Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“I won’t get into the debate about climate change," said Sen. Brandon Smith, a Hazard Republican. “But I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”
Later, a Democrat makes his own stupid comment, but at least his was just a matter of dumb opinion, not dismissing empirical, scientific fact.
Later, a Democrat makes his own stupid comment, but at least his was just a matter of dumb opinion, not dismissing empirical, scientific fact.
There is so much incompetence in leadership positions in this nation.
Beit behind the big Desk's of CEO's or behind the big desks of our political leaders.
Later, a Democrat makes his own stupid comment, but at least his was just a matter of dumb opinion, not dismissing empirical, scientific fact.
There is a real disconnect between the thread title stating this discussion is about "economics and fiscal policy" and your post is concerning stupid comments about global warming and the temperature of Mars.
There is a real disconnect between the thread title stating this discussion is about "economics and fiscal policy" and your post is concerning stupid comments about global warming and the temperature of Mars.
The AGW movement is ALL about the mocking of anyone who dares question their assertions and their agenda.
There is a real disconnect between the thread title stating this discussion is about "economics and fiscal policy" and your post is concerning stupid comments about global warming and the temperature of Mars.
It must be that the senator didn't realize that global warming is responsible for economics.
I think he meant to say that the temperature change on Mars is the same as it is here, and while it is difficult to measure (and hence no basis for saying the change is the same) there is a legitimate and factual point to be made about other planets in our system experiencing climatic warming concurrently with the Earth. One would actually expect that the 20th century saw system-wide warming, considering the increase in solar activity during that period.
Of course the sticky point is how much of the 20th century warming is accounted for by that effect, but it appears to be far more significant than the negligible effect assumed in the climate models. If you ask me that's one of the primary reasons why almost every single climate model failed to predict temperatures so far this century to any degree of accuracy; temperatures are now outside the 95% confidence interval of almost every climate model's prediction, so obviously the assumptions that were programmed into them are wrong. In science, if you have a theory you make testable predictions, and if you fail that test as the current global warming theory has, then the theory must be revised until it starts passing that test of reality. Climate science is supposed to be no exception, but politicians and many scientists are attempting to ignore the facts and say the theories are valid, reality and testable predictions be damned. "Climate faith" is thus more appropriate than "climate science".
There are a few in the climate field that are committed to the scientific method as opposed to the faith method, who are taking the facts into account, and are proposing new theories and revisions of existing theories in an attempt to more closely match and better predict reality; in an open society there is a strong tendency for good work to drive out bad work eventually.
Not that I'm defending him, mind you - his statement was at best inarticulate and at worst ignorant, but I wouldn't ridicule him for "denying climate science". Behind the misstatement there is a legitimate point to be made and discussed. However, I don't think a legislative hearing is an appropriate venue for doing and discussing science in any case.
Also, what does the temperature and climate change of Earth and Mars have to do with economics and fiscal policy? Just because someone has a wrong assumption or viewpoint on an assumption about the future doesn't necessarily mean he/she doesn't understand economics.
I think he meant to say that the temperature change on Mars is the same as it is here, and while it is difficult to measure (and hence no basis for saying the change is the same) there is a legitimate and factual point to be made about other planets in our system experiencing climatic warming concurrently with the Earth. One would actually expect that the 20th century saw system-wide warming, considering the increase in solar activity during that period.
Of course the sticky point is how much of the 20th century warming is accounted for by that effect, but it appears to be far more significant than the negligible effect assumed in the climate models. If you ask me that's one of the primary reasons why almost every single climate model failed to predict temperatures so far this century to any degree of accuracy; temperatures are now outside the 95% confidence interval of almost every climate model's prediction, so obviously the assumptions that were programmed into them are wrong. In science, if you have a theory you make testable predictions, and if you fail that test as the current global warming theory has, then the theory must be revised until it starts passing that test of reality. Climate science is supposed to be no exception, but politicians and many scientists are attempting to ignore the facts and say the theories are valid, reality and testable predictions be damned. "Climate faith" is thus more appropriate than "climate science".
There are a few in the climate field that are committed to the scientific method as opposed to the faith method, who are taking the facts into account, and are proposing new theories and revisions of existing theories in an attempt to more closely match and better predict reality; in an open society there is a strong tendency for good work to drive out bad work eventually.
Not that I'm defending him, mind you - his statement was at best inarticulate and at worst ignorant, but I wouldn't ridicule him for "denying climate science". Behind the misstatement there is a legitimate point to be made and discussed. However, I don't think a legislative hearing is an appropriate venue for doing and discussing science in any case.
Also, what does the temperature and climate change of Earth and Mars have to do with economics and fiscal policy? Just because someone has a wrong assumption or viewpoint on an assumption about the future doesn't necessarily mean he/she doesn't understand economics.
In other words, you too see this thread as a global warming thread, and not one about economics and fiscal policies.
I'm sure the OP will be along soon to tell us how this is about the economics and fiscal policies of Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
