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

Anti Federalist said:
I disagree with this.
If this is the case, and I do not think it is, then we might as well all go home now and not give ourselves the headaches and ulcers.
Click to expand...

You dont think the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki affected the climate in those cities and outlying areas? You don't think that paving and building cities affects the climates where that is done? Building dams, large irrigation projects, knocking down forests, removing mountain tops, etc? You think none of that affects the climate at all?

If you dont' think that human activity has any affect on the climate; then we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I understand your fear of the results of the govt trying to "solve" the problem; but that isn't what this amendment does.
 
specsaregood said:
You dont think the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki affected the climate in those cities and outlying areas? You don't think that paving and building cities affects the climates where that is done? Building dams, large irrigation projects, knocking down forests, removing mountain tops, etc? You think none of that affects the climate at all?

If you dont' think that human activity has any affect on the climate; then we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I understand your fear of the results of the govt trying to "solve" the problem; but that isn't what this amendment does.
Click to expand...

Sure, I change the climate if I light a campfire.

And that's the problem.

I know that is not what this amendment does, and keep in mind it failed, thankfully.

What it does, is put people on record, so as new regulations come down the pike you are held to at least having acknowledged that human activity causes, in part, climate change.

And it will follow that therefore, human activity...ALL human activity, must be strictly regulated and controlled.
 
specsaregood said:
So you don't actually agree with the amendment itself; you just disagree with acknowledging the facts publically?
Click to expand...

A cynical way of putting it, since I'm sure we can both see the difference between micro and macro changes, but, yes.

Ask yourself this:

Would Ron have voted yes?
 
Terrestrial Atmosphere

Surface pressure: 1014 mbSurface density: 1.217 kg/m[SUP]3
[/SUP]Scale height: 8.5 kmTotal mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10[SUP]18[/SUP] kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10[SUP]21[/SUP] kg
Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
Mean molecular weight: 28.97 g/mole

Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air):

Major :

78.08% Nitrogen (N[SUB]2[/SUB]),
20.95% Oxygen (O[SUB]2[/SUB]),

Minor (ppm):

Argon (Ar) - 9340;
Carbon Dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) - 400
Neon (Ne) - 18.18;
Helium (He) - 5.24;
CH[SUB]4[/SUB] - 1.7
Krypton (Kr) - 1.14;
Hydrogen (H[SUB]2[/SUB]) - 0.55

Numbers do not add up to exactly 100% due to roundoff and uncertainty

Water is highly variable, typically makes up about 1% (~10,000 ppm)
Click to expand...

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
 
Last edited:
Crashland said:
Technically, there isn't even a debate as to whether humans contribute to climate change. The debate is over the extent to which humans contribute to climate change. So this technically says nothing of significance, and it's not like there is any actual legislation that is being enforced because of it...
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on who's doing the debating. According to Lord Monckton (and according to the actual data) there has been no warming for nearly two decades.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

Now Stephan Molyneux takes the "People are really just debating the extent of climate change" view.

 
specsaregood said:
Still, can you point to the part in the text of the amendment you actually disagree with? TIA
Click to expand...

This part.

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and
each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at
the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

There hasn't been any warming in the past two decades. Certainly there is no consensus of that.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/
 
TheGrinch said:
Well, considering you were responding to my criteria :D

Every time you all kneejerk about stuff like this before putting it into proper context, you end up with egg on your face. Maybe for once you should wait and see if it changes Rand's statements and actions on the subject. I'm betting that as soon as you see legislation being pushed on the matter, that Rand will once again stand against more government control and spending.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old John Kerry approach, "I voted for the legislation before I voted against it."

Politics really just sucks! :p
 
jmdrake said:
This part.

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and
each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at
the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

There hasn't been any warming in the past two decades. Certainly there is no consensus of that.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll review that later. this part though I would definitely agree with "Certainly there is no consensus of that." since there is clearly some disagreement.
 
Ronin Truth said:
Ah, the old John Kerry approach, "I voted for the legislation before I voted against it."

Politics really just sucks! :p
Click to expand...

There is no legislation being introduced, just Congress patting themselves on the back for acting like they stand for even misguided ideals, while creating a trap for any opponent who may be foolish enough to fall into.

Just like with the NDAA vote (again, not the controversial one), he waited until the spending bills actually got introduced to go on attack.

And again, in the past he has gone on the attack with regard to climate change legislation hurting the coal industry and productivity, so let me know when that changes, because while you all whine about meaningless votes, he's out there actually doing something about the issue.

What is it that you're doing to fight against climate change legislation exactly?
 
wizardwatson said:
Exactly. It's like Rand Paul's political strategy is becoming a conspiracy theory. "I know from his votes, words, and choice of social circles it may seem like he's just another establishment shill, but read the documents! Search the internet! He's really on our side!"
Click to expand...
Nope, it's none of that. It's the secret decoder ring. Once I got mine in the mail, I was able to see just what a brilliant strategy Rand has going! It's simply amazing!!
 
Anti Federalist said:
A cynical way of putting it, since I'm sure we can both see the difference between micro and macro changes, but, yes.

Ask yourself this:
Would Ron have voted yes?
Click to expand...

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.
 
specsaregood said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I think even Rand supporters on this issue will happily admit that just voting present would have been best, but he's done a great job of positioning himself where he's tough to attack and can go more on the offensive than defensive, a luxury his father never had.
 
TheGrinch said:
Indeed, I think even Rand supporters on this issue will happily admit that just voting present would have been best, but he's done a great job of positioning himself where he's tough to attack and can go more on the offensive than defensive, a luxury his father never had.
Click to expand...

Assuming voting "present" is allowed on senate amendment additions; maybe Rep. Amash needs to go over there and remind Randal that its a valid option when you have conflicting thoughts about a bill.
 
jmdrake said:
This part.

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and
each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at
the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

There hasn't been any warming in the past two decades. Certainly there is no consensus of that.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/
Click to expand...
The way the amendment is worded is correct. Yes there has been a long pause in global warming, though 2014 was the hottest year on record (or at least tied for hottest depending on source). Anyway the amendment talks about "the last 3 decades" which would mean the 80's, 90's and 2000's. It's a true statement that the average temperature for each of those decades is greater than the last.

Fig.A2.gif
 
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.
 
brandon said:
The way the amendment is worded is correct. Yes there has been a long pause in global warming, though 2014 was the hottest year on record (or at least tied for hottest depending on source). Anyway the amendment talks about "the last 3 decades" which would mean the 80's, 90's and 2000's. It's a true statement that the average temperature for each of those decades is greater than the last.

Fig.A2.gif
Click to expand...

2014 was arguably not the hottest year on record.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/26/c...-say-2014-was-not-the-warmest-year-on-record/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...warmest-year-on-record-but-among-top-several/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01...f-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

Monckton-jan-2014-300x168.png


And as for your hockey stick graph, that only works if you use Mike's trick to hide the decline.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top