Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

Posted by samzenpus on from the who's-to-blame dept.

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.

17 of 667 comments (clear)

  1. More proof by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:More proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The need for separation of science and state becomes more and more obvious every year since 1947.

    2. Re:More proof by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. This is becoming really insane. Perhaps they could try to vote ISIS is not real and doesn't exist.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:More proof by rsmith-mac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More proof that this debate is political and not scientific.

      It has been political all along. Regardless of the scientific basis, the consensus view of the American public is that they do not want to sacrifice their lifestyles for the environment, especially in this case since the benefits are non-tangible. All of the political debate is simply an extension of that.

    4. Re:More proof by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.

      It's fundamentally impossible to remove the politics from the science if your solution to the problem is political. It's hard to imagine any solutions to a global problem like Global Warming that aren't political short of some miracle technology coming out of nowhere that magically solves the problem.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:More proof by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need people’s opinion on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking: ‘Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?’ or ‘Do owls exist?’ or ‘Are there hats?'

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    6. Re:More proof by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how they will feel about their lifestyles in 100 years

      They won't, because they'll be dead.

    7. Re:More proof by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Voting whether something is fact is indeed stupid.

      While I agree that these amendments are political gamesmanship, they are not "voting whether something is fact".

      You'll notice in TFA that the amendments are voting on the "sense of the Senate" -- i.e. their purpose is to get Senators' opinions/positions on record, not to determine reality.

      Specifically, the Democrats want the Republicans to either publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real problem (thus undercutting their own arguments against doing anything about it), or publicly deny it (and, presumably, thereby look increasingly silly in the future as its effects become more pronounced).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:More proof by BStroms · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm actually curios ho you pan to get 5 to be bigger than 15 (without simply redefining symbols which would be cheating)

      I'm sorry, as you can see on this paper I've just produced, I clearly drew the number five larger. You really should have waited for me to show you the data before you jumped the gun with your answer.

    9. Re:More proof by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The need for separation of science and state becomes more and more obvious every year since 1947.

      NO. There already is too much separation of science and state, as evidenced by this very issue. There needs to be less separation of science and state, but we need to make sure that it's science defining policy, and not policy defining science. Try reading that again but replacing the word "science" with the word "reality" and you'll see what I mean.

  2. Vote on the negative by tchdab1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish the vote were worded "Is the denial of climate change a hoax?"

  3. Re:Yep it is a scam by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  4. Re:If we can vote on reality... by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't about determining reality, it's about determining which politicians will openly accept reality.

  5. Re:Yep it is a scam by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Yep it is a scam by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:They already have by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. Scientific question by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.