Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[RickBradford]

its not discouraged at all,

Oh, really? Then how would you characterize 20 government climate scientists writing last week to President Obama demanding that he invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to silence criticism of their theories?

This is one group of scientists demanding that another group of scientists be punished for "misdeeds", i.e. "holding a different opinion".

I note that RICO has never been used before to silence an ongoing scientific debate; its more usual targets being Mafia crime families, street gangs, FIFA and the Hell's Angels.

If that isn't discouragement, I don't know what is.

[shirtless]

Before we worry about climate change how about fixing Fukushima radiation from this will kill us all eventually day and night this has been spewing radiation into the air and sea for over 4 years. no end in sight.

[bangon04]

What an ignoramus! Hundreds of scientists across the globe agree on such climate change, but a stupid Republican politician again thinks she knows better. Idiot!

Hundreds of scientists across the globe agree on the Big Bang Theory, and Darwinist evolution theory, and find NO evidence for the existence of any God as described in any holy book.

She ignores them too.....

[notmyself]

What an ignoramus! Hundreds of scientists across the globe agree on such climate change, but a stupid Republican politician again thinks she knows better. Idiot!

The jury is still out is the usual reason given. Some people still believe the world to be flat so the jury is still out on that too.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Agreed.

With the caveat of whether that is in fact what she said. At this stage we only have the BBC's word for it, as the documentary has not aired.

But then again, Ms Blackburn appears not to believe in the theory of evolution, either, which doesn't say a lot for her scientific discrimination.

Right. So why is she, "Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee,"?

Because the highest-ranking member is smarter than her?

[farangmick]

The Pope's views on abortion -- ridiculed as mediaeval and contrary to human rights.

The Pope's views on climate change -- venerated as gospel.

What a funny old world.

The Pope's views on abortion -- venerated as gospel.

The Pope's views on climate change -- ridiculed.

What a funny old world.

Yes, depending on who you talk to, it is a funny world.

Indeed.

This is why open debate on these topics is essential, and the pronouncements of those who claim to authority should be viewed with great suspicion.

Abortion is much more a matter of personal opinion and beliefs, but science is pretty conclusive on man made climate change. So far you have been one 'of those who claim to authority' on that subject, so from no one you'll 'be viewed with great suspicion'.

Climate change used to be global warming until it was realised that the world wasn't getting warmer. Good excuse for governments to cream more tax under the "green" banner though. I assume you cycle everywhere?.

[kbelyeu]

What an ignoramus! Hundreds of scientists across the globe agree on such climate change, but a stupid Republican politician again thinks she knows better. Idiot!

Do you mean hundreds of scientists across the globe have manipulated their data as to agree on such climate change!

You notice that the term used before was Global Warming but now it is Climate Change.. are we warming or are we cooling?

Kurt

Edited September 24, 2015 by kbelyeu

[kbelyeu]

The pope and his cronies are nothing but an organized pedophile ring.. I would dance in the ashes of the Vatican if it burnt tomorrow.

Kurt

[steven100]

I don't believe in climate change either. The atmosphere is so huge that all the smoke stacks in china burning for 10 years would be like a pin head in the universe.

It's load of garbage ........ the earth will still be here in 100mil years and the climate may be warmer or cooler as it has been for the last 100mil years.

We can see your great scientific skills and reasoning. Fortunately real scientists can actually quantify the size of the atmosphere, the impact of pollutants and show that man has an impact on climate.

you mean how the scientists got many things wrong over the years ....

Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.

Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating

In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as scientists began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.

[eliotness]

So the Pope has become a member of the new religion of climate change. It's a pity he will not take any action on the main cause of environmental damage, over population.

[RickBradford]

its not discouraged at all, if you want to look there is new data and analysis happening all the time, some nutty right wingers obviously misinformed opinion, well it actually hit the TV news, so all bases are covered

How's this for discouraging opposing views of climate science?

Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder has just written an op-ed in the NYT titled "The Next Genocide".

He begins: BEFORE he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, “You must die so that we can live.”

He then analyses this as: The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war.

(You can see where this is going from a mile off)

He continues: Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.

Yup, not for the first time. Or the last. To hold an opposing view on climate change is to be akin to a Nazi.

[stevenl]

its not discouraged at all,

Oh, really? Then how would you characterize 20 government climate scientists writing last week to President Obama demanding that he invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to silence criticism of their theories?

This is one group of scientists demanding that another group of scientists be punished for "misdeeds", i.e. "holding a different opinion".

I note that RICO has never been used before to silence an ongoing scientific debate; its more usual targets being Mafia crime families, street gangs, FIFA and the Hell's Angels.

If that isn't discouragement, I don't know what is.

As I said, this post had to be viewed with great suspicion.

[Yann55]

^^^

Agreed.

With the caveat of whether that is in fact what she said. At this stage we only have the BBC's word for it, as the documentary has not aired.

But then again, Ms Blackburn appears not to believe in the theory of evolution, either, which doesn't say a lot for her scientific discrimination.

Mr Rick, I've been reading your posts on this thread with a lot of interest, because anyone who refuses to go along with the 'generally accepted ideas', in whatever field, always has my sympathy.

You try to keep things on a scientific ground and it's a hell of a challenge, because this topic has obviously left the scientific ground a long time ago. No need to go far to illustrate that point : almost every single post in this thread is purely emotional, patronizing, and irrational.

Now let's not forget that Ms Blackburn is a Republican, the side where most of the money is, in the US, including money made by corporations who do not want to believe in climate change because their fortune is at stake, and are therefore heavily involved in :

1/ Paying huge amounts of money to scientists whose research will back them up,

2/ Paying huge amounts of money for lobbying, and of course

3/ Paying huge amounts of money to manipulate whatever media they can lay their hands on.

So ... in this field as in so many others, money talks. The stakes are massive, hence the emotion, the anger and the spiralling, I guess.

Did you read Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear' by the way ? The guy was good at probing into delicate, controversial issues, and I believe he disliked stereotyped thinking too . State of Fear is about climate change, it is heavily documented because the author was a serious scientist, and it sheds a very interesting light on the subject.

The question now clearly appears to be : is climate change a fact or a theory ?

If it is the latter, everyone is entitled to question it... now I can't help but laugh when you bring up the subject of evolution. You (rightly) call it a theory, because that's what it still is, no matter how many people refuse to see it as such. But then you go on implying that Ms Blackburn is some kind of retard because she does not believe in it. You do see the contradiction there, right ?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Yann55

[eliotness]

It's interesting that opposition to "global warming" (or the new name "climate change") is considered extreme right-wing. Russia and China are major contributors to combustion gases emissions but are considered left-wing. Anyone who questions the trendy climate change religion is deemed a heretic and blasphemer. The fact is and this cannot be disputed, the earth's climate has never been constant, it has been subject to change since it came into being. That people generate pollutants is also beyond question. However CO2, much quoted, is essential for life on earth because without it there would be no plant life.

In the 1970s the climate scientists were warning of a coming ice-age. But there is no money to be made by politicians by global cooling. Global warming however is a totally different matter, loads of "green" taxes can be levied without the outcry from the poor tax payers, after all the governments are trying to save the planet. But just how much of this tax revenue is actually used to improve the global climate ?

Just because certain very rich industries have financial motivation to oppose the climate change priests doesn't make them factually wrong, devious yes, but they should not be subject to the modern version of the Spanish Inquisition.

[stevenl]

It's interesting that opposition to "global warming" (or the new name "climate change") is considered extreme right-wing. Russia and China are major contributors to combustion gases emissions but are considered left-wing. Anyone who questions the trendy climate change religion is deemed a heretic and blasphemer. The fact is and this cannot be disputed, the earth's climate has never been constant, it has been subject to change since it came into being. That people generate pollutants is also beyond question. However CO2, much quoted, is essential for life on earth because without it there would be no plant life.

In the 1970s the climate scientists were warning of a coming ice-age. But there is no money to be made by politicians by global cooling. Global warming however is a totally different matter, loads of "green" taxes can be levied without the outcry from the poor tax payers, after all the governments are trying to save the planet. But just how much of this tax revenue is actually used to improve the global climate ?

Just because certain very rich industries have financial motivation to oppose the climate change priests doesn't make them factually wrong, devious yes, but they should not be subject to the modern version of the Spanish Inquisition.

Russia left wing? Not since quite some time.

[chilli42]

Let's take a guess at who her major money sponsors are.

[RickBradford]

The question now clearly appears to be : is climate change a fact or a theory ?

If it is the latter, everyone is entitled to question it... now I can't help but laugh when you bring up the subject of evolution. You (rightly) call it a theory, because that's what it still is, no matter how many people refuse to see it as such. But then you go on implying that Ms Blackburn is some kind of retard because she does not believe in it. You do see the contradiction there, right ?

Yep, I can see how it might look that way.

Essentially, I would say "everything is a theory", and science is never settled. Furthermore, science is not a popularity contest -- just because the majority of people believe something, doesn't make it true.

But within that, we have to discriminate between strong and weak theories by a number of criteria: how strong is the data?; can it predict?; is there an experiment that could disprove it?; and are there other plausible competing theories?

Without going into detail about other controversial theories (Einstein's Relativity and Wegener's continental drift), I would say that evolution works pretty well on those criteria. What are the plausible competing theories?

Climate science, on the other hand, scores close to zero:

a ) The observations are patchy and contradictory (satellites disagree with ground stations, for example)

b ) Worse than useless at prediction, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Throwing darts at a board would be better

c ) Can't be falsified. Everything can be attributed to global warming, even cooling

d ) Has multiple alternate competing theories - solar activity, cosmic rays, changes to the Earth's orbit, PDO, ENSO and AMO, lunar tides, Milankovic cycles and more

So I don't have a problem criticising Ms Blackburn for her disbelief in evolution as a theory. But I didn't intend to brand her as a "retard"; I just think she needs to look closer at the science.

I also don't agree with her reasons for rejecting climate science, assuming that the BBC is being honest about what she actually said. We'll find that out in a couple of days.

The only thing I agree with is that the Pope is not someone we should be regarding as an authority on climate change.

[hakuho]

Stupidity rules on this forum, just as stupidity rules with those who have elevated BELIEF STRUCTURES to pass for verifiable science. Remember when it was called 'global warming'? then you started to hear that it was CLIMATE CHANGE...much easier to sell the latter concept because there is no doubt that climate is always in the process of changing-this is what it does; day in day out; year in, year out. I have heard billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet speak on TV panels, asserting emphatically that they BELIEVE in climate change or global warming....so, it is a RELIGION that they embrace, because it is religion that deals with BELIEF

..

.same with evolution; it is the THEORY of evolution which means there is no factual proof of evolution-or climate change...of course scientists concur with the Pope and the corporate pimps....who do you think pays their salaries? You should remember that after the scandal emanating from the bogus data on climate from the U.N. via East Anglia U cooking the books. MMGW was changed to the fuzzier concept of 'climate change'.

There is no change in the normal variation in climate, as measured in the largest heat sink on the planet-THE OCEANS. Here's a tip to help you in your desire to latch on to the belief of warming/climate change: A scientific fact:

"A FACT is a close agreement among a series of observations of the same phenomena" ---anything else is either anecdotal or theoretical....

hashtag you've been duped....[#you'vebeen duped]

[Seastallion]

It may help, (I'm looking at you Rick), to distinguish English language definitions of "theory", "hypothesis", "fact", and "law", from the scientific usages of those words, as used in the science side of the debate.

https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA

[Bench499d]

Lets have a few barbecues with charcoal burned INSIDE her home and then let her decide if it's poisoning the climate through the gases we all breathe or not.

Charcoal vs Solar. That is the question of energy in the 21st century.

Absolutely agree. It's not even a question of whether or not climate change exists any more, in the 21st century we need to stop burning fossil fuels and stop dangerous practices like fracking and focus on renewables. Even if I didn't care about climate change I'd still like to breathe clean air please.

[Jonmarleesco]

So she is confident that the 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonne mass on which we live is now one degree F cooler, while being equally confident that there is no man-made warming? Presumably she was asleep when the VW scam hit the news - and is still to fully wake up. On that basis, I wouldn't trust her to cook a ready to eat meal to the right temperature, and without burning it.

[26vinny]

it is a known fact that since our industrial revolution we humans have polluted this planet as much as 1 volcanic eruption. so if the planet has anymore than 1 eruption in a couple of hundred years then ?????????????????there are way to many factors to consider here and the earth will survive whatever humanity throws at it, as its very existence is out of humanity`s hands

[up2u2]

Marsha Blackburn Rep. Tennessee (7th District)

Her 'Ideology Score' tracks how show votes in Congress:

Not sure she could get any further to the extreme Right without falling off the graph.

She recently voted in favour of the 'pro-life' Bill:

H.R. 3504: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

A requirement that Abortion Clinics must rush an aborted Foetus, showing 'signs of life' to an emergency department for life support intervention. Failing to do so would make them liable for the death.

(Passed: 248/177 )

Also:

H.R. 3134: Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015

De-fund Planned Parenting Inc. for 12 Months whilst an 'investigation' is carried out.

(Passed: 241 / 187 )

She has a little bit of Oil Money sloshing about:

Her positions are a woman does not have the right to choose, no education on birth control and family planning, the Theory of Evolution is not true, the Jury is out and there is no science proving Climate Change.

I expect these are the dominant views within her Electorate as she has been voted into Congress since 2002 and of course is up for election in 2016.

Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District

I am not sure she would be voted into Congress if the views she presents did not reflect the majority view of her Electorate.

Education:

B.Sc. Mississippi State University, Starkville, Miss., 1973

Her views on Pro-Life / Anti sex education / anti Evolution / anti Global Warming and disagreement with the Pope on acting on Climate Change are consistent as she is a devout Presbyterian and not Catholic.

[up2u2]

W

it is a known fact that since our industrial revolution we humans have polluted this planet as much as 1 volcanic eruption. so if the planet has anymore than 1 eruption in a couple of hundred years then ?????????????????there are way to many factors to consider here and the earth will survive whatever humanity throws at it, as its very existence is out of humanity`s hands

Not sure where you get this 'known fact' from

Also large Volcanic eruptions cause Global Cooling not Global Warming by injecting Sulphate aerosols into the upper Troposphere reflecting sunlight back into Space.

Robock 1994, Zielinski 2000, Bertrand 1999, Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.

[willyumiii]

Question: What is the name of the religion that worships only money?

Answer: The GOP ( Greedy Old Pricks )

[whybother]

Abortion is much more a matter of personal opinion and beliefs, but science is pretty conclusive on man made climate change. So far you have been one 'of those who claim to authority' on that subject, so from no one you'll 'be viewed with great suspicion'.

Circular argument once again. The moment you blindly assume that "science is pretty conclusive on man made climate change", then of course you view people who disagree with you with 'great suspicion'.

Logic 101.

EDIT:

Furthermore, everyone working in the scientific field should be happy to 'be viewed with great suspicion' .

Einstein certainly was, as was Wegener, as was Darwin. The only way you can prove whether your science is right or wrong is to have people constantly questioning it.

The fact that this sort of questioning is discouraged in "climate science" is a key reason why the subject is in such a wretched state right now.

Just because the science is pretty conclusive doesn't mean it can't be questioned. It just means that the evidence for it far out weighs the evidence against it.

[canuckamuck]

There is no evidence of unusual warming.

[eliotness]

Surely everyone supports a reduction in pollution and more efficient use of energy. Modern society is greedy for energy, which with current technology is unsustainable. Combine this with the unsustainable growth in the world's population and we've got a train crash waiting to happen.

[RickBradford]

Here are some of the people from whom the Pope gets his views on climate change.

His team of climate advisers includes a historian called Naomi Oreskes, who wants climate skeptics prosecuted under the RICO organized crime act. She also equates climate change to a "Nazi atomic bomb." Charming woman.

Another gentle, reasonable, Vatican-style individual is Earth Institute director Jeffrey Sachs, who writes: “Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & the Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.”

Hans-Joachim Schnellnhuber, who mocks Americans as "climate illiterate" for being skeptics, believes the planet should be run by a panel of "wise men", including himself, no doubt. He is also the inventor of the "two-degree limit" above which climate change magically becomes dangerous.

Then there is Professor Peter Wadhams, famous for having already predicted four of the last zero ice-free Arctic summers, and who claimed earlier this year that three global warming scientists had been assassinated by the oil industry.

Then there's Naomi Klein, who has gotten extremely rich by repeating her slogan “To fight climate change we must fight capitalism.”

Oddly enough, all of Pope Francis’ advisors, and the UN climate agenda he is aligning himself with, are strong supporters of development restrictions, contraceptives, population control, and abortion.

Marsha Blackburn, if the statements credited to her this week are accurate, seems to be an extreme ideological dingbat.

Perhaps the Pope should take her on as a climate adviser.

[englishoak]

No one in this day and age should be listening to old pope on a rope here. Hes batcrazy already enough to live a life of celibacy, never trust anything anyone says who claims to be celibate