Republican Senator Offended by Facts

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/01/624821/sessions-i-am-offended-by-views-of-climate-scientists/

Jesus fucking Christ. That about sums it up, doesn’t it? Republican candidates aren’t lying to help themselves get elected, they’re lying because they have a moral duty to speak out against the truth.

How do the people who voted for this assclown live long enough to reproduce? I’d figure that they’d Darwin themselves out of the gene pool before they hit breeding age.

Well, he should be. I have it on good authority that the Earth is warming of its own accord, regardless of CO2 emissions, solely to piss that guy off.

Meh, I can’t get too worked up about this quote. Assuming he’s a true believer (which I confess may be a stretch), he thinks that the scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy with liberals to get their ideological beliefs passed into law. He thinks 98% of climate scientists can and will lie to the world (remember, he’s a politician; of course he’d believe this), so of course he’s offended.

Actually he’s disputing the claim that 98% of scientists disagree with him.

Especially as he’s not denying that global warming has happened, but only that it’s happening at the pace that “a lot of people predicted”.

Ah, I misread.

Then it’s even more “meh” than I thought it was.

Very meh.

It sounds to me based on the video that he was offended by the claim that his views on global warming is analogous to agreeing with the 1-2% of scientists who say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

He’s wrong about global warming, but I don’t see anything more egregious in his statements than those made by any other global warming denier.

I’m having a bit of trouble parsing the actual quote:

It’s not entirely clear exactly what Mr. Sessions is offended by here. But I think maybe he thought Boxer was misrepresenting something he said, and that’s what offended him. Maybe.

In any case, I agree with “meh.”

I think the past few posts are all pretty much saying the same thing.

Sen. Boxer claimed that he was disagreeing with 98% of scientists, which is apparently based on the premise that he completely denies global warming. He was offended by this, because he was only making a much more limited claim, and one which does not contradict 98% of scientists.

If this thread needs a Senator who is on the record for being offended by the concept of Global Warming in general you can always swap Inhofe in for Sessions.

Well, I suppose I’ll have to accept the judgment of ‘meh’, but watching him in the video I distinctly got the impression was that he was offended by being contradicted by the truth.

I am often offended by facts. Like the fact that this braindead doofus is a US Senator.

He’s right. The earth seems to be absorbing CO2 at a higher rate than expected, thus Global warming doesn’t seem to be increasing as fast as predicted.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/earth-absorbs-more-of-our-co2-emissions

*Even as Man’s output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever.

Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years from about 2.4 billion tons in 1960 to some five billion tons in 2010, said a study in Nature.*

GIGObuster to make an entrance into the thread and slam us all with offensive facts in 3…2…1…

He’s from Alabama. Everything between Huntsville & the Gulf Coast is a wasteland.

You didn’t read the thread. In this one case the Alabama Senator was right and Pelosi was wrong.

Wont happen again very soon, I imagine.:stuck_out_tongue:

Says the person from Tennessee :rolleyes:

Senator Barbara Boxer actually, not House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Wonderful. But that says nothing about the predictive accuracy of climate scientists, since various factors push in both directions.

As it happens, Hansen et al’s 1981 Science article underestimated the rise in temperature, though it actually tracks rather well. Extraordinarily well.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#bib_1 To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science. It is indeed unfortunate that the Republican Party is temperamentally unable to man up to the hard facts of climate science.

No debate on that: much of Tennessee is less desirable than downtown Detroit.

[Hommie the clown’s -bump- to the head]

I don’t think so!

Sessions just never told guys like Inhoffe that they were full of it, tacitly accepting the Republican’s even worse denialist tripe.

And then this idea is a repeat of the old "Scientists failed to predict the actual rate of increase in warming, that has been peddled by guys like Monkton:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm

In essence, there is a myth going on pressed by deniers and accepted by many Republicans: that it is not warming as predicted, so we should not do much of anything. Only that the actual projections based on the current emissions do match the most probable outcomes mentioned by the IPCC. AKA the current consensus of virtually all climate scientists in the world.

As for the report mentioned by **Drdeth **: Mother Nature News is not linking to the actual study. (first red flag) The cite is not mentioning that other research points that human total emissions worldwide are more than double to take away the advantage (maybe one could talk of giving us more time, but only to avoid even worse outcomes) that one could expect from that study, incidentally the same study (that is not linked) is reporting that :“At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost fourfold.”

(Second red flag, cherry picking)

And that gets me to (Third flag) citing Mother Nature News is like citing “Answers in Genesis” in an evolution debate, in this case, the more I look around, the more it seems that the study that is referred to is not saying anything close to what Sessions is pulling out of the denier’s asses. This is very typical, cherry picking even good research to get the opposite of what they claim, in this case the title of the report leads one to conclude that we should not worry, and this is typical way for woo woo sources to deal with inconvenient information.

In other early reports I have seen that the calculations of how much the earth and plant sinks are absorbing the human CO2 is close to 40%, this study (as it is quoted so far and more likely misreported) reports that is going to 50%, not enough IMHO to then dismiss all the different ways scientists are calculating that humans are driving the current warming that is observed, and even the researches quoted do report it will get worse if nothing, or very little as Sessions and their ilk propose, is done.

Dang, missed the edit,

Change “The cite” for “the quote”. The problem is that the quote, just like the title of the article quoted, is just cherry picking and giving us a conclusion that is actually not supported by the current increases of warming observed. The reality is that Sessions was still wrong if he was using that example to say that Global warming doesn’t seem to be increasing as fast as predicted.