Scientist meets US republicans

Hearing held in the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (long name)

In one corner we have Presidential science advisor, John Holdren
In the opposite corners we have Republicans with varying understanding of how science works

The full video is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=168&v=lPgZfhnCAdI


To give you a test of what has been discussed:

Republican: There are public comments out there that his issue has been asked and answered and they are saying no
John Holdren: Then you should stop reading public comments and start reading science literature.

Same republican: I don't believe in the opinions of climatologists because they need to keep pushing climate change in order to keep getting published. (doesn't get that getting paid by Koch for saying the opposite would get the scientist more money. Speaking of Koch, guess who this republican's second largest campaign contributor is)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Same republican: I don't believe in the opinions of climatologists because they need to keep pushing climate change in order to keep getting published.

Pretty ironic comment coming from a politician who takes bribes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Pretty ironic comment coming from a politician who takes bribes.

nuh-huh. they are campaign contributions. they absolutely are not bribes and the politician in question will absolutely always do what is best for the people he represents and not the people whose money got him elected.

I see two basic problems:
1. Democracy doesn't typically result in the best educated leaders, but rather the best politicians.
2. The US system relies heavily on funding from interested parties resulting in big business running the show and not the electorate.

For comparison, see this:
YouTube

So, why does the UK also resist doing something about Global warming?

Jon Stewart also covered this. Skip to the 3:10 minute-mark of the video:

YouTube

Originally posted by vivify
Jon Stewart also covered this. Skip to the 3:10 minute-mark of the video:

https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI

you got busted


kindly copy and paste the link i provided and compare it with yours

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you got busted


kindly copy and paste the link i provided and compare it with yours

Yup. Exact same link.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see two basic problems:
1. Democracy doesn't typically result in the best educated leaders, but rather the best politicians.
2. The US system relies heavily on funding from interested parties resulting in big business running the show and not the electorate.

For comparison, see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egeMAIXYIvI

So, why does the UK also resist doing something about Global warming?

yes, number 2 is absolutely essential (though in no way sufficient) for a fair campaign.

one absolutely cannot say with a straight face that you don't owe anything to someone who spent 1 million dollars to get you elected.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one absolutely cannot say with a straight face that you don't owe anything to someone who spent 1 million dollars to get you elected.

Just as importantly, you cannot say with a straight face that you won't do your best to make sure you get another million for the next campaign cycle.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Hearing held in the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (long name)

In one corner we have Presidential science advisor, John Holdren
In the opposite corners we have Republicans with varying understanding of how science works

The full video is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=168&v=lPgZfhnCAdI


T ...[text shortened]... ore money. Speaking of Koch, guess who this republican's second largest campaign contributor is)

Anybody can make fun of the other side of the debate. Here are a couple of youtube videos that make global warming alarmists look foolish.


YouTube

YouTube

Just because the earth is warming doesn't mean there is reason to panic. Some people are just ridiculous.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Pretty ironic comment coming from a politician who takes bribes.

Not really. He actually has first hand knowledge of how things work.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Anybody can make fun of the other side of the debate. Here are a couple of youtube videos that make global warming alarmists look foolish.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

Just because the earth is warming doesn't mean there is reason to panic. Some people are just ridiculous.

do you understand what 97% of the science community means?

for one thing, it means there is no debate.
there is no "other side". the "other side" has as much merit as evolution deniers.

you can have a debate on what we need to do in order to stop/lessen the effects climate change has and when we need to do it.


"Just because the earth is warming doesn't mean there is reason to panic. "
you are right. we don't need to panic just because the earth is warming. not yet.

right now we are panicking because idiots and greedy asholes seem to be stopping any course of action to remedy this. when the damage will be irreversible, then we will panic about the earth getting warmer.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you understand what 97% of the science community means?

do you understand what 97% of the science community means?
there is no "other side". the "other side" has as much merit as evolution deniers.

you can have a debate on what we need to do in order to stop/lessen the effects climate change has and when we need to do it.


"Just because the ...[text shortened]... y this. when the damage will be irreversible, then we will panic about the earth getting warmer.

"do you understand what 97% of the science community means?"

I can read. What about 97% of the science community? How does it differ from the other 3%?

"there is no "other side". the "other side" has as much merit as evolution deniers."

Deniers? What do you think they are denying? I have no idea what you are talking about. People deny all sorts of things. You are going to have to be more specific.

" you can have a debate on what we need to do in order to stop/lessen the effects climate change has and when we need to do it."

You can't stop climate change. Ice ages happen. You can't stop Milankovich cycles. Are you talking about anthropogenic climate change? You need to be more specific.

"right now we are panicking because idiots and greedy asholes seem to be stopping any course of action to remedy this. when the damage will be irreversible, then we will panic about the earth getting warmer."

What is wrong with the earth getting warmer? What damage? Where is the damage?

We need to accept that climate change deniers will never change their minds. If you believe in the science of climate change then you should probably move away from coastal areas and take whatever actions you want to mitigate the situation. After all, in a worst case scenario only 15% to 20% of the world population will perish. Forget the silly notion that we must be our brothers' keeper. You cannot "save" those who insist they do not need or want it. Take care of yourself and your own family and friends. Life will still go on.

Originally posted by caissad4
We need to accept that climate change deniers will never change their minds. If you believe in the science of climate change then you should probably move away from coastal areas and take whatever actions you want to mitigate the situation. After all, in a worst case scenario only 15% to 20% of the world population will perish. Forget the silly notion that ...[text shortened]... t need or want it. Take care of yourself and your own family and friends. Life will still go on.

"Climate change deniers" is a silly term. How many people do you know that claim the ice age never happened?

"If you believe in the science of climate change then you should probably move away from coastal areas and take whatever actions you want to mitigate the situation."

That would be very foolish. Sea levels have risen about 14 cm in the last 100 years. I don't think moving away from coastal areas is justified at all.

"After all, in a worst case scenario only 15% to 20% of the world population will perish."

Did you invent a time machine and travel into the future? How could you possibly know that? 15% to 20% is over a billion people right now and probably more than that in the future. That is very silly. Primitive man adapted to the ice age and the ice age was much worse than this warming. What is your source of information?