Steve King: Global Warming 'More Of A...

Steve King: Global Warming 'More Of A Religion Than A Science'

There are 76 comments on the Switched story from Aug 7, 2013, titled Steve King: Global Warming 'More Of A Religion Than A Science'. In it, Switched reports that:

Rep. Steve King dismissed the concern over global warming, labeling it a "religion" and claiming efforts to address climate change are useless.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Switched.

SpaceBlues

Dallas, TX

#24 Aug 8, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to see there are some politicians not cowed by the anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange mafia. He knows that the idiots who believe in the mantra will be flailing at him with their faux science. Followed right along by the media chickens all clucking about the so-called "concensus". Yeah. Fortunately it looks like the extinction that's going is the extinction of the faux science which is as the congressman says, "a religion". One replete with sacrament, inquisition, and redemption for those who accept the pseudo-science.
You write well - to me, so - but your subject is faux. So faux!

I enjoy your posts without context because you are dead wrong about science. Why don't you stop being a denier so that you have the most important subject to write about?

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/08/210243967/swing...

It's your legacy that's dead wrong at this time.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#25 Aug 8, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>..., major organizations and international scientific bodies are modifying their assertions and computer models to accommodate actual data ....
I've lost track of how many times an arrogantly ignorant denier has made a statement of their belief that the greatest strength of science is a fatal flaw. What buffoons.
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#26 Aug 8, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
I've lost track of how many times an arrogantly ignorant denier has made a statement of their belief that the greatest strength of science is a fatal flaw. What buffoons.
No one called any such a "fatal flaw", nor implied it was a fatal flaw. You are so enured in your bubble you cannot read.

Applying actual data in a way to honestly adjust a model is one thing. Asserting the continued relevance of flawed models is quite another.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#27 Aug 8, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
There's been global warming and global cooling. The extreme, irrational rhetoric used by the AGW promoters is absolutely the most arrogant bullshit perpetrated ever. Plus, it's repeatedly shown to be wrong (as with the North Pole lake stupidity.) Why are you fearful of addressing that irrationality and Gore's irrationality and previous Global 2000 incorrectness, ad infinitum?)
I keep trying to figure out the relationship between

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understa...

and your reply. It is as if the report simply does not exist. I would appreciate it if you could explain the relationship between the state of the climate report and your comments. For example, are you saying that the arctic sea ice is decreasing because it is getting colder?
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#28 Aug 8, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep trying to figure out the relationship between
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understa...
and your reply. It is as if the report simply does not exist. I would appreciate it if you could explain the relationship between the state of the climate report and your comments. For example, are you saying that the arctic sea ice is decreasing because it is getting colder?
Snipping out a section of a reply to satisfy a conversation you're having with yourself is almost as dishonest as that previous fellow snipping out a section of a sentence to misrepresent something said.

As to your more pointed question, it does not matter that there are climate shifts, but some are more beneficial than others. The data does not support an assertion of anthropogenic involvement. The arrogance of believing such and acting upon it in any remarkable fashion could prove disastrous. Other social engineering involvements of that arrogance in social matters have proved disastrous.

Climate change is going to happen. A total reversal of the previous little ice age is not something to fear, although current data relevant now for almost a fifth of a century implies that total reversal will not occur. In fact, it could happen again. Some noteworthy scientists predict it based on solar activity and real world jet stream activity.

No matter what happens, trusting those who maintain their current dishonesty no matter the actual data is an unsupportable option. Real time updating of government data and assumptions without being clouded by political issues is important. The lack of such is why a certain individual at NASA has fallen into such ill repute.
SpaceBlues

Dallas, TX

#30 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Snipping out a section of a reply .. The data does not support an assertion of anthropogenic involvement. The arrogance of believing such and acting upon it in any remarkable fashion could prove disastrous. Other social engineering involvements of that arrogance in social matters have proved disastrous.
.. has fallen into such ill repute.
You are out of touch with reality. How goes our atmosphere under the daily 90 million tons of man-made heat-trapping ghg emissions!!

Deal with it.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#34 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
blahhhh/
Hence you concede you are a liar.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#35 Aug 9, 2013
Those searching for liars should look at this:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/0...

It's been so cold people in Minnesota had to light their furnaces in latter July. Ummm, hey guys... that's SUMMER.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Those searching for liars should look at this:
https://stevengoddard.
yes. Steven Goddard is a good example. One can always find SOME factor (such as the number of 40C readings) that defies the average trend. The 'cherry picking' of such anomalies in the statistics is key to a LOT of liars and deniers (if that isn't redundant).
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#38 Aug 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Your resorting to incompetent and biased lobby websites with no credible science is demonstration that your 'rebuttal' is hot air.
You're simply too chickenshit to acknowledge that NASA was misleading schoolchildren.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#39 Aug 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
yes. Steven Goddard is a good example. One can always find SOME factor (such as the number of 40C readings) that defies the average trend. The 'cherry picking' of such anomalies in the statistics is key to a LOT of liars and deniers (if that isn't redundant).
Even you angry children can't possibly expect us to resolve your particular neurosis in 37 posts.

How were those summer evenings in Toronto latter July? Did you lose all your garden plants to frost in summer?
The Integral

Hilo, HI

#41 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Those searching for liars should look at this:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/0...
It's been so cold people in Minnesota had to light their furnaces in latter July. Ummm, hey guys... that's SUMMER.
I never put a lot of faith in the scientific significance of a web site with a header like this:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman"

What is the significance of 40 C readings? The average temperature over an extended period of time is the significant data.
The Integral

Hilo, HI

#42 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Snipping out a section of a reply to satisfy a conversation you're having with yourself is almost as dishonest as that previous fellow snipping out a section of a sentence to misrepresent something said.
As to your more pointed question, it does not matter that there are climate shifts, but some are more beneficial than others. The data does not support an assertion of anthropogenic involvement. The arrogance of believing such and acting upon it in any remarkable fashion could prove disastrous. Other social engineering involvements of that arrogance in social matters have proved disastrous.
Climate change is going to happen. A total reversal of the previous little ice age is not something to fear, although current data relevant now for almost a fifth of a century implies that total reversal will not occur. In fact, it could happen again. Some noteworthy scientists predict it based on solar activity and real world jet stream activity.
No matter what happens, trusting those who maintain their current dishonesty no matter the actual data is an unsupportable option. Real time updating of government data and assumptions without being clouded by political issues is important. The lack of such is why a certain individual at NASA has fallen into such ill repute.
The key term is "for example". I am waiting for an explanation of why the artic ice is melting. The reduction in Arctic sea ice is very dramatic. I am not going to hold my breath.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#43 Aug 9, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
The key term is "for example". I am waiting for an explanation of why the artic ice is melting. The reduction in Arctic sea ice is very dramatic. I am not going to hold my breath.
Apparently, you don't follow actual data.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/0...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/0...

http://www.climatedepot.com/...

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#44 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[1]
1. National Snow and Ice Data Center
You are trying to use a small data sample (2008 to 2013) and say that it accurately portrays the status of the Arctic ice.
Steve Goddard's motto is ""Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" so I do take his hyperbole seriously.
You have yet to address my question: I Global Warming does not exist, why is the Arctic icecap declining at the rate of 12% per decade?
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#45 Aug 9, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[1]
1. National Snow and Ice Data Center
You are trying to use a small data sample (2008 to 2013) and say that it accurately portrays the status of the Arctic ice.
Steve Goddard's motto is ""Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" so I do take his hyperbole seriously.
You have yet to address my question: I Global Warming does not exist, why is the Arctic icecap declining at the rate of 12% per decade?
How many times must you be told that global warming happens before you hear what is being said? This is what I like about you fear mongers, who claim to see things long term, but limit yourselves to a half century... you're such optimists.[sarc] An increase in ice to you is an attack on your very being. An increase in polar bear population is an attack on your desire to keep 1/3 of the world's populations suffering with no electricity by having constant crybaby fits about the sky falling.

You cannot claim AGW, when other provable, more dramatic warming has occurred, when there was no industry.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#46 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times must you be told that global warming happens before you hear what is being said? This is what I like about you fear mongers, who claim to see things long term, but limit yourselves to a half century... you're such optimists.[sarc] An increase in ice to you is an attack on your very being. An increase in polar bear population is an attack on your desire to keep 1/3 of the world's populations suffering with no electricity by having constant crybaby fits about the sky falling.
You cannot claim AGW, when other provable, more dramatic warming has occurred, when there was no industry.
what caused that more dramatic warming?
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#47 Aug 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what caused that more dramatic warming?
I'm not interested in that long discussion of conjecture. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that arrogant humans with their incredibly refined and powerful methods of impacting their environment, don't start intentionally messing with Mother Nature to affect something well beyond their understanding. They always, Always, ALWAYS screw up...

Al Gore needs shock therapy, not recognition. AGW is religion without God.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#48 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times must you be told that global warming happens before you hear what is being said? This is what I like about you fear mongers, who claim to see things long term, but limit yourselves to a half century... you're such optimists.[sarc] An increase in ice to you is an attack on your very being. An increase in polar bear population is an attack on your desire to keep 1/3 of the world's populations suffering with no electricity by having constant crybaby fits about the sky falling.
You cannot claim AGW, when other provable, more dramatic warming has occurred, when there was no industry.
No one is denying that global warming has occurred before. It is the rate of global warming that is the cause of so much concern.

Here's what happened. After the end of the ice age, the planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler — but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again — global average temperature shot up.

"Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years," Marcott says.

So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/mar/08/current-...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#49 Aug 9, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not interested in that long discussion of conjecture. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that arrogant humans with their incredibly refined and powerful methods of impacting their environment, don't start intentionally messing with Mother Nature to affect something well beyond their understanding. They always, Always, ALWAYS screw up...
Al Gore needs shock therapy, not recognition. AGW is religion without God.
nice cop-out...

i thought humans couldn't affect the environment, as in AGW?

you are not a very effective debater, you prove your own points wrong in two simple posts...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nation-Now 1 hour ago 10:06 a.m.How Trump's dep... 3 hr Wildchild 1
News Taste of Nova Scotia: The holiday kitchen party... 19 hr ihavenet 1
How to give wine as a gift - when you know noth... (Dec '14) Nov 27 saied 47
News Coolest and weirdest underground attractions Nov 22 Knock off purse s... 3
Save With a WINE PASS Nov 12 howefortunate 1
News Finding a decent bottle of wine for $15 (Sep '15) Nov 10 ShinyJ 4
News This startup claims to pair different wines wit... Oct '16 Stephany McDowell 1
More from around the web