"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

[schuylaar]

I don't think Fox news won the right to libel, they just won the right to lie or rather to publish false or misleading stories even if they knew the stores are false. It was won in a Florida court, by the way. Thanks Florida.

Libel is hard to prove in court, however. The plaintiff has to prove there was an intent to defame, not just publish something that is not true.

Florida is home to the 'National Enquirer' and a few other rags..soooooo.

 

[Jaybodankly]

Belief in climate change is unnecessary. Look at the data and come to a rational conclusion.

 

[ttystikk]

Belief in climate change is unnecessary. Look at the data and come to a rational conclusion.

Lots of rich Republicans look at their stock portfolios and then make decisions about what they'll say.

'Financial rationalization'

 

[Fogdog]

Belief in climate change is unnecessary. Look at the data and come to a rational conclusion.

^This

Well said.

Climate deniers talk of belief as though there is only the religious kind or belief without proof. A person can be convinced that humans are causing climate change through rational review of information. Science based belief is based upon review of facts and logic. Something deniers have a hard time understanding.

 

[twostrokenut]

^This

Well said.

Climate deniers talk of belief as though there is only the religious kind or belief without proof. A person can be convinced that humans are causing climate change through rational review of information. Science based belief is based upon review of facts and logic. Something deniers have a hard time understanding.

The phrase "climate deniers" is a dubiously low tactic. As if anyone denies the climate changes. The issue is and always was lack of proof human caused co2 changes the climate for the worse and if so at what rate.

But yeah, climate denier for the elitist left.

 

[UncleBuck]

lack of proof human caused co2 changes the climate for the worse and if so at what rate.

oh, you dispute the fact that human activities, which have skyrocketed CO2 to levels not seen in 800,000+ years, are causing global warming at an alarming rate?

that makes you a climate denier.

were you aware it is 50 degrees above normal in the arctic right now?

 

[DrUgZrBaD]

"Politicians who don't believe in climate change should not hold public office, said actor Leonardo DiCaprio Monday at the White House before the screening of his new climate documentary.

"The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over," DiCaprio said at the White House's South By South Lawn event.

"If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office."

DiCaprio screened his film "Before the Flood," a documentary about climate change. Ahead of the screening, he spoke on a panel with President Obama.

Obama called for the development of new technologies to address climate change, but stressed changes in policy and attitudes wouldn't happen overnight.

"Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you," Obama said.

"The political system in every country is not well designed to do something tough now to solve a problem that people will really feel the impact of in the future."

In the film, DeCaprio travels to Greenland, the Pacific Islands, Sumatra and industrial regions of China to show the impacts of climate change.

DiCaprio, and the film's director, Fisher Stevens, hope to use it in the run-up to next month's presidential and Senate elections, according to The Guardian.

They plan to show it on college campuses and across swing states. It will be released via National Geographic later this month."


The Hill

I hope he used green energy travel!

And its funny how they never trash their country for global warming...........

I know he made a big deal in canada about it and the guys too stupid to know what a chinook is, and canada emits like 2% of the green house gases and all the forests their actually give them carbon credits.......

 

[ttystikk]

oh, you dispute the fact that human activities, which have skyrocketed CO2 to levels not seen in 800,000+ years, are causing global warming at an alarming rate?

that makes you a climate denier.

were you aware it is 50 degrees above normal in the arctic right now?

Fuck dude, it's 50 degrees warmer than normal HERE!

Today is the all time highest temperature ever recorded in Colorado in February.

 

[Fogdog]

The phrase "climate deniers" is a dubiously low tactic. As if anyone denies the climate changes. The issue is and always was lack of proof human caused co2 changes the climate for the worse and if so at what rate.

But yeah, climate denier for the elitist left.

Nope, there is no other way to describe one who deliberately lives in ignorance.

 

[ttystikk]

Nope, there is no other way to describe one who deliberately lives in ignorance.

I've posed the question many times to the anti climate change crowd and they won't even address it, let alone come up with a credible explanation;

With tens of thousands of ships, tens of thousands of trains, BILLIONS of cars and trucks, TeraWatts of fossil fuel driven electrical power production, all producing CO2; please show any credible evidence supporting how all that would NOT affect the climate?

Crickets, every time.

 

[Freddie Millergogo]

Belief in climate change is unnecessary. Look at the data and come to a rational conclusion.

What data? LOL! Phony fraudster Dr. Michael Mann and his hockey stick fraud?

Look up in the sky. It's called the sun. The output is variable which causes the global temps to vary. AGW is a money grab.

The climate change gang never talks about the sun which is the biggest f**king show in the solar system.

 

[UncleBuck]

What data? LOL! Phony fraudster Dr. Michael Mann and his hockey stick fraud?

Look up in the sky. It's called the sun. The output is variable which causes the global temps to vary. AGW is a money grab.

The climate change gang never talks about the sun which is the biggest f**king show in the solar system.

get tired of the milliardo account already, queef?

 

[ttystikk]

What data? LOL! Phony fraudster Dr. Michael Mann and his hockey stick fraud?

Look up in the sky. It's called the sun. The output is variable which causes the global temps to vary. AGW is a money grab.

The climate change gang never talks about the sun which is the biggest f**king show in the solar system.

Okay... So how is it that we can run billions of cars, TeraWatts of power generation, hundreds of thousands of ships, aircraft and trains and then turn around and expect all that CO2 NOT to have any effect on climate?

I'm just curious about your reasoning here.

 

[twostrokenut]

I've posed the question many times to the anti climate change crowd and they won't even address it, let alone come up with a credible explanation;

With tens of thousands of ships, tens of thousands of trains, BILLIONS of cars and trucks, TeraWatts of fossil fuel driven electrical power production, all producing CO2; please show any credible evidence supporting how all that would NOT affect the climate?

Crickets, every time.

No one says it doesn't effect the climate. The debate is weather its affecting temperature or having any negative effects at all. We know it's what plants crave and that when all the fossil fuels are exhausted atmospheric co2 wont come close to setting off a submarine alarm and we know your depictions of Florida being under the Atlantic in a few years are fringe lunacy.

Any rational person knows humans weren't measuring temps between this and the previous ice ages.

 

[twostrokenut]

Nope, there is no other way to describe one who deliberately lives in ignorance.

So you deny the artic was devoid of ice before modern industrial man existed? See that would be climate denial, a sort of religious approach rather than scientific.

 

[Fogdog]

So you deny the artic was devoid of ice before modern industrial man existed? See that would be climate denial, a sort of religious approach rather than scientific.

It takes religious belief without proof to deny industrial emissions-caused climate change.

A great history of climate science debate can be found here:
http://history.aip.org/climate/20ctrend.htm

At that link charts clearly show there is a rapid rise in global temperature beginning in the late 1800's.

Do you think this is happenstance? I could show you data that correlates the rise with CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. Physical models absolutely confirm that the temperature rate rise can be explained by CO2 emissions. Denial requires dismissing this science without an alternative explanation. Denial is not even psedoscience. Simply put science denial is a religious act.

Let's go back ten thousand years and have a look at what is happening today:

http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm#longterm

Yes, the earth was warmer 10,000 years ago. So what?

The rate in temperature rise is unprecedented in any geologic time for this planet. Do you think this is happenstance? The rapid rise in temperature is so fast that plants and animals can't adapt and die-offs are already occurring

 

[SneekyNinja]

So you deny the artic was devoid of ice before modern industrial man existed? See that would be climate denial, a sort of religious approach rather than scientific.

Antarctica was devoid of ice once, but the earths axis has changed several times so it wasn't always "pointing away" from the sun like it is now.

This is a global trend we're experiencing, not localised.

 

[visajoe1]

Fuck dude, it's 50 degrees warmer than normal HERE!

Today is the all time highest temperature ever recorded in Colorado in February.

I like ya ttystikk, but highest recorded in last 150 yrs vs the nearly 4b years we dont have daily records for? Are you really sure its the highest ever? We know there was worse periods when life thrived. cmon guys.

my .02 cents on taking sides, is I dont have one. I'm on earths side. No matter what the case is, she will win. We can bicker till the sun goes out tho

 

[visajoe1]

It takes religious belief without proof to deny industrial emissions-caused climate change.

A great history of climate science debate can be found here:
http://history.aip.org/climate/20ctrend.htm

At that link charts clearly show there is a rapid rise in global temperature beginning in the late 1800's.

Do you think this is happenstance? I could show you data that correlates the rise with CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. Physical models absolutely confirm that the temperature rate rise can be explained by CO2 emissions. Denial requires dismissing this science without an alternative explanation. Denial is not even psedoscience. Simply put science denial is a religious act.

Let's go back ten thousand years and have a look at what is happening today:

http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm#longterm

Yes, the earth was warmer 10,000 years ago. So what?

The rate in temperature rise is unprecedented in any geologic time for this planet. Do you think this is happenstance? The rapid rise in temperature is so fast that plants and animals can't adapt and die-offs are already occurring

So, based on your 10k year timeline, you can conclude for an undeniable fact, that there has never been a period of time in earths 4b year life temps swung like last 200 years? How much would you wager?

 

[visajoe1]

I've posed the question many times to the anti climate change crowd and they won't even address it, let alone come up with a credible explanation;

With tens of thousands of ships, tens of thousands of trains, BILLIONS of cars and trucks, TeraWatts of fossil fuel driven electrical power production, all producing CO2; please show any credible evidence supporting how all that would NOT affect the climate?

Crickets, every time.

Here is your answer: the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Atmospheric co2 was roughly 2000-4000ppm, and it was wild time to be an animal. Good thing we werent around for that