U.S. Senate: "Climate change is real and not a hoax."

Sorry--meant to add:

4/10

Yes, it's politics, but still well played by Obama and the Dems.

Climate change is real. Even an infant can figure that out. Man made climate change is not real.

This could actually be good for Rand Paul, assuming that the voters aren't as ignorant as the climate change naysayers in the party. By voting that there is a human component to what is causing the problem, he seems more reasonable than most/all of the other GOP contenders.

Loot wrote:

Man made climate change is not real.

Some Republican sectors apparently disagree with you.

"Senators", not "sectors". Sorry.

Loot wrote:

Climate change is real. Even an infant can figure that out. Man made climate change is not real.

What do you attribute the elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to then, if not human industry?

open-minded wrote:

Loot wrote:

Climate change is real. Even an infant can figure that out. Man made climate change is not real.

What do you attribute the elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to then, if not human industry?

Seriously? Did you know that humans exhale CO2 by the ton? Did you seriously not know that?

Polly P wrote:

open-minded wrote:

What do you attribute the elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to then, if not human industry?

Seriously? Did you know that humans exhale CO2 by the ton? Did you seriously not know that?

...Which is a part of the carbon cycle.

Burning fossil fuel breaks the cycle.

Why do people continue to post/say/recite in any manner the same tired nonsense? Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. The quantity that it releases can be estimated fairly accurately. The rate at which it causes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to raise can be estimated. The effect of that (small percentage) increase on global average temperatures can be estimated. Back of the envelope calculations would show you that this predicts a noticeable effect of human industry on global average temperature. These are not things that are particularly in doubt. The details of the effects short and long term are more debatable but a rise in global temperature is very likely. Is it possible that there is some other variable that we haven't accounted for in these models but you should consider global temperature increase to be the obvious consequence of industry.

Now please never post/say/recite another moronic word until you have got this basic truism into your head.

Do yourself a favor and compare the amount of CO2 exhaled by all of the animals - not just humans - of the Earth with the amount produced by a relatively small number of fossil fuel burners. Then come back here and apologize, libtard.

Are these the same people that helped push the Affordable Care Act through? The ACA that allowed the insurance industry to become even more deeply entrenched as a third party payment agent (by intentionally increasing demand for care across the board...and in turn make even more profit than ever...despite being the "problem" during Obama's campaign)? The ACA that predominantly left the status quo fee-for-service health care business model in place?

Yes indeed, these are the folks I want to listen to. They KNOW how to fix problems. LOL

tube top mania wrote:

Are these the same people that helped push the Affordable Care Act through? The ACA that allowed the insurance industry to become even more deeply entrenched as a third party payment agent (by intentionally increasing demand for care across the board...and in turn make even more profit than ever...despite being the "problem" during Obama's campaign)? The ACA that predominantly left the status quo fee-for-service health care business model in place?

Yes indeed, these are the folks I want to listen to. They KNOW how to fix problems. LOL

Actually quite a few of the senators (i.e. Republicans) voted against the ACA.

stewy wrote:

This could actually be good for Rand Paul, assuming that the voters aren't as ignorant as the climate change naysayers in the party. By voting that there is a human component to what is causing the problem, he seems more reasonable than most/all of the other GOP contenders.

This is an interesting gamble by Paul. I think he's trying to find ways to separate him from the crowd. Unfortunately for him and his supporters, his other views will likely prevent him from earning the big chair.

Each year that the Earth fails to warm and the Antarctic ice grows to its largest mass ever, you Global Warming Dupes look sillier and sillier. Why are the Global Warming "scientists" continuing to have to manipulate the data? Because it doesn't jive with their hoax!

Penelope Pistorps wrote:

Each year that the Earth fails to warm and the Antarctic ice grows to its largest mass ever, you Global Warming Dupes look sillier and sillier. Why are the Global Warming "scientists" continuing to have to manipulate the data? Because it doesn't jive with their hoax!

So you believe the Republican senators are part of this conspiracy?

Penelope Pistorps wrote:

Why are the Global Warming "scientists" continuing to have to manipulate the data? Because it doesn't jive with their hoax!

Ignoring all other considerations: the word you're after here is jibe.

I'm getting really tired of seeing this mistake lately.

And yes, it does predispose someone to consider the rest of what you have to say as similarly ignorant.

Hurdy gurdy man wrote:

Yes, it's politics, but still well played by Obama and the Dems.

Agree that the Dems got the Repubs to cry uncle on this one. But they could get burned on the potential filibuster changes.