By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax

The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to approve an amendment affirming that climate change is real and “not a hoax.”

The vote came on an amendment to legislation that aims to force approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from the Canadian oil sands to the United States.

more..

almost the same percentage as scientists saying that climate change is real

I guess TO is still in denial

This will be interesting to watch evolve. Scientists with legislated authority. It warms the cockles of my heart. :D

Why don’t they qualify the phrase “climate change” with
‘anthropogenic climate change’ or ‘human induced climate change?

Do they really think the general population are incapable of understanding the difference, or if not they are incapable of looking up the meaning of anthropogenic?

Aquila said:

Why don’t they qualify the phrase “climate change” with
‘anthropogenic climate change’ or ‘human induced climate change?

Do they really think the general population are incapable of understanding the difference, or if not they are incapable of looking up the meaning of anthropogenic?

Good point

CrazyNeutrino said:

Aquila said:

Why don’t they qualify the phrase “climate change” with
‘anthropogenic climate change’ or ‘human induced climate change?

Do they really think the general population are incapable of understanding the difference, or if not they are incapable of looking up the meaning of anthropogenic?

Good point

Human assisted or human accelerated.

Tamb said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Aquila said:

Why don’t they qualify the phrase “climate change” with
‘anthropogenic climate change’ or ‘human induced climate change?

Do they really think the general population are incapable of understanding the difference, or if not they are incapable of looking up the meaning of anthropogenic?

Good point

Human assisted or human accelerated.

Both

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Good point

Human assisted or human accelerated.

Both

I meant that the wording should be changed to either/or human assisted or human accelerated instead of human induced climate change.

Why don’t you like the word “induced” with respect to climate change?

Aquila said:

Why don’t you like the word “induced” with respect to climate change?

It indicates that humans are entirely responsible for climate change rather than accelerating it.

Tamb said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

Human assisted or human accelerated.

Both

I meant that the wording should be changed to either/or human assisted or human accelerated instead of human induced climate change.

Well if we are choosing words I would go for accelerated

I think it gives a more accurate description

Tamb said:

Aquila said:

Why don’t you like the word “induced” with respect to climate change?

It indicates that humans are entirely responsible for climate change rather than accelerating it.

we did induce it and we are accelerating it

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

Aquila said:

Why don’t you like the word “induced” with respect to climate change?

It indicates that humans are entirely responsible for climate change rather than accelerating it.

we did induce it and we are accelerating it

No climate change is the default state of the Earth. It happened before humans & will continue if we all die off.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

Aquila said:

Why don’t you like the word “induced” with respect to climate change?

It indicates that humans are entirely responsible for climate change rather than accelerating it.

we did induce it and we are accelerating it

But that implies that there would be no climate change if it was not for humans, which is obviously not true.

In fact it is quite possible that human activities have reversed climate change, rather than accelerating it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

It indicates that humans are entirely responsible for climate change rather than accelerating it.

we did induce it and we are accelerating it

But that implies that there would be no climate change if it was not for humans, which is obviously not true.

In fact it is quite possible that human activities have reversed climate change, rather than accelerating it.

Im aware of natural climate change

but Im not referring to natural climate change

Im referring to human induced and accelerated climate change which is different to natural climate change

ok

Here I was thinking that the US Senate were all nutcases

ok, well they can all now have a gold star for this amendment

So what does the Abbott government now think about climate change

Tony once thought climate change was crap, does he still think that way?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Im aware of natural climate change

but Im not referring to natural climate change

Im referring to human induced and accelerated climate change which is different to natural climate change

ok

Saying that humans induced human-induced climate change seems a little tautological.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Im aware of natural climate change

but Im not referring to natural climate change

Im referring to human induced and accelerated climate change which is different to natural climate change

ok

Saying that humans induced human-induced climate change seems a little tautological.

I need some pot

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

It indicates that humans are entirely responsible for climate change rather than accelerating it.

we did induce it and we are accelerating it

But that implies that there would be no climate change if it was not for humans, which is obviously not true.

In fact it is quite possible that human activities have reversed climate change, rather than accelerating it.

which is still anthropogenic?

> The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to approve an amendment affirming that climate change is real and “not a hoax.”

Physics is not a popularity contest, you can’t change it by voting on it.

mollwollfumble said:

> The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to approve an amendment affirming that climate change is real and “not a hoax.”

Physics is not a popularity contest, you can’t change it by voting on it.

true that.

mollwollfumble said:

> The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to approve an amendment affirming that climate change is real and “not a hoax.”

Physics is not a popularity contest, you can’t change it by voting on it.

But you can allow adequate elbow-room for those who are analysing it to find accurate answers.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

> The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to approve an amendment affirming that climate change is real and “not a hoax.”

Physics is not a popularity contest, you can’t change it by voting on it.

But you can allow adequate elbow-room for those who are analysing it to find accurate answers.

What the legislation implies is that if you aren’t directly and eminently qualified you will from now be told to STFU or FRO.

I see this as the first step toward establishing scientists as authority figures rather than a politician who has won little more than a popularity contest. I’ll be watching in quiet awe.

:D

Not that I expect we will ever be without politics.

There was another amendment stating that humans significantly contributed to climate change. This got 50 votes, including a few Repugnicans, but 60 would have been required.

CrazyNeutrino said:

By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax

The U.S. Senate has voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to approve an amendment affirming that climate change is real and “not a hoax.”

The vote came on an amendment to legislation that aims to force approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from the Canadian oil sands to the United States.

more..

almost the same percentage as scientists saying that climate change is real

I guess TO is still in denial

Oh crasy, I’d vote yes on that my friend.

Climate change is real, no doubt about it.

Of course the vote wasn’t whether humans had anything to to with the modest increase in atmospheric temperature during the period 1978 to 1997, let alone how much warming would ensue a doubling of atmospheric Co2.

The vote neither addressed whether a further increase in global average temperature, and a further increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide, would even be bad for humanity. The increase in Co2 has been a positive.

As mollwollfumble commented – “Physics is not a popularity contest, you can’t change it by voting on it.”

And you are making something out of nothing.

An other article about this from one of your journo’s, that gives the facts of this matter