Republican Congressman Says God Will 'Take Care Of' Climate Change

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

You know most American citizens?  Pretty impressive.  

Actually the number is approximately 42%, which is obviously not a majority...but still 42% too high and unacceptable for the USA.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

[Thakkar]

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html

Donald Trump's Triumph of Stupidity

 

But Donald Trump remained unconvinced. No matter how trenchant the argument presented by the increasingly frustrated group of world leaders, none of them had an effect. "For me," the U.S. president said, "it's easier to stay in than step out." But environmental constraints were costing the American economy jobs, he said. And that was the only thing that mattered. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

 

At that point, it was clear to the rest of those seated around the table that they had lost him. Resigned, Macron admitted defeat. "Now China leads," he said.

 

Still, it is likely that none of the G-7 heads of state and government expected the primitive brutality Trump would stoop to when announcing his withdrawal from the international community. Surrounded by sycophants in the Rose Garden at the White House, he didn't just proclaim his withdrawal from the climate agreement, he sowed the seeds of international conflict. His speech was a break from centuries of Enlightenment and rationality. The president presented his political statement as a nationalist manifesto of the most imbecilic variety.

[VincentRJ]

On 6/4/2017 at 3:50 PM, steven100 said:

I believe Climate change is a natural phenomenon and occurrence.

The world has fires,  earthquakes, floods and tsunamis everywhere .. anytime.

I don't believe humans cause global warming ... 

The world has been here for millions of years and natural disasters occur.

Our polluted omissions going into the atmosphere are like a pin head .....

 

And i believe I am correct on this.

At least part of your claims are incontrovertible and undeniable. There's no doubt that climate is always changing and always has done throughout the history of the planet.

 

Many civilizations in the past have collapsed due to a change in climate that the people were not able to adapt to.
In recent centuries there have been warm periods that were at least as warm as today, and possibly warmer, such as the Roman Warm Period, from around 250 BC to AD 400, and the Medieval Warm Period, from around A.D. 900–1300. Those were times when civilizations flourished. The Vikings grew crops and raised cattle in Greenland and crops of wine-producing grapes flourished in the U.K. Such warming was not produced by human emissions of CO2.

 

The argument for the case that our current warming is caused by CO2 emissions is based upon an assumption that we fully understand the causes of all the past warming events and that such causes do not apply to today's warming, therefore the cause must be due to increases in CO2 levels because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

If anyone wishes to do their homework on this issue, it should be apparent that we don't fully understand the causes of past changes in climate, just as we don't fully understand the causes and cures for all diseases.
One example from the geological record examining air bubbles trapped in ice cores, is the observation (or calculation) that rises in CO2 levels always seem to follow rises in temperatures by approximately 800 years; sometimes more and sometimes less but rarely less that 200 years, and falls in temperature also precede falls in CO2 to an even greater extent..

 

The conclusion is that the initial cause of the many warming phases in the past were not caused by CO2 rises, but resulted in CO2 rises, probably due to a warming of the oceans which releases CO2. Of course, this does not mean that CO2 did not amplify the warming. This is always possible but it's very difficult to calculate the degree of amplification.

 

The issues are so complicated, with elements of chaos, it's impossible to be certain about the role of CO2 in any change of climate.
The following article addresses the issue.
http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

 

Unfortunately, the burning of fossil fuels in the cheapest manner, without modern and expensive emission controls, which China and India have done, produces real pollution which harms peoples' health, and is not trivial like a pin head.

 

The confusion lies in the failure to make a distinction between the real pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, particles of carbon in the air causing smog, and that clean and odourless gas called CO2 which is essential for all life and which helps green our planet and increase crop production.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

At least part of your claims are incontrovertible and undeniable. There's no doubt that climate is always changing and always has done throughout the history of the planet.

 

Many civilizations in the past have collapsed due to a change in climate that the people were not able to adapt to.
In recent centuries there have been warm periods that were at least as warm as today, and possibly warmer, such as the Roman Warm Period, from around 250 BC to AD 400, and the Medieval Warm Period, from around A.D. 900–1300. Those were times when civilizations flourished. The Vikings grew crops and raised cattle in Greenland and crops of wine-producing grapes flourished in the U.K. Such warming was not produced by human emissions of CO2.

 

The argument for the case that our current warming is caused by CO2 emissions is based upon an assumption that we fully understand the causes of all the past warming events and that such causes do not apply to today's warming, therefore the cause must be due to increases in CO2 levels because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

If anyone wishes to do their homework on this issue, it should be apparent that we don't fully understand the causes of past changes in climate, just as we don't fully understand the causes and cures for all diseases.
One example from the geological record examining air bubbles trapped in ice cores, is the observation (or calculation) that rises in CO2 levels always seem to follow rises in temperatures by approximately 800 years; sometimes more and sometimes less but rarely less that 200 years, and falls in temperature also precede falls in CO2 to an even greater extent..

 

The conclusion is that the initial cause of the many warming phases in the past were not caused by CO2 rises, but resulted in CO2 rises, probably due to a warming of the oceans which releases CO2. Of course, this does not mean that CO2 did not amplify the warming. This is always possible but it's very difficult to calculate the degree of amplification.

 

The issues are so complicated, with elements of chaos, it's impossible to be certain about the role of CO2 in any change of climate.
The following article addresses the issue.
http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

 

Unfortunately, the burning of fossil fuels in the cheapest manner, without modern and expensive emission controls, which China and India have done, produces real pollution which harms peoples' health, and is not trivial like a pin head.

 

The confusion lies in the failure to make a distinction between the real pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, particles of carbon in the air causing smog, and that clean and odourless gas called CO2 which is essential for all life and which helps green our planet and increase crop production.

Except that like other inputs, increased CO2 isn't enough by itself to boost plant production. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

And can make food crops less nutritious

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

<snip>

 

The confusion lies in the failure to make a distinction between the real pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, particles of carbon in the air causing smog, and that clean and odourless gas called CO2 which is essential for all life and which helps green our planet and increase crop production.

 

Saying CO2 has desirable qualities so we could do with more of it is like saying water is desirable so we should have more floods.

 

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Saying CO2 has desirable qualities so we could do with more of it is like saying water is desirable so we should have more floods.

 

Or that rising sea levels are a good thing.

[Srikcir]

On 6/4/2017 at 0:50 PM, steven100 said:

Our polluted omissions going into the atmosphere are like a pin head

No, not like a "pin head."

Two examples:

• Human-produced chlorofluorocarbons and halons caused a huge hole in the ozone layer in the stratosphere above Antarctica. This significantly increased entry of UV rays that can causi  ncreased risk for developing of several types of skin cancers and eye damage. Since its discovery for the last 30 years the World worked together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals and evidence shows that by 2050 it should be closed permanently.
• Human air pollution from burning of fossil fuels emitting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides was the major cause of destructive acid rain in the 1980's on land, in water bodies and in the human respiratory system. Reduction of fossil fuel burning and technology development in efficient fuel burning and pollution control can significantly lower the effects of acid rain.

To ignore mankind's impact on the meteorological and chemical balance within the whole world is a pin head behavior. Thus far, of the 193 nations there is only one pin head leader.

 

 

[EvenSteven]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

At least part of your claims are incontrovertible and undeniable. There's no doubt that climate is always changing and always has done throughout the history of the planet.

 

Many civilizations in the past have collapsed due to a change in climate that the people were not able to adapt to.
In recent centuries there have been warm periods that were at least as warm as today, and possibly warmer, such as the Roman Warm Period, from around 250 BC to AD 400, and the Medieval Warm Period, from around A.D. 900–1300. Those were times when civilizations flourished. The Vikings grew crops and raised cattle in Greenland and crops of wine-producing grapes flourished in the U.K. Such warming was not produced by human emissions of CO2.

 

The argument for the case that our current warming is caused by CO2 emissions is based upon an assumption that we fully understand the causes of all the past warming events and that such causes do not apply to today's warming, therefore the cause must be due to increases in CO2 levels because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

If anyone wishes to do their homework on this issue, it should be apparent that we don't fully understand the causes of past changes in climate, just as we don't fully understand the causes and cures for all diseases.
One example from the geological record examining air bubbles trapped in ice cores, is the observation (or calculation) that rises in CO2 levels always seem to follow rises in temperatures by approximately 800 years; sometimes more and sometimes less but rarely less that 200 years, and falls in temperature also precede falls in CO2 to an even greater extent..

 

The conclusion is that the initial cause of the many warming phases in the past were not caused by CO2 rises, but resulted in CO2 rises, probably due to a warming of the oceans which releases CO2. Of course, this does not mean that CO2 did not amplify the warming. This is always possible but it's very difficult to calculate the degree of amplification.

 

The issues are so complicated, with elements of chaos, it's impossible to be certain about the role of CO2 in any change of climate.
The following article addresses the issue.
http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

 

Unfortunately, the burning of fossil fuels in the cheapest manner, without modern and expensive emission controls, which China and India have done, produces real pollution which harms peoples' health, and is not trivial like a pin head.

 

The confusion lies in the failure to make a distinction between the real pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, particles of carbon in the air causing smog, and that clean and odourless gas called CO2 which is essential for all life and which helps green our planet and increase crop production.

Junk science and nonsense.  Your source, Dr. Pierre Latour, is a GHGW denier who tries to appeal to the masses with credentials, a little math and logical fallacies.  His main argument is that temperature increases carbon dioxide levels.  That is equivalent to saying that lung cancer causes people to smoke.  The evidence in the scientific community, which he is not part of, is clear:  there is a strong link between man made carbon dioxide production and climate.

[vaultdweller0013]

On 6/2/2017 at 7:37 AM, lovelomsak said:

You know what really gets me. Countries like China,Thailand etc still use coal a lot and nothing is said or done to address it.They care less about climate change just get trade and commerce and money. But if America says ok we will use coal too, then oh cannot have to consider the climate.. So China and Thailand be the exclusive users of coal without regard to climate change but America is restricted from using it.So what is being said is we tie up the hands of America so others can take advantage. Trump is calling this and bringing it to an end. Political correctness be damned get back to competing on a level field and if the climate is affected wait for China or Thailand or some other country to lead the way to stop it.Until they stop climate change will happen only America will suffer with job loss and trade loss until then unless they scrap all this effort to be stop climate change. Let the real polluters step forward and stop it or join them and send the earth to its last throes quicker but america will not be in poverty waiting for it as observers but as proactive participants.

 Coal is an example but if Asian polluters keep polluting it will come to America anyways by sea,air etc. So why allow them to pollute and end it well we suffer.Push back.till they address it.

Coal has seen reduced usage in the US because of an excess of natural gas from the fracking boom which has caused it to become a viable replacement for coal at little increased cost. Coal is extremely dirty from a general pollution point of view so given the opportunity to replace it with cleaner (although still Canton emittting Natural Gas) at little increased cost, many places have chosen to do this.

 

The current increases in coal production are almost 100% for coal used in steel making. This requires a special type of coal only found in a few places. One is the Appalachians in the US. Another is Australia. There have been major supply chain disruptions in Australia and higher than expected demand for steel in China that have caused a 300% increase in the price of this type of coal. This is why there are mines opening in the US.

 

But that's OK, this is clearly an issue of political correctness gone amok. It has nothing to do with basic supply and demand.

[EvenSteven]

On 6/1/2017 at 8:37 PM, lovelomsak said:

You know what really gets me. Countries like China,Thailand etc still use coal a lot and nothing is said or done to address it.

An opinionated ignoramus on a tirade of nonsense.  What do you know about the Paris climate accord beyond the nonsense and rhetoric you hear and repeat and US production of carbon dioxide either in terms of overall tonnage or pp. over the last half century?

Edited June 5, 2017 by EvenSteven

[jpinx]

Much as it annoys many people, Global warming is far from having been proven.  The current"warming" phase is but a small period of the life of the planet during which the planet has warmed and cooled extensively.  It seems to matter much more now that humanity is likely to suffer.   The comparatively small changes to the climate goes through due to human activity are nothing compared to Earth's own volcanic and other activities.  Humanity has a vastly inflated sense of it's own importance, and of it's own effects.  Dragging your god into the equation is just a sop for the conscience of the people who *could* do a lot of good in the world, but choose not to.

Edited June 5, 2017 by jpinx

[jerojero]

Much as it annoys many people, Global warming is far from having been proven.  The current"warming" phase is but a small period of the life of the planet during which the planet has warmed and cooled extensively.  It seems to matter much more now that humanity is likely to suffer.   The comparatively small changes to the climate goes through due to human activity are nothing compared to Earth's own volcanic and other activities.  Humanity has a vastly inflated sense of it's own importance, and of it's own effects.  Dragging your god into the equation is just a sop for the conscience of the people who *could* do a lot of good in the world, but choose not to.

Yes, of course! A hundred scientists and scientific institutions are absolutely wrong (according to your expert opinion). And God has nothing to do with the past or present science of the Earth. Carbon emissions from human activities of the past 100 years had been massive compared to the previous 10,000. Wake up to the facts.

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

Coal has seen reduced usage in the US because of an excess of natural gas from the fracking boom which has caused it to become a viable replacement for coal at little increased cost. Coal is extremely dirty from a general pollution point of view so given the opportunity to replace it with cleaner (although still Canton emittting Natural Gas) at little increased cost, many places have chosen to do this.

 

The current increases in coal production are almost 100% for coal used in steel making. This requires a special type of coal only found in a few places. One is the Appalachians in the US. Another is Australia. There have been major supply chain disruptions in Australia and higher than expected demand for steel in China that have caused a 300% increase in the price of this type of coal. This is why there are mines opening in the US.

 

But that's OK, this is clearly an issue of political correctness gone amok. It has nothing to do with basic supply and demand.

Actually, natural gas is cheaper than coal in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States

 

[Srikcir]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, natural gas is cheaper than coal in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States

 

See also http://time.com/4570070/donald-trump-coal-jobs/

Total coal production in U.S. mines declined to about 900 millions last year, only three-quarters of production in 2008. Approximately 50,000 coal-related jobs have been lost between 2008 and 2012. Even if coal production increased, those jobs would not return.

While China is the world's largest coal consumer, it has 21 nuclear power reactors under construction. This is being driven in part from the economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP, energy shortages and energy independence. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx

The long-term result will be a reduction in foreign coal purchases - bad for US coal jobs.

[Ramen087]

23 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Actually the number is approximately 42%, which is obviously not a majority...but still 42% too high and unacceptable for the USA.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Polls proved their worthiness during the 2016 US Presidential campaign. In other words, they're not an accurate reflection of the opinions of the entire USA. 

[iReason]

4 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

In other words, they're not an accurate reflection of the opinions of the entire USA. 

 

Either are yours. 

[ilostmypassword]

35 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Polls proved their worthiness during the 2016 US Presidential campaign. In other words, they're not an accurate reflection of the opinions of the entire USA. 

On average the polls predicted Clinton would have a 3 percent edge over Trump in the popular vote. They were massively wrong. She ended up with a 2 percent edge.

[PattayaJames]

I am Atheist, so don't believe in God.

But I think the planet will take care of climate change.

So essentially the same view. 

[DM07]

If I came to you and told you, that I am 100% firmly believe in the tooth- fairy, in unicorns and in Santa Claus and you would know that I am 50 years old, you might justifiably use a taser on me, but you also might not let me get a drivers license or vote!

But in the great US of A, you can hold such firm believes and become a congressman!

Even better: you HAVE to hold such believes, to be voted into any office!

 

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

I am Atheist, so don't believe in God.

But I think the planet will take care of climate change.

So essentially the same view. 

You're not an atheist. You believe that the planet is god.

[PattayaJames]

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You're not an atheist. You believe that the planet is god.

I do not think the planet is god.

I think it is a self balancing ecosystem, it does not need micromanaging, and to try to do so is as futile as our ancestors performing rain dances.

It's been much hotter much colder, and will be again.  

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

I do not think the planet is god.

I think it is a self balancing ecosystem, it does not need micromanaging, and to try to do so is as futile as our ancestors performing rain dances.

It's been much hotter much colder, and will be again.  

Tell that to the people who stopped hydrofluorocarbons from opening up a huge hole in the ozone. Or the people who stopped coal fired power plants from creating acid rain. I guess they should have waited for the planet to correct itself, too. Even if that correction would mean turning animal life on Australia into a potato chips.

Edited June 6, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Thakkar]

5 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

I do not think the planet is god.

I think it is a self balancing ecosystem, it does not need micromanaging, and to try to do so is as futile as our ancestors performing rain dances.

It's been much hotter much colder, and will be again.  

 

In a way, you are right. If we keep pumping unsustainable leveled of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the planet will self correct by making itself unlivable for humans, thus eliminating the parasite that we've become. Then the planet will recover to a new equilibrium, but possibly without us, along with some collateral damage to other species.

[Rhys]

Was this the same politician that said rape was a blessing?

[transam]

If there was a God the dinosaurs would still reign...They were here for zillions of years compared to the human evolution of just thousands....

[jpinx]

30 minutes ago, transam said:

If there was a God the dinosaurs would still reign...They were here for zillions of years compared to the human evolution of just thousands....

.....indeed .. but what would they be driving ? 

[Traveler19491]

1 hour ago, PattayaJames said:

I am Atheist, so don't believe in God.

But I think the planet will take care of climate change.

So essentially the same view. 

As Thakkar noted, the planet will most definitely take care of climate change. That is a given. The planet will continue long after humans have ceased to reside here. The question is not whether the problem will be resolved. It will. The question is, how long will humans continue to remain? We are fouling our home in such a way that, if we do not cease, this little blue-green marble will no longer serve as a host. It will turn on us. It will destroy us. Then it will go on about its existence...without us. New species will arise and we will not even be a memory. Man can live without money, which is the only concern of the anti-climate change crowd. Man can live only minutes without breathable air, only days without drinkable water. If we keep going as we are, we will find out just exactly how long.

[transam]

6 minutes ago, jpinx said:

.....indeed .. but what would they be driving ? 

Small dinosaurs nuts....

[jpinx]

It's no surprise to see so the reaction of a deeply god-centric society who only read what they are fed by their masters.  They neglect to point out that the decline into the relatively recent ice-ages happened during the times of man, but didn't require his help

Edited June 6, 2017 by jpinx