http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...senators-become-night-owls-for-climate-change# out of 55 + 2 ind. what 49%, of their own party? important stuff here with no bill in the works. maybe the others have jobs on the line?
Last edited:
really thought more would show up
- Thread starter Doug MacIVER
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Warm_in_NH
Minister of Fire
No bill. No filibuster, just a few people repeating themselves to an empty room. Really didn't make much sense why they pulled the all nighter. 
bassJAM
Feeling the Heat
No bill. No filibuster, just a few people repeating themselves to an empty room. Really didn't make much sense why they pulled the all nighter.
Probably because they think the BS they spew pollutes less at night.
webbie
Seasoned Moderator
Politics is the art of putting a chicken (well, actually, millions or billions of dollars) in someone's hand NOW.....and our leaders are not likely to address longer term issues where they or their constituents don't see relatively instant results....
The only thing we can hope is that all the new inventions, CAFE standards, technology, etc. helps a lot while they spend their time fighting each other and reality. I think that's gonna be the case......better late than never. As Churchill said "Americans will always do the right thing (after all other possibilities have been exhausted)". This is a perfect example...and there are many more...
The only thing we can hope is that all the new inventions, CAFE standards, technology, etc. helps a lot while they spend their time fighting each other and reality. I think that's gonna be the case......better late than never. As Churchill said "Americans will always do the right thing (after all other possibilities have been exhausted)". This is a perfect example...and there are many more...
oh the possibilities. after all it will touch everything according that those who believe it, rather than question why does .04% of the atmosphere mean so much. how have the models been so wrong (temp projections), why not question that they all missed virtual flat temps for the last seventeen years. where are we on dr. mann's hockey stick today. anybody ask him lately? good will come out of this. how fast is another question, are we forcing the play or would a more measured approach be in order?
politics. money. go together like love and marriage. let's all take only 3 breaths a minute and cut down our c02 emissions .
speaking of money, how many showed up to get in line for the $ from dem donor tom steyer100,00,000.00. even the NYT mentions motivation. think he may have a motive besides his grandchildren http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/u...-on-climate-change.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0
stoveguy2esw
Minister of Fire
kubuki theatre, not much more. the ones who stayed away are mostly ones in states which are not solidly deep blue states. being caught "on the record' could be detrimental to their re-election campaigns.
i watched a little bit of it , wasnt much to see. the whole thing was staged this way to stir the pot "a congressional infomercial" no legislation will come of it any time soon though as Reid will not bring anything to a vote in teh senate as he has no hope of passing anything on the matter , no GOP support and not enough dems supporting to have a shot.
i watched a little bit of it , wasnt much to see. the whole thing was staged this way to stir the pot "a congressional infomercial" no legislation will come of it any time soon though as Reid will not bring anything to a vote in teh senate as he has no hope of passing anything on the matter , no GOP support and not enough dems supporting to have a shot.
not about the money, just to bring those facts out? that's a 100mil I can see the hands out.
stoveguy2esw
Minister of Fire
of course it is , the "base" will donate for things such as this , same as a "pro-gun" or "pro life" debate of the same type would generate funding from the right wing "base" as well, though votes for bills on that side would probably not get a vote either for the same reason, not enough support even by member of same party which cannot afford to upset independants or moderates in their districts as well.
so the money is there from the base in a "pay to play pep rally" for congressmen and senators in a secure position. AKA "kubuki theatre"
bassJAM
Feeling the Heat
Ahh, politics 101
Create a fake crisis. Check
Convince people it's going to change our lives. Check
Convince people to donate money for "the cause" thus ensuring reelection. Check
Now I'm not denying that climate change exists. History can pretty much prove that it's a fact. But it's still very much a theory as to if humans impact climate change much, if at all, and a theory that even scientists can't agree on.
Adios Pantalones
Minister of Fire
bassJAM
Feeling the Heat
My point is there are many different theories supporting both sides, which leads me to conclude no one really knows at all.
Adios Pantalones
Minister of Fire
Actual scientists that study the problem, rather than those cherry picked by one group or another, agree in a very broad way.
I can find "scientists" that say that vaccines cause autism, or that the world is flat- the fact that there are two views on a matter of science does not immediately divide the validity equally between them.
My point was- you should use the word "hypothesis", not theory.
bassJAM
Feeling the Heat
bassJAM
Feeling the Heat
Still doesn't prove humans are the cause of this. I 100% believe that "climate change" happens. I can even see that the cold spells because of the Earth warming up is plausible. The Earth has gone through many climate cycles for millions of years on it's own, and scientist still don't know for sure the causes of any of it. But suddenly THIS TIME humans are to blame?
Frozen Canuck
Minister of Fire
Yes BG saw that one on the local news.
They were discussing how this could be the new normal for winters with a weakened jet stream. Well, until all the arctic ice is gone that is, then nature will seek a new balance.
BB sorry to say your "tropics of Virginia", well….won't be very tropical at -30.
The models they were describing for the jet stream sag have us in the west at pretty near normal winter temps (kinda, sorta, longer cold snaps here, more drought in Cali) but those of you in the east are going to get hammered repeatedly if those models are accurate. Folks in England need to get to work on growing gills.
They were discussing how this could be the new normal for winters with a weakened jet stream. Well, until all the arctic ice is gone that is, then nature will seek a new balance.
BB sorry to say your "tropics of Virginia", well….won't be very tropical at -30.
The models they were describing for the jet stream sag have us in the west at pretty near normal winter temps (kinda, sorta, longer cold snaps here, more drought in Cali) but those of you in the east are going to get hammered repeatedly if those models are accurate. Folks in England need to get to work on growing gills.
I could hear the rumblings if the republicans held such a speech fest amongst themselves with the koch bros dangling the 100 mil out there.
one for the believers
here is an interesting quote from the late Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford Univ.
'On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
looks like the senators were listening
'On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
looks like the senators were listening
wsi gives explanation of why we were cold this year. via twitter about 30 min.includes el nino forecast. interesting stuff.
Mrs. Krabappel
Minister of Fire
Frozen Canuck
Minister of Fire
stoveguy2esw
Minister of Fire
you'll forgive my skepticism after several years of hearing from the same 97% of scientists that the mild winters and such were going to be the new normal, we were told a winter such as this was no longer going to happen due to "global warming"
the problem with this "Science" is that when the weather changes , the theory is just changed to match it. if this was the expected thing according to the models they had produced , why was there no mention of it back when we were having mild winters over and over again. did they just decide not to tell us? I doubt it. they simply didn't know it would happen is a more feasible argument. moreover, I doubt seriously that 97% of scientists predicted this at all.
the problem with this "Science" is that when the weather changes , the theory is just changed to match it. if this was the expected thing according to the models they had produced , why was there no mention of it back when we were having mild winters over and over again. did they just decide not to tell us? I doubt it. they simply didn't know it would happen is a more feasible argument. moreover, I doubt seriously that 97% of scientists predicted this at all.
- Status
Similar threads
