Sen. Franken's Colloquy with Sen. Whitehouse on Climate Change

[FSFchannel]

I bet half the global warming deniers in the comments section haven't watched the entire video. i'm a bit late, but inb4 "WELL DE WINTER IS PRETY COAULD WHERS URRE GLOBUEL WORMING!!!1111! "

[ex6arch6angel6]

WE FUCKING GET IT YOU FUCKTARD, SCIENTISTS ARE SMART, NO SHIT THEY'RE FUCKING SCIENTISTS

[somercet1]

This reminds me of "A Man for All Seasons": "Damn it, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!"

One man armed with a single fact, or a better theory, is a majority.

[summerseed]

So your official defense of SOPA and PIPA is that you want to protect Americans from "Corporate interference"... and you made your decisions in supporting these bills due to donations from those same corporations to take rights and freedoms from Americans? Honestly I cannot say much more then "you have become the monster you've supposedly fought for so long". You have no credibility, you hold no more respect, you have become Judas and we will see to it you pay for it.

[xcelpast]

you look like a douche.

[ArKaiN123]

YOU BETRAYING, CORRUPT SACK OF SHIT

[tenshady]

I WILL DISLIKE ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM THIS ARSEHOLE for CONTINUALLY SUPPORTING SOPA & PIPA, I know some of you might say it is dead -IT IS NOT DEAD.

[killdano]

Franken... Pay him and he will fuck people.

[iliveon]

The downvotes are from petroleum company bots

[JONBAJUlCE]

@senatorfranken FUCK YOU

[david222444]

Guess you have to be drunk to spew this crap.

[david222444]

Here is a scientist who thinks that Alexander Flemming would turn in his grave if he thought he was linked to The Greenhouse theory which still has never been proven . Antibiotics have been scientifically proven to work. The so called scientific or should I say political consensus is a yawn. Has the speaker been on the booze as he is slurring his words?

[nigelelsass]

@david222444 : Measured radiative forcing??? WTF??? never proven??? you dropped out of high school?

[david222444]

@nigelelsass Do not be a cheeky chappie. Go read the second law of thermodynamics. The atmosphere cannot warm the oceans. I repeat the so called Greenhouse theory of man induced Global warming has never been proven. It all depends on the quality of your education laddie.

[nigelelsass]

@david222444 : You are a MORON who do not understand the 2nd law and does not even get the difference between SOURCE of energy and MEDIUM which conducts the energy.

AN IDIOT LIKE YOU WILL NEVER EVER PASS A UNIVERSITY TEST IN THERMODYNAMICS... and the world will remain that way.

[david222444]

@nigelelsass Name calling is rather childish and does not win a discussion. I check Global and atmospheric temperatures daily and since starting this task I have found that both Global and Atmospheric temperatures are cooling . This is contrary to your propaganda and fairytale manmade Global warming junk.

[nigelelsass]

@david222444 : If you use the 2nd law of TD - make sure you at least understand it - sorry copy/paste something scientifically wrong and it will still be wrong. You can do WHATEVER YOU WANT BUT... do not say falshoods about laws of physics - your lie having been exposed - why should anyone trust you???

[nigelelsass]

@david222444 : BTW: Please SHOW A GRAPH THAT THERE IS A COOLING - and present it to a specialist of statistics - then we´ll talk. In the meantime you can live in your fantasy world.

[nigelelsass]

@david222444 : Alright I am childish to insult you - BUT I CAUGHT YOU PANTS MISREPRESENTING LAW OF PHYSICS !!!

[david222444]

@nigelelsass Still being childish? I wish you would stop ranting on about a totally irrelevant trace gas, which cannot possibly in a sane world drive the climate. Furthermore man cannot control the climate of the Planet and you must try to understand that there are some things in nature beyond human control, the climate is one of them. I have come to the conclusion that green enviromentalists are no more than deluded control freaks. Heat travels from hot areas to cold areas.Simples

[nigelelsass]

@david222444 : The spectral absorption of this gas is MEASURED, MEANINGFUL and INCREASES WITH CONCENTRATIONS - sources provided upon request.

Quote:...must try to understand that there are some things in nature beyond human control...  (Edit: sounds like a Voodoo priest, not like a scientist).

You have come to the habit to jump at unsubstantiated conclusions - NO WONDER SINCE YOU QUOTE LAWS OF PHYSICS YOU DO NOT GET OR MISREPRESENT

[nigelelsass]

One recommendation: if you believe trace concentrations mean no meaningful effect - I recommend you swallow some arsenic - that should invalidate your false statement AND take care of you.

[wangsta25]

It's kinda hard to believe in global warming when you've got oil companies and big moneyed interests driving their dick up your ass and cumming money into your face.

[nigelelsass]

@wangsta25 : It´s kind hard to believe skeptics when they say GW is alternatively powered by anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear, by anti-oil and pro-oil... it´s kind of a magic bag you can put any conspiracy theory in your mind in. Ohh and off course there is SO much money to be earned it - unlike financial derivatives, the oil and gas business or weapon business...

[Wtfgames]

Franken, i hope somebody kills you because you are a leftwing communist who supports shutting down the internet

[trog69]

@Wtfgames Why don't you do it, tough guy? You piece of shit.

[Wtfgames]

Traitor fucking traitor, you support sopa FUCK YOU

[trog69]

@Wtfgames Where did I even mention SOPA, you fucking moron? I am talking about your Internet Tough Guy routine. You really think that killing someone for disagreeing with you is normal, sane behavior?

And no, I do NOT support the present iterations of SOPA/PIPA, so go blow it out your ass.

[Wtfgames]

@trog69

Franken DOes support pipa and i believe anybody who supports pipa deserves to be killed,

[trog69]

@Wtfgames You know, I think I do support SOPA/PIPA now. Oh boy, I sure hope Mr./Mrs. ITG doesn't come over and kill me! I'm so scared of people who threaten others on the internet, I-I'm shaking so bad, I can't hardly type this.

Oh wait...I'm just laughing too hard to type. Moron.

[Greg4Green]

It's amazing how powerful HATE is... hate of one man (Gore) and of... LIBERALS! This blinding hatred drives people's belief systems and their perceptions of reality. One look at 2011's weather events clearly shows climate chaos. The most popular (latest) argument is: "OK, it's happening, but we have *nothing* to do with it!" Because taking *any* responsibility means we must DO SOMETHING about it, and we can't possibly do that! It's too costly. ("Blame is better to give than to receive.").

[nigelelsass]

@Greg4Green : This is only the case (THANKS GOD) in the US. I proudly support a right-wing pro-environment party in Europe. Just due to dogma, the simple idea of environmental markets in the US has become virtually a taboo as the pro-marjet are anti-science.

[chibiakutenshi]

___________ Why does Al Franken support SOPA?

[xchopp]

@chibiakutenshi What does that have to do with this issue?

[DISCONNECTME1]

97% of ALL RETARDS say it exists, so go ahead and swallow the cool-aide...

It's good for you....

Al Franken is a COMEDIAN!!! Both in real life and now in Congress!!!

I love Sen. Westinghouse's "lisp" too....

LoL...

You retards follow a comedian and a guy who can't even speak like an adult on a supposedly "scientific principle"! LoL.....

Wanna buy some carbon credits from me? I'll sell them to you at a discount! You can use your welfare checks to buy them!

LoL....

Mindless losers...

LoL

[nigelelsass]

@DISCONNECTME1 : The "97% retards" you are talking about ar the 1,340 scientists with 20 or more peer-reviewed and published/accepted papers in atmospheric science. If this sample of people is retarded - what are you?

If you are not able to demonstrate in a scientific manner where scientists are wrong - but do this on the basis of a system of pre-existing beliefs, then you do not belong to western and would be a better fit for Afghanistan or Somalia

[trog69]

@nigelelsass You're responding to a person so base and pathetic that their only response is making fun of their speech or blathering nonsense, or both. DISCONNECTME1 should be, or at least ignored for the ignoramus it is.

[MakesMeAngry]

It's a shame he's speaking to an empty house.

[Desertphile]

@MakesMeAngry ; The house was also half empty during the Year 2000 election fraud hearings. It is impossible to get one of the major political parties in the USA to do their jobs.

[trog69]

@MakesMeAngry But they're still doing it. We need to step it up in supporting them, or their efforts will be for naught.

[Desertphile]

#8. Ground subsidence due to climate change is a minor problem compared to isostatic rebound due to melting land ice; large regions of land masses are rising due to the weight of ice being removed off of them.

[Desertphile]

#7. The 33% uptake figure for the world's oceans for atmospheric CO2 is the low end, for high latitudes. Commander Roger Revelle and Dr. Seuss showed that the figure is closer to 50% on average globally. See for example WikiPedia's article on the Revelle Effect.

[Desertphile]

#6. Dr. Muller was not skeptical of the scientific consensus: he accepted the evidence and the facts that show humans have caused and are causing climate change. His only skepticism was the extent of how much warming has already happened: he thought it was lower than what the scientific consensus said it is. His BEST team discovered that the consensus is correct and that the amount of warming the consensus showed was, in fact, higher than he thought it was.

[Desertphile]

#5. Senator Franken said scientists "need to prove it (every new hypothesis) conclusively." That is wrong. Scientists never try to prove their hypotheses: they only work, damn hard, to disprove their own hypotheses, and also disprove other scientists' hypotheses. Science and scientists do not "do" proof. Proof is not the venue of science.

[trog69]

@Desertphile While I agree with your statement, in the whole, it's a bit nitpicky, don't you think? I mean, Sen. Franken certainly didn't have to spend an hour talking to himself, fighting to bring the truth out to citizens that are very confused about CC, and he used as much relevant data as possible without making the viewers eyes glaze over. I'm proud to see such progressive action in Congress, personally.

[Desertphile]

@trog69 ; Greetings! I agree the senators did an excellent job. My complaint is that because there are so many anti-science pro-lunacy nutcases out there who hate scientists and hate the fact human-caused climate change is an observed fact, it is necessary to be hyper-correct when explaining these facts because the nutters will grab on to any error, no matter how tiny, and try to make hay with it.

[trog69]

@Desertphile You're right, of course. I'm just growing a bit tired of playing teacher to bunch of willfully ignorant fools, who live for the conflict against "others". GW-deniers are almost to a person, far-right ideologues, and I am fed up with the divisive nonsense, while the real villains laugh their asses off.

[Desertphile]

Indeed, the deniers of human-caused climate change appear to have the attention span of a boiled cabbage; their masters at FOX "News" and in the USA Republican Party are banking on the inability of their slaves to think clearly or question what they are ordered to believe. My warmwagers web site lists over 600 Earth Sciences science organizations in over 35 countries that have stated humans have caused climate change; I cannot find even one science organization that says the opposite.

[david222444]

@trog69 Climate realists are scientist who want scientific proof of this theory, as yet no scientific proof of the greenhouse theory has emerged.

[trog69]

@david222444 Why do you assert something you know is nonsense. The greenhouse effect is a valid, well-known theory, and just because you say "nuh-uh" it is still a fact. Please pull your head out of your ass. Thanks.

[david222444]

@trog69 For it to be valid we need proof. Where is this proof? 0.04% trace gas drives the climate? yea right pull the other one. The big yellow thing in the sky drives the climate. There is a colored book somewhere just made for green simpletons or maybe you would enjoy the tellietubbies, they have plenty on windmills to enjoy.

[trog69]

@david222444 Nothing anyone says will convince you because you have no intention of believing the already mounting evidence for CC. Please, don't pretend as if you'd change your mind; you'd merely move the goaposts, even if they sunk through the tundra.

[Desertphile]

And yes, "climategate" never happened: there was no scandal, and there is no evidence any climatologist did anything wrong.

National Science Foundation: Scientists cleared

The British House of Commons: Scientists cleared

Pennsylvania State University: Scientists cleared

The InterAcademy Council: Scientists cleared

The National Research Council: Scientists cleared

The US Commerce Department inspector General: Scientists cleared

US Environmental Protection Agency: Scientists cleared

[PJS50]

@Desertphile No, ClimateGate never happened- LoL:

newsbusters. org/node/32996/print

online.wsj. com/article/SB1000142405274870­3499404574564291187747578. html

icecap. us/images/uploads/JC_comments. doc

blogs.news. com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/in­dex.php/heraldsun/comments/cli­mategate_this_time_al_gore_lie­d

foxnews. com/scitech/2011/06/17/researc­h-center-under-fire-for-adjust­ed-sea-level-data/

[Desertphile]

@PJS50 ; Idiot. There is zero evidence "climategate" happened. It was a hoax.

[DISCONNECTME1]

@Desertphile The ONLY hoax that you are obviously a sucker for is the ANTHROPOGENIC part of the global warming "theory"...

You mindless fucks using 200 year old data crack me up...

[Desertphile]

@DISCONNECTME1 ; There is no such thing as "global warming theory," you silly goose. And it's an observed fact that humans have caused climate change. You'll just have to adjust.

[Desertphile]

#4. Senator Whitehouse mentioned only a tiny few of the Earth Sciences science organizations that have issued statements supporting the scientific consensus. I have a list of over 640 science organizations in over 40 countries that have stated human-caused climate change has happened and is happening.

[Desertphile]

#3. The actual figure for peer reviewed science papers published in science journals shows the scientific consensus is greater than 97%. There are currently listed over 130,000 science papers in the World of Knowledge index about the effects of atmospheric CO2 on Earth's climate.

[Desertphile]

#2. Senator Franken's summary of peer review is also correct. He perhaps should have stressed that papers submitted for peer review themselves include all objections to the conclusion that the wrtters can think of that are against their conclusion. That s, science papers list every single flaw the writers can think of that might modify or refute themselves---- *BEFORE* the paper is sent to a science journal, the writers try to disprove their own conclusions. This is true of climatology.

[Desertphile]

I thought I would list some of the things Senator Franken is mistaken on. Almost all of what he said is correct.

Senator Franken said there are peer reviewed science papers written by "skeptics." In fact there were *THREE* such papers published over the past 80 years, all of which have been refuted and all of which no scientist cites as valid. Lindzen for example was told by his MIT peers that he was wrong before he sent his paper for peer review: he later retracted his paper.

[Desertphile]

This is excellent; Senator Franken's grasp on the subject is very, very good. There are a tiny few points he got wrong, but they were not worth listing here unless he wants me to.

[PJS50]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

Man-Made Climate Change has NOT been proven!

The REAL data has NOT shown a correlation to man and any "global warming"...

In fact, we are currently in a cooling cycle!

The only scientitst who buy into this anthropogenic warming are the ones who stand to PROFIT from it due to further government funding of research, and the governement funds the research to these select-few so that Al Gore & Soros can become RICH from trading carbon credits.

You are being LIED TO!

[Desertphile]

@PJS50 ; Idiot.

[PJS50]

@Desertphile Typical Ignorant Immature Liberal. Has no logical substance to their arguement so they begin the name calling.

Tell us you definative links between the activities of "man" and any global warming/cooling cycles (because those DO happen ALL THE TIME, but it has nothing to do with man)

Tell us how your eminence would deal with a simple thing called VOLCANOS, where ONE major eruption can spew MORE "real" toxins into the atmosphere than man has EVER done since he was living in caves.

[prplezard]

@PJS50 Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.

[prplezard]

@prplezard The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980.

[PJS50]

@prplezard You missed the part of my reply where I said that during one big eruption volcanos emit more "REAL" toxins than man ever has. CO2 is a "trace" element in our atmophere (@3%) and it is NOT the sole contibutor to the greenhouse effect. In fact, even NASA recently produced a 10 year study which said EXACTLY THAT! Their study also said that water-vapor was a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and what can we do about that? Nothing... Carbon Credits just make Gore rich!

[prplezard]

@PJS50 So what was Svante Arrhenius's angle???? In 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

Typical GOP hit job. Try to discredit the person to discredit the idea/theory.

[Desertphile]

For over 100 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase: Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827 John Tyndall in 1859 Svante Arrhenius in 1896 C.J. Fox in 1909 A. Angstron in 1918 Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916 E.O. Hulburt in 1931 S.G. Callendar in 1937 Professor Gilbert Plass in 1950 Carl Sagan in 1960 Stephen Hawking in 1960 Isaac Asimov in 1968 Wally Broecker in 1975 Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980

[PJS50]

@Desertphile You're referrencing scientific data and ground-based "guesses" from 187 YEARS AGO, over data that NASA just released using ground AND space based observations??? LoL...

Here NASA says CO2 isn't the issue:

forbes. com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/­27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-h­old-in-global-warming-alarmism­/?partner=yahoofeed

Concensus huh?

canadafreepress. com/index. php/article/40476

[PJS50]

@prplezard FYI: the modern studies of the "greenhouse effect" came about when scientists tried to correlate the super-high temps on Venus with the gas-content of its atmosphere. Their hope was to be able to use this effect to "terraform" other planets by producing atmospheres where there was none. The CO2 levels on Venus were found to be one of the causes of the high temps, but the CO2 level on Venus are 2474% HIGHER than earth's (96.5%on Venus vs .039% here on earth).

CO2 is a NON-ISSUE here.

[trog69]

@PJS50 I'm sorry, I missed where the 97% of climatologists agreed with your hypothesis, and said, "Nevermind; we didn't think about that."

You are a GW-denier. There is no amount of facts that will change your mind. If you have children, their lives, and their children's lives, will be worse off because of cranks like you. Nice.

[DISCONNECTME1]

@trog69 Go follow the herd into the gas chambers you stupid fuck.

MAN has NOTHING to do with the global warming/cooling cycles.

Look into the middle ages ice age. Look at the data that the Chinese have been gathering about sun spots for over 800 years and see how the NATURAL global warming/cooling cycles follow them. Look at how CO2 is a TRACE element in our atmosphere and how you uneducated FUCKS are willing to follow a polluting "retard" (Gore) anywhere he says you should go. U Inbred FUCK!

[trog69]

@DISCONNECTME1 What happened, Cheetos dust in your sippy cup again? Better hope mommy doesn't see your bad words and imbecilic attempts at adult conversation, buster!

[trog69]

@DISCONNECTME1 Methinks you've got an excessive accumulation of CO2 buildup causing your neurons to mis-fire. It's a common effect of trying to breathe while your head's up your ass.

Reading your blather, it's likely you have at least one of your thumbs up there as well; try to jam your thumb into your ear to help pry your head out. Prolly tapers to a pin, so once you're past the ears...

[nigelelsass]

@DISCONNECTME1 : _Do us a favour and drink some arsenic in TRACE amounts - as you are so brilliant you have found out traces elements do not have any effect due to their low concentration.

[nigelelsass]

@DISCONNECTME1 : BTW... the increased in radiative forcing is MEANINGFUL, MEASURABLE and HAPPENS NOT RANDOMLY BUT AT SPECIFIC WAVELENGTH OF MAN-MADE GHG.... so here goes your loony claim fully nullified

[nigelelsass]

@DISCONNECTME1 Quote: "Go follow the herd into the gas chambers..." => when you read that, you know you are dealing with a wacko conspiracy theorist. Thanks to make it clear.

[nigelelsass]

@PJS50 : As I explained, the radiative forcing from CO2 is MEASURED !!! It is already demonstrated to be an issue and will only be worse. You can find the measured data since 1971 on the NOAA website. I would be happy to provide any data and published scientific article needed for your consideration.

[Desertphile]

@PJS50 ; Idiot.

[AcaiAdvantage]

This is all over the GOP's head and between their legs. I propose an amendment to outlaw Republicans!! Don't they get we are talking about the prolonged existence of humans and all living organisms coming to an absolute and definite end to greed and ignorance!!

[5packzach]

Can someone give me the cliffs of this? What did Franken propose?

[shadownor]

@Vondur, Al voted yes on the Udall Amendment, the amendment that would remove that particular provision (indefinite detention ) from the Defense Appropriations Act. This horrible power has been law since 2003, and Sen. Franken voted to remove it.

To recap, a 'yes' vote on the Udall Amendment, meant that the voter wanted that power to be removed rather than automatically reinstated.

[bradjbourgeois73]

Very disappointed in Sen. Franken for voting Aye on NDAA!

[BigMikeMcBastard]

Franken is a great guy but the global warming stuff is done. It's over. Nobody meaningful will cut back on their emissions. It's never going to happen. The ship has sailed. So yeah, even though the Republicans are anti-science and say global warming won't cause problems because the Bible says it won't, at this point it's beyond trying to prevent. Simply do your best to prepare for the consequences.

[inuyashaxx]

@BigMikeMcBastard Republicans aren't anti-science. They love science when it profits for them. They love it when scientists make new missiles for them to sell overseas. They just don't like it when scientists tell them that their companies that are polluting are destroying the environment. They've been trying to kill the EPA for years, even before global warming became a big issue.