Senate Democrats Ramping Up The Climate Fraud To Spectacular New Levels

Senator Sanders says that scientists are “virtually unanimous” that humans are already causing devastating climate change.

ScreenHunter_6051 Jan. 13 20.03

Bernie Sanders Wrecks Republican Plans By Offering Climate Change Amendment To Keystone XL

Republicans need to demand that he produce evidence to back his wildly fraudulent claims up. Not one single thing he said has any basis in fact, or any documentation to back it up.

Sanders goal is to give Obama political cover for a veto. Hopefully the Republican leadership will not let him get away with this fraud. There has never been any survey which has asked scientists anything remotely close to Sanders’ claims.

Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that humans are primarily responsible for global warming, much less believe that it is a catastrophe.



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Senate Democrats Ramping Up The Climate Fraud To Spectacular New Levels

  1. AlaskaHound says:

    Unfortunately 97% of our national legislators are only as informed as their advisors.
    I don’t hold too much hope in any of our congressional leaders making any meaningful objection to Bernie and his fellow travelers claims.

  2. Robert B says:

    scientists are “virtually unanimous” that humans are already causing devastating climate change.

    so its just me?

  3. Bill S says:

    I am confused. How do the democrat elites stay in power (or regain it) by blocking one pipe line?

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Slightly O/T

    Seems they had an interesting bill pass the house.

    H.R.1422 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
    SUMMARY: EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013 – Amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to revise the process of selecting members of the Science Advisory Board, guidelines for participation in Board advisory activities, and terms of office. (The Board provides scientific advice to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].) Prohibits federally registered lobbyists from being appointed to the Board.

    Revises the procedures for providing advice and comments to the Administrator by: (1) including risk or hazard assessments in the regulatory proposals and documents made available to the Board, and (2) requiring advice and comments to be included in the record regarding any such proposal and published in the Federal Register…..

    (b) Membership.–Section 8(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:

    “(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such times and places as may be designated by the Chairman.
    (2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The
    Administrator shall ensure that–
    “(A) the scientific and technical points of view represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board are fairly balanced among the members of the Board;

    “(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board are from State, local, or tribal governments;

    “(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities, so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, United States Code;

    “(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member having an interest in the specific party shall participate in
    that activity;
    “(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work;

    “(F) Board members shall be designated as special Government employees; and

    “(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the Board……

    I am not at all sure I like this bill. It seems to me it can be very easily gamed to declare someone like Steve McIntyre as ‘not an expert’ while allowing several WWF and Sierra Club types in as ‘advisors’

    • annieoakley says:

      Way too complicated and redundant. Abolish the EPA and there is no (Political) Science Advisory Board needed at all. The EPA is an organization stealing land, water and cash for inside the beltway dreams and schemes.

  5. P Geyer says:

    When graphs or facts are presented, it would be nice to reference their origin. 99.34% of all people like me would appreciate it. 🙂

  6. au1corsair says:

    “Proof? The Treason Party doesn’t need stinkin’ proof! Demanding ‘proof’ is the way we traitors shut you up! There is no way in hell that you can ever ‘prove’ anything to us traitors–and you are NOT allowed to use our favorite tactic ever again!”

    So, THERE!

  7. bit chilly says:

    the mere fact that politicians speak out in support of the warmist meme should be all the warning the ordinary person needs . after all we have all heard the true saying “how do you know a politician is lying ? their lips are moving.”

  8. gregole says:

    Can anyone produce any evidence at all that the minute warming of the past hundred or so years and the lack of any warming in the past twenty years has in itself caused one iota of a problem, in itself? There is really nothing but vague pronouncements. Where is the evidence?

    • PeterK says:

      gregole: Have a look here. Maybe it’s just the thermometers that are causing the warming.

      • Gail Combs says:

        No it is the manipulation by ClimAstrologists that is causing warming as Steve has been carefully pointing out.

      • Gail Combs says:

        GEE, who ya gonna believe?
        On the one hand we have this text.

        I posted on an 8.5 year side-by-side test conducted by German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

        Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!

        On the other we have this article at Judith Curry’s site.

        Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data. by Zeke Hausfather

        ….All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper….

        LiG = Liquid in Glass
        MMTS = Minimum/Maximum temperature sensors.

        SWAG I would thing the new thermistors would be a lot more ‘responsive’ to changes in temperature and therefore would give higher readings for Max temperatures and lower for min temps.

        Temperature Measurement

        …..Sensors can be made as small as 0.1 mm in diameter to give short response time. Glass and stainless steel-sheathed probes between 2 mm and 3 mm are widely used. In measurement, a thermistor is connected to one leg of a Wheatstone bridge to yield a resolution as precise as 0.00058C.[3] Accuracy of a thermistor sensor is often limited by the readout device with a resolution of only ^ 0.18C. Nonlinearity in electrical resistance output limits application of a thermistor to relatively narrow temperature ranges (e.g., within 1008C). Long-term output stability is another common problem of thermistor probes.…..

        The temperature-sensitive element in thermocouples can be made very small to provide a response time of only a few seconds.[4] Thermocouples can be used to detect the transient temperature in a solid, liquid, and gas, with an accuracy of ^0.25% of reading for types R and S, and ^0.5% reading for type T over a measurement range of 1008C. Generally, thermocouples cannot be used in electromagnetic fields, because the metallic elements may interact with the electro-magnetic field….

        Thermistors are generally used for measuring temperature in a narrow range, because of their high precision ( ^ 0.18C) in small ranges.[2] Thermocouples are widely used because of acceptable precision, rapid response time, and low cost. RTDs, however, provide better accuracy and stability.‎

        This can be added to the info in my comment HERE.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Cenentafriend made an interesting comment on the new rain gauges.

        Seems they read low…. OH MY A DROUGHT!!!!

  9. Dave N says:

    First thing they should do is ask for their definition of “climate change”, and ask whether the regular swings from warming to ice ages before humans even evolved into existence are counted in that.

    That’s the trouble when the complex is perverted into the simplistic: it usually means that simpletons are responsible.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Until they can explain Dansgaard–Oeschger events they can not claim CAGW exists. Dansgaard-Oeschger events, Bond events and Heinrich events that cause global temps to change 8C, 10C and even 16C in dramatically short times and no one really knows why.

      Climate during the last glacial period was far from stable. Two different types of climate changes, called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, occurred repeatedly throughout most of this time. Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades, and was followed by a gradual cooling…

      The cause of these glacial events is still under debate. Currently, the leading hypothesis involves a slowdown of the ocean’s thermohaline circulation…..

      Later, as the addition of freshwater decreased, ocean salinity and deepwater formation increased and climate conditions recovered.

      This freshwater forcing hypothesis is supported by evidence for changes in deepwater formation…..

      The initial trigger for freshwater releases has not yet been identified. One suggestion is that small, gradual changes in solar output could have influenced the timing of abrupt changes (Bond et al., 2001)…..

      • Gail you have it right.
        “nobody knows why”
        Ergo, how can anyone rely on a model that has CO2 as the sole climate driver?

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Nobody knows why.”

          Very true — but we can add a little bit more. “Nobody knows why — but when we consider the absolute failure of Global Climate Models based primarily on the radiative effects of CO2, we can at least say that CO2 is NOT the reason.”

  10. It’s almost like pop culture. The words of today are most important. Any real facts are quite irrelevant.

    • au1corsair says:

      Have you forgotten that superstitious savages believe, truly believe that words CREATE things through magic?

      Naturally, they’d cast spells using those magic words–after consuming their magic mushrooms.

      • It’s been very many years since the shooms…😏

      • Jason Calley says:

        “Have you forgotten that superstitious savages believe, truly believe that words CREATE things through magic? ”

        Savages, yes, but also people who have grown up with waaaaay too much power. These are people who believe (based on their own, personal experience) that words create reality.

        “Send a man with a car.”
        “I want this room painted a darker color.”
        “Steak? No, lobster…”
        “I feel like going to the islands for a week or two.”
        “I have this great idea!”

        They say something — and it happens. They don’t need to check with their boss. They don’t need to transfer funds to their checking account. They don’t need to pick up the kids at daycare first and then drop the laundry off at the cleaners. They don’t need to know HOW it happens, or WHY it happens or even WHO is actually bringing the thing to fruition. All they have experienced for years and decades, maybe even all their life, is just “Say something, and it becomes real.”

        Personally, I think that a large percentage of the people we have in power are sociopaths — but even if someone started off decent, started off sane, the experience of living in a world where words create reality would drive someone at least a little wacky. The human metabolism was not designed for us to stay healthy on a diet of 100% wedding cake all the time. Human psychology was not designed for us to stay healthy on a diet of too much power, either.

        It ain’t natural….

  11. stpaulchuck says:

    McConnell is going to vote this scam in the Senate. My crystal ball says, “I see increased taxes all the way to the horizon.”

  12. scott mccall says:

    I’m pretty sure that excess co2 makes planets grow faster and bigger. That’s a fact. Easily demonstrated by adding co2 to a green house. You can extrapolate that to the whole earth and I guarantee trees will grow. Co2 has a cycle just like water does. Co2 rains down, goes into the oceans and is the source for sea shells. No acidification of the oceans. Trees are made of sequestered carbon!

    People seem to think carbon stays in the air forever. It doesn’t. Its what trees are made of you controlling green peace douche bags!

  13. ren says:

    Three Deaths Could be Weather Related in Chicago

    • Gail Combs says:

      Darwin Award!
      Cellphone Falls Into Icy Chicago River, Deadly End as 3 Go in After It

      One young man is dead, and a woman is missing and presumed dead after both fell into the freezing Chicago River trying to find a dropped cellphone early this morning.

      A third man, who also ended up in the river, remains hospitalized.

      Chicago Police say a 26-year-old man dropped his phone into the water, and slipped along the icy riverwalk trying to retrieve it.

      A 23-year-old man and a 21-year-old woman, who were with the man, entered the water trying to help him. Witnesses called 911, and rescue crews pulled the two men out of the water but have not been able to find the woman…..

      As I said DARWIN AWARD!

  14. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I’m a scientist (chemistry PhD) and I’m not virtually or even remotely unanimous. My calcs suggest 2XCO2 is about 0.7 C/doubling. Which, if you do the arithmetic, is harmless.

    I suppose there are plenty of unanimous scientists out there that disagree with me. Please tell me where my analysis is wrong. No one has in 4 years. But then I do know data, modelling and stats as I work in those areas. All the information you need to replicate it is in the text below the HadCET graph. The model has been working well for 3 years so far.

  15. sabretoothed says:

    Goldman Sachs should get into Climate Science, they are only $105 the oil price today lol

  16. ralphcramdo says:

    The activists would rather have the oil sands transported by train or truck that’s spewing CO2 before and during the transport with the possibility of crashing or derailing and spilling their load over a secure pipeline? Is that liberal thinking?

  17. philjourdan says:

    Sanders is at least an avowed Socialist – which means he is more honest than 97% of the other democrats. 😉

  18. Bernie Sanders is a lunatic voted into power by Vermont pothead aging hippies.

    There are red states and blue states. Vermont is tie-died.

  19. Tom In Indy says:

    Sanders has laid the trap. Each statement (1) (2) and (3) is true.

    (1) Do you want to claim climate change is not real?
    (2) Do you want to claim that man, through deforestation, urban heat islands, etc has not had an effect on climate?
    (3) Do you want to claim that climate change does not cause devastating effects? (See Little Ice Age).

    If the Right had a sack, they’d add an amendment with a 4th statement that says something like:

    (4) However, there is no evidence linking human activity to catastrophic events caused by climate change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s