Sanders: Climate Change Deniers ‘Should Not Be in Congress’

[jimnyc]

Disagree with me politically - then you shouldn't be in congress. What an ass this freebie giving idiot is.

---

Sanders: Climate Change Deniers ‘Should Not Be in Congress’

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does not believe that skeptics of the progressive wing’s stance on climate change should serve in Congress, he tweeted Sunday.

“If you don’t believe in climate change you should not be in Congress,” Sanders declared in a tweet Sunday evening:

https://i.imgur.com/cbTMvSz.png

“Donald Trump says climate change is not a serious issue. Allow me to respectfully disagree with our ‘stable genius’ president—I happen to believe the scientists,” he wrote in a separate tweet:

https://i.imgur.com/SAB8NMd.png

However, the “97 percent” consensus, which Sanders often refers to, is simply untrue. John Cook – the Australian global warming activist behind the so-called “consensus” – deliberately drove the study to provide the outcome he desired using crooked methodology.

As Breitbart News explained in part:


Next we find Cook digging himself still deeper by referring to a chosen methodology – its name coined by one of his associates, Ari – as the “porno approach.” What he means, presumably, is that rather than allowing for rigour and nuance, his paper will be researched in such a way as to deliver the most dramatic, headline results possible. Not just tasteful nudie pix, then, but hardcore with donkeys…

Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being ‘any amount of human influence’ or ‘more than 50 percent human influence.’ We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.

Under these criteria even an otherwise arch-skeptical paper conceding that, say, the methane from the farts of beef and dairy cattle might have a marginal influence on climate, could be claimed by Cook et al as being in support of the “consensus.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/02/sanders-climate-change-deniers-should-not-be-in-congress/

[Gunny]

Here's the stupid left: "The sky is falling! The Sky is falling!" Now pick your topic. "Trump will be the end of liberty and freedom!" "Conservatives controlling the Supreme Court will be the end of liberty and freedom!" "If we don't enact all these lame-ass climate change laws the Earth will burn up!"

IF the Earth is going through a cyclical change of climate, then it is. We're just a marble whirling around in space on a collision course with an infinite number of other marbles and it only takes a couple of inches to change everything. Leave it to the ego of the left which is matched in size only by its appetite for complete power and control of everything (sounds like Islam, right?) to believe that it has the ability to alter the universe. Maybe if everyone on the planet simultaneously jumps up in the air they can budge the planet and move it farther from the sun :thinking5:

Should I bother pointing out the left with all its industry-crippling laws hasn't stopped pollution one bit anywhere else on the Earth, much less the Universe. Its just crippled a lot of our industry while everyone else chugs along tearing sh*t up. I could actually see the logic in them working on THAT. They can make every other country adhere to US pollution laws :rolleyes:

Yet they have the entire left of the entire World buying this Chicken Little bullshit. F-n rubes :rolleyes: Anyone remember back in the 70s when they had the World convinced it would run out of fossil fuel in 20 years? And created a World-wide oil shortage and some seriously awesome price-gouging? THAT was fun. I LOVED sitting in line for an hour every other day after working 12 hours so I could get my max $5 worth.

Anybody that buys off on Man-made global warming needs to not be allowed to hold ANY public off. Sanders is a fruit loop. Among many :)

[Kathianne]

Nearly all 'reports' from the 'esteemed climate scientists' depend upon the 'hockey stick' as put forward by Michael Mann. From the outset, there were many scientists that questioned his results and wanted the methodology for replication. He refused, but sued many that questioned him, often joined by environmental groups.

He lost a week or so in one of his suits, when he failed to provide the documents demanded by the judge. He was ordered to pay all court costs-multiple millions. It was dismissed with prejudice, meaning no appeals.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?67496-Sometimes-It-s-What-We-Don-t-Hear-About&highlight=michael+mann

[STTAB]

Nearly all 'reports' from the 'esteemed climate scientists' depend upon the 'hockey stick' as put forward by Michael Mann. From the outset, there were many scientists that questioned his results and wanted the methodology for replication. He refused, but sued many that questioned him, often joined by environmental groups.

He lost a week or so in one of his suits, when he failed to provide the documents demanded by the judge. He was ordered to pay all court costs-multiple millions. It was dismissed with prejudice, meaning no appeals.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?67496-Sometimes-It-s-What-We-Don-t-Hear-About&highlight=michael+mann


Yep, just another lie that the left has gotten away with telling for years. Most scientists in fact do NOT agree that man has any effect whatsoever on climate change.

For God sakes in the 50s and 60s we and the Soviets were testing atomic weapons all over the globe, if that didn't ruin the planet's climate nothing we are doing today will.

Of course we also know as that with everything Democrats in power say they don't actually believe this either. If Bernie Sanders actually believed that fossil fuels were going to cause the end of the Earth within the next even 100 years he would stop flying private , for starters.