idiots. If they’re wrong about the A (a position for which I have no support), then clearly, hey look over there!

        1. Tony|1.21.15 @ 11:46PM|#
          “The trajectory of science denial in this case has followed almost precisely that of the creationists’.”

          Actually, it’s more closely followed those who claimed the coming ice age, and also the claims of that asshole Erhlich.
          But then facts are really not your faves, are they?

        2. Tony, Tony, Tony . . . *your* side makes the claim that the climate is changing.

          *Your* side makes the claim that human activity is a significant part of that warming.

          *Your* side has failed to show signficant, sustained, warming.

          *Your* side can’t explain the decade+ long pause in warming.

          *Your* side can not figure out *how much* of AGW is A.

          *Your side makes claims. Your side needs to provide evidence to support those claims.

          1. I would also point out that *your* side is the one acting most like creationists here.

            You have a conclusion and all data is bent to support that conclusion, all contradictory data is ignored or deprecated.

            1. Keep in mind that the *theory and mechanism* proposed by AGW proponents constantly fails to *predict*.

              Oh, with a lot of tweaking these models can ‘predict’ what the climate was like in the past – they don’t seem to be able to do so well when the target is in the *future*

        3. in case you need it spelled out, you’d have to posit a natural explanation).

          We *have* posited natural explanations. Most recently that minute fluctuations in the solar wind have significant effects on cloud formation, which has a significant effect on how much solar radiation enters the lower atmosphere to be trapped as heat.

          1. Which theory has the added advantage to not have positive feedback loops, which are very rarely found in nature but that C in CAGW is dependent upon.

        4. Tony what do you think about the solar atmosphere/sunspot hypothesis? You call people who ignore the carbon hypothesis deniers but aren’t people who ignore the sunspot hypothesis also deniers?

          Carbon (and methane) are a tiny % of total greenhouse gases, yet it’s plausible changes in carbon levels from human activity can change the climate even if carbon is a marginal greenhouse gas as even small % greenhouse gas increases matter.

          Yet the earth is so close to the sun it’s strongly affected by sunspot activity which affects the formation of clouds. Clouds account for a huge % of total greenhouse gases; even slight changes in cloud formation patterns will have a greater effect on the climate than a large change in CO2.
          There’s even this one British guy who’s accurately predicted the climate based solely on sunspot activity.

          If man-made co2 global warming is a plausible hypothesis then wouldn’t the sunspot hypothesis be just as plausible? Why is this always ignored by left-wing environmentalists?

    2. I downloaded temperature data for my region going back 80 years

      Temperatures taken from what source and instrumentation? Were any of those temperatures averaged in the data that you sourced?

      Returning to the instrumentation and methodology used to produce the original sourced data, what can we learn about the stations, location and type that took the data?

      1. meh. If you have a methodology that you like go use it and draw your own conclusions. Historic raw temperature data is easy to get.

  29. Holy Shit you guys devote a lot of time to indulging Bo-Bo’s flights of Tulpism.

  30. “the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.”

    I may have voted ‘yes’ as well. Climates change. It’s not a hoax that climates change. Whether this has anything to do with Anthropogenic Forcing of the Climate due to our bloated lifestyle, that’s a different question.

  31. Look. You want an example of Government funded bad science? Reefer Madness until about 10 years ago. Still some of that going around.

    Why did it happen? Because “Reefer is good for you” studies didn’t get funded. Or got funded by accident. Donald Tashkin.

    1. Anti-climate change “science” gets plenty of funding.

      1. Tony|1.21.15 @ 11:51PM|#
        “Anti-climate change “science” gets plenty of funding.”

        Tu quoque is bullshit, in case that’s a surprise.
        And I’d still like to see a cite; I’ll bet it’s not only a bullshit argument but a bullshit claim.

        1. You don’t get to ask for a cite when you refuse to make the simplest effort in typing in the Google to clarify what is and isn’t current science on this subject.

          1. Tony|1.22.15 @ 12:07AM|#
            “You don’t get to ask for a cite when you refuse to make the simplest effort in typing in the Google to clarify what is and isn’t current science on this subject.”

            Shitbag, YOU made the claim. Prove it or STFU.

      2. Global warming “science” gets orders of magnitude more funding. As well as non-stop propaganda by the media, government and education systems. And you’re still losing.

  32. What do you’all think about the deflated footballs?

    After many years as a haphazard engineer I’ve come to realize that owner’s don’t always put accurate instrumentation in the pipe. The political class of 2nd an 3rd world countries run off the graft of this inaccuracy. But we live in a first world country. USA!

    The Patriots cannot play in the Superbowl. I will not it watch if they do.

    1. Footballs deflate, that what they do.

      And the only way that that team could benefit from a deflated ball scam is if somehow they could control which side got which balls. Which they can’t.

      1. (A)nthropomorphic (B)all (D)eflation?

      2. And the only way that that team could benefit from a deflated ball scam is if somehow they could control which side got which balls. Which they can’t.

        My understanding is that each team is given a set of balls for its offense to use at the beginning of the game. So, yes, they do control their own balls throughout the game.

        And kickers hate underinflated balls, so a team that was going to deflate balls would leave one (1) ball fully inflated.

        Kinda like what we found when the Patriots balls were examined.

      3. And the only way that that team could benefit from a deflated ball scam is if somehow they could control which side got which balls. Which they can’t.

        Hate to break it to you but each team brings their own balls. So yes, a team could benefit from a deflated ball.

  33. Footballs deflate, that what they do.

    Not by 2 psi in a range of 0 to 20 psi in 120 minutes. 10%. If your car’s tires deflated 5%/hour you’d be at the side of the road or at the garage every day.

  34. Senator Whitehouse: “Let us all rise and confess our Faith….”

  35. The majority of commenters here think its a hoax (you can read all of the comments the last few days regarding conspiracy theories). So Senate has a better grasp of climate science than libertarians who comment here. Who woulda thunk it.

    1. It is a false dilemma being made inthe interest of “gotcha” politics.

    2. CARBON IS SIN!

      WE MUST REPENT OUR CARBON SINNING WAYS!

      ONLY GOD GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE US!

      REPENT!

      SUBMIT TO GOD GOVERNMENT!

      ONLY GOD GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE US FROM OUR CARBON SINNING WAYS!

      REPENT!

      SUBMIT!

      OR WE WILL ALL PERISH IN FLAMES!

    3. No, the vote was to acknowledge that climate changes, not to ascribe causality.

      Yes, climate change is real. The climate is constantly in flux.

      Let me know when they vote on whether or not your trips to the market in your Subaru are killing the planet.

  36. Indeed, climate changes, who doesn’t agree with that? The Orwellian Grubercrat Unicorn Empiricists think their semantic sleight of hand dictates reality. Acknowledging the constance of flux doesn’t ascribe causality, but I’m sure Salon, Daily Kos, Vox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc. will herald this as some epic ecotheological capitulation.

    The joke is on them.

    Fake-n-bake data rife with overtly biased “adjustments” aimed at manufacturing “consensus” isn’t proof of anything but the power of ideological momentum aimed at allowing the ends to justify the means.

    I worked at NOAA / NGDC on satellite imaging / data collection / analysis / distribution across an array of remote sensing platforms / networks and geophysical data sets. The religious-like zeal of the people controlling those conduits of information is virtually ubiquitous in government agencies and academia — and profoundly, dangerously biased.

    Many are walking, talking bishops of a presumed faith. They preach enviro-alarm and panic, but they don’t live their lives accordingly – aside from token box-ticking like driving a Prius to the airport to catch a jet to Maui. People willing to embrace and condone lies and obfuscation used to pimp a ruse like “affordable healthcare” are equally willing to imbue and corrupt science with an anti-carbon crusade.

  37. I’d be more concerned about global climate change if the Senate voted 98-1 denying its existence.

  38. Next on the agenda: do tides exist?

  39. Is the U.S. Senate a hoax? Best question I’ve read on Reason in months!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.