GOP Senate candidates among global warming's biggest skeptics

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd like to know how you come up with "ALL" ? There are so many varying hypothesis and opinions and alot is swayed by politics. To catagorically state " ALL" bodies of scientists are in agreement over this is erronious. I don't need to come up with a list. Where is your list of ALL?

Because there are NONE who study climate that are in direct conflict with the consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. The science is solid on that. But please feel free to find one which states to the contrary.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

This is all moot anyway. It seems that if a politician doubts the fairytale of man made global warming it either gets him elected or has no effect on the outcome. There will be no cap and tax. There will be no regulation of CO2. So you can whine all you want and it will do no good.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

fairytale of man made global warming

Spoken like a true political hack, science denialist.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Spoken like a true political hack, science denialist.

Spoken like a true climate alarmists.

[Danno 1,228]

What might have been interesting in this story was to compare the percentage of Representatives who believe Man Made Global warming will doom us

against The People on average.

I get more concerned when a governing body is way out of balance with the views of those they are representing.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Danno

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Spoken like a true climate alarmists.

Yes. It's a conspiracy! Run for your lives! The nerdy scientists are coming to take away your V8 muscle cars and lawnmowers! Run I say! Run!

[tmma 467]

Hi Lisa's Sock Puppet

I see you don't save the douchery for only the EP site.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yes. It's a conspiracy! Run for your lives! The nerdy scientists are coming to take away your V8 muscle cars and lawnmowers! Run I say! Run!

Nope, because the alarmists have lost. Cry all you want but the majority of people don't believe your sky is falling doomsday hysteria.

[tmma 467]

Because there are NONE who study climate that are in direct conflict with the consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. The science is solid on that. But please feel free to find one which states to the contrary.

I believe in my community of scientists that the GENERAL consensus is more accuratly ' the burning of fossil fuels along with natural phenomenon ( volcanic activity, natural decay....etc) is contributing to warming our planet.

I will state again going back to your original statement I don't agree that " ALL climate scientists are in agreement..."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I see no one can up with one body of science that studies climate which dissents from the worldwide consensus among bodies of science that the burning of fossil fuel is warming the planet. If this were only the end to the fictitious debate.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I believe in my community of scientists that the GENERAL consensus is more accuratly ' the burning of fossil fuels along with natural phenomenon ( volcanic activity, natural decay....etc) is contributing to warming our planet.

I will state again going back to your original statement I don't agree that " ALL climate scientists are in agreement..."

The scientific data is conclusive. There is no doubt as to what is propelling our climate change. CO2 emissions over the last century, in particular, over the last few decades has skyrocketed and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere coincide with that. The climate scientists have looked into all possible contributors to climate change and CO2 emissions is by far the most profound. Of course there are natural warming contributors to the carbon cycle, but they've been in existence for millions of years, while CO2 emissions is a recent contributor. This is about throwing the carbon cycle out of balance.

Again, where are the bodies of science who say anything to the contrary?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nope, because the alarmists have lost. Cry all you want but the majority of people don't believe your sky is falling doomsday hysteria.

Thankfully, sparky, science isn't dependent on popularity, but on facts. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't mean the sun has disappeared.

Edited October 29, 2010 by El Buscador

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Thankfully, sparky, science isn't dependent on popularity, but on facts. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't mean the sun has disappeared.

Boo hoo, whine and cry. To bad it will get you nothing. The alarmists have lost.

The scientific data is conclusive. There is no doubt as to what is propelling our climate change. CO2 emissions over the last century, in particular, over the last few decades has skyrocketed and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere coincide with that. The climate scientists have looked into all possible contributors to climate change and CO2 emissions is by far the most profound. Of course there are natural warming contributors to the carbon cycle, but they've been in existence for millions of years, while CO2 emissions is a recent contributor. This is about throwing the carbon cycle out of balance.

Again, where are the bodies of science who say anything to the contrary?

Your absolutes are really funny. There is doubt, nothing is conclusive. They can't even decide if it is getting warmer or colder. Hense the climate change mantra rather than global warming.

[tmma 467]

The scientific data is conclusive. There is no doubt as to what is propelling our climate change. CO2 emissions over the last century, in particular, over the last few decades has skyrocketed and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere coincide with that. The climate scientists have looked into all possible contributors to climate change and CO2 emissions is by far the most profound. Of course there are natural warming contributors to the carbon cycle, but they've been in existence for millions of years, while CO2 emissions is a recent contributor. This is about throwing the carbon cycle out of balance.

Again, where are the bodies of science who say anything to the contrary?

I just don't get how you can be so absolute in your statements about a scientific topic that is largely still under intense research and debate.

You were the one that brought bodies of science into it and stated that ALL bodies were in agreement- I am stating that ALL bodies are not in agreement on this subject, not in the absolute sense you are seemingly understanding.

Edited October 29, 2010 by tmma

[The_Dude 1,142]

I see you don't save the douchery for only the EP site.

It was a joke, but I see you still don't have a sense of humor.