Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[up2u2]

Marsha Blackburn:

"the jury is still out on Global Warming"

The latest scientific research on the consensus of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is 99.9+%.

Powell 2015

Found that:

"During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

So it would seem that Marsha Blackburn sides with the 1 in 17,352 peer reviewed research Papers that rejects AGW.

The results of the Mid Term Elections in 2014:

The vote reflects a consensus of only 70% of the Electorate wanted her to represent them in Congress. So why did she accept the position? Surely at only 70% votes 'The jury is still out on whether she has a mandate to represent the Electorate'

The scientific consensus on AGW is 99.99942% her vote is only 70.00%.

[MZurf]

^^^

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 to become a member of the energy committee or any other science related committee one can apparently even believe the earth is flat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZQWBrHnk0

[RickBradford]

During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

I wonder if Powell has received a call yet from Kim Jong Un, asking how he gets such wonderful results.

Even Whiskas doesn't rate that highly among cats....

[stevenl]

During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

I wonder if Powell has received a call yet from Kim Jong Un, asking how he gets such wonderful results.

Even Whiskas doesn't rate that highly among cats....

One can these days compare it to the question whether the earth is round. Would be the same result, with just a few Republican deniers.

[up2u2]

During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

I wonder if Powell has received a call yet from Kim Jong Un, asking how he gets such wonderful results.

Even Whiskas doesn't rate that highly among cats....

I posted the link. Methodology and results are contained there:

Powell 2015

You would have to forward an email inquiring if Kim Jong Un had contacted him regarding results. You could posibly post that query on his Forum here

I am not sure what rating Whiskas has amongst the Cat population. However, if Marsha Blackburn is to be consistent then if an absolute 100.0000% of cats did not want to eat the Product Whiskas it should not be approved for sale. The 'jury would be out' , surely?

[jmccarty]

Let her drink water from any river in the US and say there is no man made issues to fix. global warming aside!

[Rimmer]

A flame has been removed:

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[Pinot]

There is no evidence of unusual warming.

No evidence? Really?

What was the lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

[kerrysum]

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.

Actually the only statement that caught my eye, was at the bottom of the post.

[notmyself]

There is no evidence of unusual warming.

No evidence? Really?

What was the lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

now?

[eliotness]

Marsha Blackburn:

"the jury is still out on Global Warming"

The latest scientific research on the consensus of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is 99.9+%.

Powell 2015

Found that:

"During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

So it would seem that Marsha Blackburn sides with the 1 in 17,352 peer reviewed research Papers that rejects AGW.

The results of the Mid Term Elections in 2014:

MarshaBlackburn_4.jpg

The vote reflects a consensus of only 70% of the Electorate wanted her to represent them in Congress. So why did she accept the position? Surely at only 70% votes 'The jury is still out on whether she has a mandate to represent the Electorate'

The scientific consensus on AGW is 99.99942% her vote is only 70.00%.

As quoted here so often about opinion polls in Thailand, "it depends on who was asked". Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

Don't you remember, a few years ago, the boat load of "environmentalists" who were sailing from Australia to the South Pole to check on the retreating (i.e. melting) ice sheets, due of course to "global warming" only to find themselves trapped in an advancing ice sheet. Then the ice-breaker sent to rescue them got stuck as the ice sheet kept advancing and got thicker. It took a second ice-breaker to eventually save them.

Climate change is possibly happening OK, but we have to adapt. Heck man lives in such climates as the Sahara and the North Pole. We are probably the most flexible species on the planet. But unless population growth is addressed then all the rest is simply pissing in the wind.

[canuckamuck]

There is no evidence of unusual warming.

No evidence? Really?

What was the lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

I don't live in a republic

And to debate my point you have to show me I am wrong.

[stevenl]

There is no evidence of unusual warming.

No evidence? Really?

What was the lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

I don't live in a republic

And to debate my point you have to show me I am wrong.

Uhm, no, you make a claim, so you have to back that up.

[RickBradford]

^

No. It is the people calling for radical action who have to prove there is a problem, not for people who argue for business as usual to prove there isn't.

In science, it's called the Null Hypothesis, and in life it's called common sense, a commodity in regrettably short supply

[eliotness]

^

No. It is the people calling for radical action who have to prove there is a problem, not for people who argue for business as usual to prove there isn't.

In science, it's called the Null Hypothesis, and in life it's called common sense, a commodity in regrettably short supply

There actually is plenty of evidence to prove global warming is a myth, just google "The real truth about global warming".

[notmyself]

There is no evidence of unusual warming.

No evidence? Really?

What was the lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

I don't live in a republic

And to debate my point you have to show me I am wrong.

Uhm, no, you make a claim, so you have to back that up.

I'm not the kind of person who has fear but there are obviously some exceptions. My biggest fear is being in a position (such as in court) were I can be judged by people who don't even understand the question. That someone can not understand the burden of proof is very unsettling.

[stevenl]

^

No. It is the people calling for radical action who have to prove there is a problem, not for people who argue for business as usual to prove there isn't.

In science, it's called the Null Hypothesis, and in life it's called common sense, a commodity in regrettably short supply

No, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that it exists. Now if people want to claim differently they have to prove that, same as when I were to claim the earth is flat I have to prove that, since it is generally accepted by the scientific field to be incorrect.

[up2u2]

Marsha Blackburn:

"the jury is still out on Global Warming"

The latest scientific research on the consensus of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is 99.9+%.

Powell 2015

Found that:

"During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

So it would seem that Marsha Blackburn sides with the 1 in 17,352 peer reviewed research Papers that rejects AGW.

The results of the Mid Term Elections in 2014:

MarshaBlackburn_4.jpg

The vote reflects a consensus of only 70% of the Electorate wanted her to represent them in Congress. So why did she accept the position? Surely at only 70% votes 'The jury is still out on whether she has a mandate to represent the Electorate'

The scientific consensus on AGW is 99.99942% her vote is only 70.00%.

As quoted here so often about opinion polls in Thailand, "it depends on who was asked". Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

Don't you remember, a few years ago, the boat load of "environmentalists" who were sailing from Australia to the South Pole to check on the retreating (i.e. melting) ice sheets, due of course to "global warming" only to find themselves trapped in an advancing ice sheet. Then the ice-breaker sent to rescue them got stuck as the ice sheet kept advancing and got thicker. It took a second ice-breaker to eventually save them.

Climate change is possibly happening OK, but we have to adapt. Heck man lives in such climates as the Sahara and the North Pole. We are probably the most flexible species on the planet. But unless population growth is addressed then all the rest is simply pissing in the wind.

Powell 2015 is not an 'opinion poll'

The point in the post is she has the 'jury out' on AGW with research showing a 99.9+% scientific consensus yet she only received 70% of the vote when being Elected to Congress. Why did she accept the position when the 'consensus' was so far below 100%.

[RickBradford]

^

No. It is the people calling for radical action who have to prove there is a problem, not for people who argue for business as usual to prove there isn't.

In science, it's called the Null Hypothesis, and in life it's called common sense, a commodity in regrettably short supply

No, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that it exists. Now if people want to claim differently they have to prove that, same as when I were to claim the earth is flat I have to prove that, since it is generally accepted by the scientific field to be incorrect.

Well, the climate science community disagrees with you.

There is one climate researcher (Kevin Trenberth, of Climategate fame) who argues much as you do -- that the evidence for global warming is so overwhelming that we should abandon the scientific principle of the Null Hypothesis.

He's not getting very far.

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department. "His proposal to reverse the burden of proof in attribution studies is misguided."

Nor should it -- it's a circular argument. Trenberth states flatly that "the evidence is overwhelming", and then uses that to make a new rule which makes it easier to prove that "the evidence is overwhelming." It's actually worse than that -- Trenberth wants every weather event to be blamed on global warming unless somebody can prove it wasn't. And how are you supposed to do that?

Allen's takedown of Trenberth's suggestion is worth reading, if you have the time. It should be noted that Allen, a lead IPCC author, is himself a fervent believer in global warming -- he just doesn't think it necessary to overturn basic scientific principles in order to prove it.

[stevenl]

^

No. It is the people calling for radical action who have to prove there is a problem, not for people who argue for business as usual to prove there isn't.

In science, it's called the Null Hypothesis, and in life it's called common sense, a commodity in regrettably short supply

No, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that it exists. Now if people want to claim differently they have to prove that, same as when I were to claim the earth is flat I have to prove that, since it is generally accepted by the scientific field to be incorrect.

Well, the climate science community disagrees with you.

There is one climate researcher (Kevin Trenberth, of Climategate fame) who argues much as you do -- that the evidence for global warming is so overwhelming that we should abandon the scientific principle of the Null Hypothesis.

He's not getting very far.

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department. "His proposal to reverse the burden of proof in attribution studies is misguided."

Nor should it -- it's a circular argument. Trenberth states flatly that "the evidence is overwhelming", and then uses that to make a new rule which makes it easier to prove that "the evidence is overwhelming." It's actually worse than that -- Trenberth wants every weather event to be blamed on global warming unless somebody can prove it wasn't. And how are you supposed to do that?

Allen's takedown of Trenberth's suggestion is worth reading, if you have the time. It should be noted that Allen, a lead IPCC author, is himself a fervent believer in global warming -- he just doesn't think it necessary to overturn basic scientific principles in order to prove it.

Nothing in your post is in disagreement with my statement. The evidence is overwhelming, also Allen, by your quote a reliable source, agrees with that.

[RickBradford]

OK, I'll try to make it simpler.

Allen believes the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

He still believes it is his job to prove it, not skeptics' job to disprove it. And the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him about that.

Which is where we came in, about where the burden of proof lies, and the Null Hypothesis.

Edited September 25, 2015 by RickBradford

[eliotness]

Marsha Blackburn:

"the jury is still out on Global Warming"

The latest scientific research on the consensus of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is 99.9+%.

Powell 2015

Found that:

"During 2013 and 2014, based on my review only 4 among 69406 authors of peer-reviewed articles,0.0058% or 1 in 17352,rejected AGW"

So it would seem that Marsha Blackburn sides with the 1 in 17,352 peer reviewed research Papers that rejects AGW.

The results of the Mid Term Elections in 2014:

MarshaBlackburn_4.jpg

The vote reflects a consensus of only 70% of the Electorate wanted her to represent them in Congress. So why did she accept the position? Surely at only 70% votes 'The jury is still out on whether she has a mandate to represent the Electorate'

The scientific consensus on AGW is 99.99942% her vote is only 70.00%.

As quoted here so often about opinion polls in Thailand, "it depends on who was asked". Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

Don't you remember, a few years ago, the boat load of "environmentalists" who were sailing from Australia to the South Pole to check on the retreating (i.e. melting) ice sheets, due of course to "global warming" only to find themselves trapped in an advancing ice sheet. Then the ice-breaker sent to rescue them got stuck as the ice sheet kept advancing and got thicker. It took a second ice-breaker to eventually save them.

Climate change is possibly happening OK, but we have to adapt. Heck man lives in such climates as the Sahara and the North Pole. We are probably the most flexible species on the planet. But unless population growth is addressed then all the rest is simply pissing in the wind.

Powell 2015 is not an 'opinion poll'

The point in the post is she has the 'jury out' on AGW with research showing a 99.9+% scientific consensus yet she only received 70% of the vote when being Elected to Congress. Why did she accept the position when the 'consensus' was so far below 100%.

OK, sorry I misunderstood what Powell 2015 was about. However my reasoning still stands. Scientists write papers when they receive funding to do so. Scientists are human beings, they need an income to survive, so they are unlikely to go against the political motivation of their sponsors. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

[canuckamuck]

Is it really too much to ask for proof that the warming since the Mini Ice age is unprecedented or even unexpected

[stevenl]

OK, I'll try to make it simpler.

Allen believes the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

He still believes it is his job to prove it, not skeptics' job to disprove it. And the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him about that.

Which is where we came in, about where the burden of proof lies, and the Null Hypothesis.

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, global warming has been proven time and time again.

And please stop the flaming.

Edited September 25, 2015 by stevenl

[RickBradford]

OK, I'll try to make it simpler.

Allen believes the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

He still believes it is his job to prove it, not skeptics' job to disprove it. And the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him about that.

Which is where we came in, about where the burden of proof lies, and the Null Hypothesis.

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, global warming has been proven time and time again.

And please stop the flaming.

OK, well, if you've forgotten what the subject was (burden of proof), let's leave it there.

[up2u2]

Powell 2015 is not an 'opinion poll'

The point in the post is she has the 'jury out' on AGW with research showing a 99.9+% scientific consensus yet she only received 70% of the vote when being Elected to Congress. Why did she accept the position when the 'consensus' was so far below 100%.

OK, sorry I misunderstood what Powell 2015 was about. However my reasoning still stands. Scientists write papers when they receive funding to do so. Scientists are human beings, they need an income to survive, so they are unlikely to go against the political motivation of their sponsors. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

No problem on the 'Powell' misunderstanding eliot.

So all the peer reviewed science on AGW / CC is just fabricated throughout the world by scientists being paid by politically motivated sponsors to come up with those results. An interesting theory.

Just a thought, if Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn doesn't agree with the Science on GW / CC why doesn't she move to de-fund it if it is not achieving the outcomes she wants?

I think you have confused Climate Scientists with Meteorologists.

[jobwolf]

"she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming."

There you go. Mind's made up. No matter what the evidence. Nope, I'm not listening.

That is very dangerous. Nobody should be so damned adamant that they ignore evidence...on any topic, especially a topic that just might bring ruin to your grandchildren.

She is proving herself to be a real visionary. And a bought and paid for ***** for corporate America.

There is no need for this discussion, we all know how <deleted> up the American Political system is, it is run by Vote Buying and paid lobbyists. Just look at the obscene amounts of money used for selection of presidents. Where does the money come from???? Maybe Trump is sponsoring some idiots to become President himself.!!!! Think or shut up most of you.

[spidermike007]

"she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming."

There you go. Mind's made up. No matter what the evidence. Nope, I'm not listening.

That is very dangerous. Nobody should be so damned adamant that they ignore evidence...on any topic, especially a topic that just might bring ruin to your grandchildren.

She is proving herself to be a real visionary. And a bought and paid for ***** for corporate America.

There is no need for this discussion, we all know how <deleted> up the American Political system is, it is run by Vote Buying and paid lobbyists.

Just look at the obscene amounts of money used for selection of presidents. Where does the money come from???? Maybe Trump is sponsoring

some idiots to become President himself.!!!! Think or shut up most of you.

I have always said the American presidential campaign should be limited to 90 days and $10 million. Then we would see who the real men and women were!

[pitrevie]

^^^

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,"?

Former Congressman Paul Broun stated that evolution and the big bang theory were "lies straight from the pit of Hell." Broun, who is a qualified MD. was also a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee. Guess which party he represented?

[stevenl]

OK, I'll try to make it simpler.

Allen believes the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

He still believes it is his job to prove it, not skeptics' job to disprove it. And the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him about that.

Which is where we came in, about where the burden of proof lies, and the Null Hypothesis.

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, global warming has been proven time and time again.

And please stop the flaming.

OK, well, if you've forgotten what the subject was (burden of proof), let's leave it there.

Just disagree with your opinion and with your statements like 'the climate science community disagrees with you' you come up with to prove your statements.