Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax
sciencehabit writes The U.S. Senate's simmering debate over climate science has come to a full boil today, as lawmakers prepare to vote on measures offered by Democrats that affirm that climate change is real—with one also noting that global warming is not "a hoax." In an effort to highlight their differences with some Republicans on climate policy, several Democrats have filed largely symbolic amendments to a bill that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. They are designed to put senators on the record on whether climate change is real and human-caused.
More proof that this debate is political and not scientific.
Passing a law that says it is real is like voting on the sex of a chicken. No matter the outcome of the vote, only testing can provide the answer.
How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.
I wish the vote were worded "Is the denial of climate change a hoax?"
This is the type of thing you actually have to research and prove one way or the other.
Twinstiq, game news
I, too, think that externalized costs are a scam. It would be nice if we could all actually admit that oil barrons are stealing money.
Congress may be out to do that...
I tend to be a strong skeptic on the subject, but that said, Congress has no business declaring jack shit when it comes to anything scientific. They are more than free to debate, create, and modify *laws* based on it, but they have zero authority to declare anything a hoax.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This isn't about determining reality, it's about determining which politicians will openly accept reality.
Next, they vote on whether God exists and that it's every desire should be used to direct Federal Law.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I agree. But sadly they don't vote on whether senate is a scam.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The article linked says the bill implied Pi should be 3.2...
So you really want to bring that up in the context of a bill that claims humans cause substantial warming? Or that the warming we see is anything to be concerned about?
Observable reality is what it is, no matter how much a law rounds or chastises.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And not having access to pesticides like DDT.
Here's what needs to be asked of deniers (who prefer the claim "skeptic" to make them seem less loony): What evidence would convince you that global warming is real, is happening now, and is caused primarily by human use of fossil fuels?
The answer is that nothing will convince them, no evidence that is humanly possible to gather that is.
Has the global warming hiatus ended?
There has never been a hiatus as you are using the word. That's the problem when uneducated lay people see words in journals and apply the everyday meaning to them. What did happen was that the rate of warming slowed. It didn't flat line and it didn't decline, it still increased. The increase was just less than the trendline of annual means would have suggested.
Changing to LED bulbs won't alter the outcome, whatever it is...
Changing to electric cars won't alter the outcome, whatever it is...
The changes required to alter the outcome are far greater than anyone wants to talk about and far greater than we will accept, so it is moot.
The entire argument is a pissing contest and a challenge for money, nothing more or less.
The answer is that nothing will convince them, no evidence that is humanly possible to gather that is.
This same statement applies to the question "what evidence would convince you that God exists?"
If the evidence is not humanly possible to gather, then the question is inherently religious, not scientific.
No, they have complete authority to declare things hoaxes, even if they aren't. This is what we get with democracy (or at least, a democratic republic): people who are actual experts in their fields are overruled by yahoos who were popularly elected by the People. It doesn't matter what's true or not, all that matters is what the People think and want, and they vote for it, based on promises made by political candidates running for office.
If the politicians campaign that they will pass a law that forces the circumference of a circle to be exactly 3 times its diameter, and the People vote for it, that's what we get: a law that directly contradicts mathematical reality. If they promise to pass a law which sets the speed of light to be infinity and the People vote for it, that's what we get: a law that directly contradicts observed fact.
You may think Congress has no business declaring jack shit when it comes to anything scientific, but you've been overruled by your countrymen at the polls, who think it does.
Ok, are you saying .04 degrees makes something go from normal to unusually hot?
Reminds me of the Indiana Pi Bill. It's not even that the Indiana Rep. felt strongly that Pi equals 3.2, but he was unqualified to understand the subject, but had no problem passing a law based on 'expert' testimony.
Classic Dunning-Kruger all over town.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Oh, right. A vast international liberal cabal is adjusting historical temperatures. I guess they've replaced all of the almanacs in libraries with cleverly rewritten versions. And so on. In every country, regardless of the languages they speak and write.
And the last several years have just happened to be increasingly hot.
Take a look at any of the photos of the Earth from space. The planet is big. But the atmosphere is really thin! You can easily tell the difference in pressure if you only go up 8000 feet or so. It is that piece that we're unbalancing.
Bruce Perens.
Regardless of specifics of the actual objective results, anthropogenic climate change is a scientific question -- whether certain consequences of our actions are leading to a fairly specific set of changes to climate.
That politicians want to vote on it strikes me as a significant indicator as to their incompetence. As if we needed any more...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I think you are confused. If there were no pipeline the oil would have to be refined nearby. This WOULD create lasting jobs and keep much more of the profits near where the oil is being extracted. The whole point of making a pipeline to the Gulf Coast is to enter the global crude oil market or more precisely to benefit the big oil companies who can ship the crude oil to countries with little or no environmental protections but cheaper refineries thereby keeping a larger share of the profits for themselves. The pipeline may not be directly bad for the environment but it is intended to avoid the costs and environmental regulations imposed by refining in Canada or the USA.
Democrats aren't trying to legislate the truth of climate change. They're trying to put those who think it's a hoax on record to use as political ammunition against them.