Rand votes YES that global warming is real and mankind contributes to it

[TheGrinch]

It seems like Rand voted this way in order to get Bill Maher's vote, since Maher said that Rand could get his vote if he took climate change more seriously. I have to wonder though why Rand cares whether Bill Maher supports him or not since Maher won't be voting in the Republican primary.

Of course that is completely unsubstantiated, but if that theory were true, it wouldn't be for one vote, it would be for an endorsement from the media pundit to garner more independent votes.

Though again, it's taking quite a leap to think that Rand did this to impress Bill Maher. Far more likely he isn't going to waste his time falling into their trap here.

 

[jmdrake]

It seems like Rand voted this way in order to get Bill Maher's vote, since Maher said that Rand could get his vote if he took climate change more seriously. I have to wonder though why Rand cares whether Bill Maher supports him or not since Maher won't be voting in the Republican primary.

Interesting point. This doesn't just bother many of Ron's hardcore supporters but teocons as well. That said, I wouldn't not vote for Rand over this. But a teocon? Who knows?

 

[brandon]

2014 was arguably not the hottest year on record.

Right... check my post more closely. I specifically included the caveat that some groups say 2014 tied with 2010 as the hottest year on record. In any case I don't know how important that point is.

If you think the graph I posted is hiding some data I'm definitely open to hearing about it but I'm not going to try to decipher whatever point that video is trying to make.

 

[rg17]

He lost my vote. I'm either going to write in Ron Paul or vote third party now.

 

[jmdrake]

Right... check my post more closely. I specifically included the caveat that some groups say 2014 tied with 2010 as the hottest year on record. In any case I don't know how important that point is.

If you think the graph I posted is hiding some data I'm definitely open to hearing about it but I'm not going to try to decipher whatever point that video is trying to make.

Okay. Did you totally miss Climategate 1.0 and 2.0?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Edit: And as for 2014 being tied with 2010, that's what you would expect if climate change has been flat for the past 19 years....which is exactly what happened.

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011

Rubio - nay
Cruz - nay
Lee - nay

Article in the OP says the vote was 98-1 which is NOT what you just posted.

What is the disconnect?

 

[juleswin]

Can we just call it "the weather" again please? The political term "climate change" is inextricably loaded with authoritarianism.

That is a cop out, how about we continue to call it climate and still say it changes and will always change the way the climate of Greenland is not very green anymore, the middle east went from a greener climate to a more desert climate. I know global warming alarmist hate this but climate changes and will always change regardless of human activity.

My question is who is letting all these useless bills come up for voting? is this the best they can do? Btw the Rand has sided with the global warming alarmist when he agreed that CO2 is a pollutant on Bill Mayer show. The more he talks, the less I like him. What a shame he is selling out so much this early just to be taken seriously.

 

[Krugminator2]

I'm doubtful as to whether this vote will ultimately provide any political benefit, but it at least has the advantage of being an accurate reflection of reality.

There is no political benefit to this. It is certainly a principled vote and how I would vote. It is funny that people think there should be a strategy other than voting correctly. But I think it will hurt him. It shouldn't, as it will have no impact whatsoever on actual policy votes, but the average voter and some of the people in this thread are mildly retarded. They won't be able to make that distinction.

Issues like who causes global warming and even if it exists, abortion, gay marriage, pot legalization, etc are all issues that get people riled up. They are issues people vote on. They are also unimportant.

 

[brandon]

Okay. Did you totally miss Climategate 1.0 and 2.0?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Edit: And as for 2014 being tied with 2010, that's what you would expect if climate change has been flat for the past 19 years....which is exactly what happened.

If you have a specific point about the specific graph just come out and say it. I don't know how climategate applies to that graph.

Temperatures of individual years are less important than the overall trend. The trend line has mostly flatlined for many years... we're in agreement. 2014 has moved the moving average up a bit though so it lends some weight to the argument that the warming trend may be resuming.

I'm certainly not a member of the church of climatology.... but I'm not quite down with the deniers either. I think it's important to just try to look at things objectively and come to a rational opinion.

 

[philipped]

Wait.........Rand is supposed to win the nomination and the presidency in 2016 but climate change is NOT real and NOT caused by human action? o_0

 

[William Tell]

Article in the OP says the vote was 98-1 which is NOT what you just posted.

What is the disconnect?

Different votes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00010

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011

 

[HVACTech]

I see this as a no brainer for Rand.
boobus is inundated every day with climate change articles.
I get sick of them in the science section myself.

chose your battles wisely and go with the flow when it is unimportant.
besides, I can't help but think that Rand is getting coached by all the people we know.

 

[jjdoyle]

Right... check my post more closely. I specifically included the caveat that some groups say 2014 tied with 2010 as the hottest year on record. In any case I don't know how important that point is.

If you think the graph I posted is hiding some data I'm definitely open to hearing about it but I'm not going to try to decipher whatever point that video is trying to make.

I haven't researched it much, but I think the graph uses certain data for the first part of the line that is flat, and different data for the big jump in the line. I saw this on it when just doing a quick search that may explain what is wrong with the graph you posted:

The hockey stick was produced using tree ring data for temperature proxy up to recent times and then grafting on thermometer measurements. The tree ring data was flat for a thousand years in spite of known climate variations. The obvious reason is that temperature does not determine width of tree rings. Growth rate of plants is almost never temperature limited. Usually, it is either light limited or moisture limited. The famous decline after 1960 was probably due to increased overcast limiting light availability for photosynthesis. Physicist may not know this, but ignorance is no excuse for corruption of science.The unspeakable fraud of it is that the purpose was to detect a 0.6°Cglobal average temperature increase, as if they were using a laboratory instrument. With tree ring width? Four thousand thermometers have been shown to be inadequate for the purpose.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html ?

I think that might be it, but I'm not positive.

 

[mrsat_98]

Here is the amendment in its entirety:


I thought we all agreed that "climate change" was real. Is anybody arguing that it isn't?
Sure, I think it reasonable that human activity contributes to some degree. The amendment does not argue that humans are the primary cause.

Put me down as NOT agreeing with the warming lie..

may you hang but not in effigy.

 

[green73]

I see this as a no brainer for Rand.
boobus is inundated every day with climate change articles.
I get sick of them in the science section myself.

chose your battles wisely and go with the flow when it is unimportant.
besides, I can't help but think that Rand is getting coached by all the people we know.

This is just absolutely vile. This whole mentality needs to be rejected if we're ever to move forward.

 

[donnay]

Ron wouldn't have voted yes; but he didn't vote yes on much at all and we all love him for it. But Randal is playing it differently. And so is Amash for that matter; I personally would have probably taken the Amash approach to this one which would be to vote "present" if that is allowed in a voting situation like this one.

Is that like the delegate strategy?

 

[Origanalist]

It seems like Rand voted this way in order to get Bill Maher's vote, since Maher said that Rand could get his vote if he took climate change more seriously. I have to wonder though why Rand cares whether Bill Maher supports him or not since Maher won't be voting in the Republican primary.

Beat me to it. Fine, y'all think he's "just playing politics", how is he going to win the primary like this? He's already getting labels attached, this isn't going to help.

 

[dannno]

There is already a thread on this, technically the statement he signed is probably correct, the climate does change, the climate is getting warmer and there is even a strong chance that humans some how influence it even if it is completely insignificant.. However I think the upward trend is natural considering we are coming out of a mini-ice age that peaked in the 18th century and back in the 14th century the climate was even warmer than it is today with higher CO2 concentrations. I think that the CO2 concentrations go up as global temperature goes up and that the atmosphere regulates much of its own content, I don't think increases in CO2 concentrations from man or even necessarily volcanoes ultimately affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to a large extent.

So the climate isn't going to go on this exponential upward trend that will get completely out of control if we don't stop outputting CO2, I don't think CO2 in itself is toxic to the environment at all. I encourage environmentalists to look out after toxic output, and CO2 is just not toxic to the environment unless there was a giant carbon dioxide bubble from space that hit the earth.

 

[The Gold Standard]

If they give me my money back and leave me alone then they can vote however they want.

 

[TheGrinch]

This is just absolutely vile. This whole mentality needs to be rejected if we're ever to move forward.

Right because the whole hipster mentality of rejecting any and everything that isn't 100% pure, refusing to compromise at all with the people we need to persuade and work with, it has really gotten us over the hump

As uncompromising as Ron was, even he knows this that is not the only approach neded to achieve liberty. Someone has to make inroads in bringing people towards those goals, and work to actually get positive steps in the right direction, things that Ron's approach alone couldn't do.

So by all means, you do what you need to do for liberty, but don't tell Rand and all of us that we're doing it wrong, especially not when he's actually fought against legislation on the issue.

Call me when he stops fighting that fight, because there's absolutely no evidence he has.