Watch the Senate climate pajama party all-nighter live

Thanks for telling me about it. As a person who is a believer, I really enjoyed it.

Mike J – I would only add that it is also a tactic with a clear but unspoken message: You could be next. That ties in with instilling conformity.

Just watched Hannity and the debate between Patrick Moore and Fox’s resident leftie Democrat, Bob Beckel, apropos that monumental waste of time by the Senate. Dr. Moore cites no warming 17 years, lack of any proof of any effect of CO2 on climate. Beckel counters with “You’re a sellout who left Greenpeace to found a for-profit company selling to polluters.” (Quote as best as I could remember, but captures it, and as I understand it, Dr. Moore is assisting companies with pollution controls – and he quite aptly pointed out that all companies pollute.)
How typical – facts vs. personal attacks. The sad part is that people like Beckel actually seem to think that ad hominem is scientific evidence – they plainly, really believe that. And of course all profit is evil – never mind that it supports the business owner and enables him/her to create jobs. Economic illiteracy, on top of scientific illiteracy.
No wonder it’s useless to debate alarmists – even if they agree to debate, that’s all you will get from them, and they will be entirely convinced they’ve refuted your arguments.
Whatever happened to critical thinking? Maybe these mollusks would learn something from a freshman philosophy course. Oops – no they won’t, as soon as they detect criticism of their own “reasoning” they will stop listening.

Harry Reid: Climate change deniers becoming less credible due to the bad weather: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-climate-change-deniersbecoming-less-credible-bad-weather_784618.html
Save some tar and feathers for this guy. He really deserves it.

But the truth is that Harry Reid simply rented the Senate to billionaire environmentalist’s causes. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/11/RNC-Harry-Reid-rented-US-senate-to-billionaire-environmentalist-s-cause
Another word for this is CORRUPTION.
Time to Clean House.

@R. de Haan at 9:07 pm
There was a bit by SESSIONS on the page before the climate sleep-in.
It is about 17K, I have cut some of it down, but there is a lot of good stuff in it. The (PDF 200K) is worth keeping. The entire PDF deserves to be a WUWT posting, for it is a good summary of the science, the questions, and the politics.
CLIMATE CHANGE — (Senate – March 10, 2014 [Page: S1371]
Mr. SESSIONS. It has been reported that a number of our colleagues in the Democratic majority in the Senate intend to speak on the Senate floor tonight on the question of climate change. Sometimes they will say “global warming,” and I guess that is ceasing to be the No. 1 phrase now.
An article in the USA Today said this “effort is cause for some confusion because these Senators are calling for action in a chamber they control but without any specific legislation to offer up for a vote.”
No legislation–this is, indeed, confusing. Why wouldn’t the majority leader bring a bill to the floor of the Senate to expressly approve President Obama’s climate agenda or to approve his rigorous regulations that constrict Americans with it.
Why not? The answer is it wouldn’t pass. The American people do not support this and neither does Congress. A lot of his Democratic colleagues, I would suggest, don’t want to vote on it. It raises a lot of questions about what the deal is and what we need to do as a Nation to handle pollution, carbon dioxide, climate change, and how we need to deal with it and how we should think about it. There was an article in today’s Washington Times by Mr. William C. Triplett II that points out the following:
[Page: S1372]
In mid-February, billionaire and major Democratic National Committee donor Tom Steyer held a dinner at his palatial San Francisco home for 70 of his closest friends. Former Vice President Al Gore was the headliner, and in attendance were Democratic Senators Harry Reid…..
The Democratic Senate leader and four other Senators were present.
He has pledged to give $50 million to a campaign to defeat, mainly, Republicans because they don’t agree with his global warming agenda.
Mr. Triplett says:
What has everyone’s attention is this number: $100 million. Mr. Steyer has announced that he intends to put $50 million of his own money into Democrats’ races in 2014 and has challenged his fellow deep-pocket liberals to match it with an additional $50 million of their own. His issue is “climate change.”
We have to talk after this conference. We will have a lot of talk tonight about this question.
With regard to Congress, I will try to be as brief as I can. In 1970 Congress passed the Clean Air Act before global warming had ever been discussed. In fact, there was some discussion of global cooling in 1970. It passed.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless, tasteless gas that plants take in and breathe out oxygen; and people breathe in oxygen again and let out carbon dioxide. It is a naturally forming, odorless, tasteless, nonharmful gas.
It was contended that this gas was causing global warming. It made some sense to me. CO2 apparently is some sort of a global warming gas and creates a blanket effect and could increase the temperatures. Who knows–that was the argument and it seemed to make some sense.
However, John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan who was there at the time of the Clean Air Act and was one of its authors said: “I think the Supreme Court came up with a veryÐ much erroneous decision on whetherÐ the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse Ðgases ….. ”
So what happened was the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 vote–after it was contended through the International Panel on Climate Change that CO2 could be causing climate change–ruled this was a pollutant, as are particulates like NOX and SOX–sulfur dioxide, and, therefore, under the 1970 law, which never mentioned CO2, the Environmental Protection Agency was required to regulate it. That gave these unelected bureaucrats–people in that agency–the power to regulate an individual American’s barbecue grill, their lawnmower, and every major business in America the amount of CO2 they emit from their businesses and their plants. It is a remarkable development from a pure constitutional question. If the issue were brought up today it would not pass. There are not sufficient votes, apparently, to overturn it, but there would never have been enough votes to pass legislation to do what the Supreme Court said.
….
In January of 2014, in the Scientific American magazine, which has been a staunch supporter of global warming legislation, it contained an article entitled “The Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind,” which explains some of the reasons for the “slow pace of energy transition.” The article explains, “each widespread transition from one dominant fuel to another has taken 50 to 60 years,” and “there is no technical or financial reason to believe [renewables] will rise any quicker.”
….
From 1990 to 2012 the world’s energy from fossil fuels barely changed, down from 88 percent to 87 percent.
….
Then we have the problem of exaggeration to the point where exaggeration is really not a fair word to describe it, in my opinion. It becomes more than an exaggeration but a deliberate misrepresentation.
On November 14, 2012, President Obama said, “The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.” Increasing faster than even 10 years ago it was predicted to increase. So I wrote former EPA director, Administrator Lisa Jackson, in December of 2012 asking her to provide the best available data that EPA had and that they would rely upon to support the President’s statement. ….
On April 30 she responded in writing to me–….. She simply stated:
EPA has not produced its own analysis, but we expect a definitive comparison in the forthcoming [IPCC] Fifth Assessment Report.
Then on May 29, 2013, President Obama did it again. He claimed:
[We] also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated 5 or 10 years ago …..
This is the President. I challenged the statement at the committee before his top environmental official, Administrator McCarthy. She could not produce any information to back this up. And he repeats it again. This is very disturbing to me.
So on June 24, 2013, I was joined by all EPW Republicans in a letter to Ms. McCarthy to ask that she provide data supporting the President’s claims, but she didn’t provide any data.
Why? There is no such data. The climate is not warming faster than was predicted by the experts several or even 5 to 10 years ago. Nothing close. Let us look at this chart. On this chart the red line is a projection compiled of 102 predictive computer models. …. This is what the average of those models predicted, going up substantially from almost a degree by 2020. That is 1 degree, in 20-some-odd years. That is noticeable. That is an impact, if it were to happen.
However, these two lines are actual temperature measurements starting in 1980 and through the current date, right here. And the temperatures haven’t gone up. It has been an extraordinary thing. The computer models have been wrong virtually every year and experts are admitting, even the IPCC admits this is a problem for them. They do not know why the temperature hasn’t been increasing. CO2 has been going up. Why isn’t the temperature increasing, such as they predicted?
Yet the President continues to say the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. It is hardly increasing at all in the last 17 years.
So we have to have some truth, and I hope, if our colleagues talk about this issue, they will ask EPA Administrator McCarthy what information she has that would justify such a statement. And I hope they do not make that same statement. Actually, I said to her it would be nice if she would tell the President to quit saying it. I will say he hasn’t said it since last year. ….
[Page: S1373]…
There is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50 or 100 years. ….
In brief, tornado, hurricane and cyclone activity are at historically low levels, wildfires are in a long-term decline except in government forests, there is no trend in sea-levels related to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, the record of the Arctic ice cover is ambiguous, there is no drought trend since 1895, and the same is true for flooding over the past 85 to 127 years.
…..
As we discuss the hundreds of billions of dollars in costs which are being imposed on our economy as a result of some of the ideas to deal with climate change and extreme weather, I asked my colleagues: Would you please check the data; is it truly so that we are having more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods? Dr. Pielke says no. Let’s see somebody dispute those numbers. They haven’t been disputed.
Is it true the temperature is increasing faster than was predicted even 5 years or 10 years ago? The IPCC data doesn’t show it and neither does any other objective data. ….

Also watch:Paul vs Paul In Ron Paul’s concept the fight against AGW wouldn’t be subject because Government would not be part of the picture.

That’s it, just mock the pack of liars and their fantasy stories.
They are not worth listening to as they have nothing to say.
Only extreme narcisism the feel good effect of saving the planet and filling their coffers has brought them to power.
They’re all gone when the money flow stops coming.

Mods: please delete 9:40 am, I’ll try again.

It is only fair to show the usage of the word “skeptic”
CR_Page , CR_Speaker _, CR_Text
S1381 __, KING ________, I was a skeptic until several years
S1385 __, INHOFE ______, for Nuremberg-style trials for skeptics.
S1385 __, INHOFE ______, skeptical of global warming
S1387 __, SCHATZ ______, climate skeptics such as American scientist
S1401 __, KAINE _______, day. The skeptics were loud, but we
S1401 __, KAINE _______, It is the skeptics and the deniers who
S1401 __, KAINE _______, So I say to the skeptics of whatever
S1404 __, MARKEY ______, If you are still skeptical, perhaps the
S1404 __, MARKEY ______, findings of another skeptic, Dr. Richard
S1404 __, MARKEY ______, of a Climate Change Skeptic.’’
S1407 __, KING ________, Maine, I was a climate skeptic. I heard

@Phil at 9:08 am (continuation of my 10:01 am)
Medano Pass, Sangre de Cristo Range, S. CO. 15% below average
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/view?intervalType=+View+Current+&report=WYGRAPH&timeseries=Daily&format=plot&sitenum=914&interval=WATERYEAR
Red Mountain Pass, SW Colorado On Average.
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/view?intervalType=+View+Current+&report=WYGRAPH&timeseries=Daily&format=plot&sitenum=713&interval=WATERYEAR
By your link New Mexico appears to be under average,
Colorado appears to be above average.
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/data/snow/basin_reports/colorado/wy2014/basnco3.txt