Who are the GOP warmists?

July 17, 2017

By David Archibald

They are the worshipers of a lesser god, global warming.  Foreign Policy, the propaganda arm of the Brookings Institution, reports that a number of Republican congressmen helped defeat an amendment to the 2018 defense funding bill proposed by Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.  Perry’s amendment would have removed an amendment introduced by Jim Langevin of Rhode Island to require the Department of Defense to report on global warming.

Langevin’s amendment has some amusing bits.  In the supporting evidence for global warming, one piece of evidence listed to demonstrate that global warming is really, truly, unequivocally happening is on page four:

(13) In the Yukon Training Area, units conducting artillery training accidentally started a wildfire despite observing the necessary practices during red flag warning conditions.

So some artillery rounds set fire to some brush in Alaska.  And as a consequence, the Department of Defense is required to examine the effects of make-believe on its operations?  On page five, the make-believers listed their demands with respect to the report the Department of Defense is required to compile, including reporting on the effects of increased flooding and drought at the same time.  The make-believers shouldn’t be forced to choose.  They can have both flood and drought if they want them, and if everyone believes.

The United States pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, per Lincoln’s assessment that the United States is “the last, best hope of earth.”  That pullout may have saved humanity from a form of servitude.  As the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo, it was “a damn close-run thing.”  But the forces of darkness still hold a lot of high ground, believe they can still prevail and mount counterattacks to gain ground, as per the Langevin amendment.  The fact that the Department of Defense is producing a report on global warming will be used to say how serious a problem it is.

The head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has proposed a blue team-red team dialogue to progress climate science, instead of simply appointing someone, such as Will Happer, to write the required report and get it over and done with.  Perhaps Mr. Pruitt thinks such an approach will provide legitimacy for the outcome.  The blue team won’t play, though, because it means entertaining the thought that they could possibly be wrong.  Besides, we don’t have the luxury of time.  There has yet to be even one official government report, from anywhere on the planet, saying global warming is nonsense.  There are 33 Republican-controlled states in the Union currently.  Any one of them could commission such a report on climate; all of them should.  This is a strategy that will capture the enemy’s center of gravity – the scientific imprimatur for their belief system.

Now back to our first question: Who are these people?  Which Republican congressmen have broken faith and voted to subject their people to servitude, oppression, and contempt?  The list can be broken into two.  Firstly, there are the members of House Climate Solutions Caucus, the inner circle of self-selected misanthropes.  The Republican members of this group are:


If this first list can be considered as those who have consciously made a choice for evil, this second group are the easily deluded fools:


If you see your congressman on either list, please point out to him the error of his ways.

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare.

Note: Duplicated content was removed from this post.


122 thoughts on “Who are the GOP warmists?

    • Ok, try this. Climate scientists say that we are warming the planet because we are burning fossil fuels. This sends more co2 into the atmosphere that partially stops radiated heat. Now what they say is the more co2 and other greenhouses we put into the atmosphere the more heat is trapped, this warms the planet. So that’s what they claim. We should gather the science together to refute this and link all the scientific institutions that say AGW is not happening….. oh wait there isn’t any … Doh!



        The global warming debate is primarily about one parameter – the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 (aka ECS, TCS, etc.). Let’s call this climate sensitivity ECS for brevity.

        Global warming alarmists allege that ECS is high and Earth will experience catastrophic warming due to increasing atm. CO2.

        Skeptics say ECS is low and any warming due to increasing atm. CO2 will be harmless or beneficial.

        The alarmist position is founded on allegations of high ECS, which are based on assumptions of strong positive feedbacks for which there is NO supporting evidence.

        Furthermore, there is ample evidence that ECS is low. The most credible information is the full-scale temperature data of our planet. Earth temperature since 1850 has warmed, cooled, warmed, and remained ~flat, all for multi-decadal periods, even as CO2 increased from ~280ppm to ~400 ppm. This full-Earth-scale test shows that increasing atm. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.

        Climate sensitivity (ECS) is no more than ~1C/(2xCO2) and probably less, so there is no real global warming crisis.

        Many trillions of dollars and many thousands (even millions) of lives have been squandered on what is clearly false, and probably fraudulent claims of high ECS.

      • Have you read the IPCC report, proved to almost 100% certainty. So their’s the case for the “warmists” where’s the report for non warmists?

      • To be fair they’re all looking at the same bogus temperature graphs and using the same bogus data.

      • Dera kyle_fouro, do you have any data that shows the temperatures over the last say … 15 years that contradicts the data produced by the IPCC. If the data gathered by the IPCC is not correct who’s got the real temperature records?

      • Show me empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature of the planet to warm, and I’ll consider in the context that man’s ongoing contribution is around 2ppm per year.

        But in 40 years there has not been one successful, credible, empirical study undertaken that demonstrates this fundamental prerequisite to justify climate alarm because of CO2.

        Until this is demonstrated, everything else is smoke, mirrors and misdirected guesswork.

      • Steve wrote:
        “Have you read the IPCC report, proved to almost 100% certainty. So their’s (sic) the case for the “warmists” (sic) where’s the report for non warmists?”.

        Steve, work on your spelling and punctuation; then work on your reading and then on your thinking.

        The IPCC reports and their highly “adjusted” Summaries for Policymakers (SPM’s) are adequately refuted by the NIPCC reports.

        The IPCC reports are unfounded propaganda based on climate computer models that assume excessively high values of climate sensitivity to CO2, for which there is NO credible evidence and ample contrary evidence. The IPCC reports and especially the SPM’s are false global warming alarmist nonsense.

        I must also break the news to you about several others illusions that you probably believe in: Sharknado is not real – it is as imaginary as global warming alarmism – so is professional wrestling like WWF. Sorry to burst your bubble, which must be distressing for you and all the other imbeciles who believe in such fantasies.

      • @ HotScot July 28, 2017 at 2:35 am

        But in 40 years there has not been one successful, credible, empirical study undertaken that demonstrates this fundamental prerequisite to justify climate alarm because of CO2.

        HotScot, you are 100% absolutely correct. No actual, factual evidence has ever been presented that supports the CO2 causing AGW “junk science” claims. None, nada, zero, zilch.

        But you can “bet your farm” that during the past 40+- years there has been dozens n’ dozens of successful, credible, empirical studies and/or experiments undertaken that demonstrated the fundamental prerequisite to justify the literal fact that atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities have no measurable effect whatsoever on near-surface air temperatures, either short-term or long term.

        Simple studies/experiments such as this, to wit:

        Just build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. out of 1/2″ white PVC plastic pipe, ……. with the dimensions of 20 x 10 x 8 feet square, ……. outside in an area where each will be subjected to the same environmental conditions (Sunshine, darkness, rain, wind), ……. place temperature sensing electronic devices inside each of them which are connected to an external located recording device, ……… then cover them “air tight” (top, bottom and sides) with 4 mill clear plastic sheeting …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same degree F, …….. say at 3 AM, …. inject enough CO2 in one of the structures to increase its 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 800 ppm.

        Then record the temperatures in each structure …… and again record said temperatures every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours or even 48 hours.

        And if CO2 is the “global warming” gas that all the proponents of AGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 800 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting in the afternoon, the temperature inside the structure with 800 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.

        And if it doesn’t, …… then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR … and the re-hashing of the “sensitivity” thingy should cease among learned individuals,

      • Like all trolls, Steve tries to pretend that the very small warming over the last 150 years is in and of itself, proof that CO2 is going to kill us.

      • Steve says:

        “Have you read the IPCC report, proved to almost 100% certainty. So their’s the case for the “warmists” where’s the report for non warmists?”

        Try this:


        But I doubt that you’ll read it. People like you never do. By the way, did you even read the IPCC report, other than the summary for policymakers? Somehow I doubt that, too.

      • https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation This is why the planet is warming. This is called science, if anyone wants to disagree with this … fine. But it won’t be backed by any reference to any science that refutes it. By the way …… WB Wilson you link the heartland institute, that highly reputable scientific institute? Really, not NASA, not The Royal Society. The Heartland Institute is backed by the fossil fuel industry. What I would like to know who is keeping the real temperature records, can anyone supply those for me. Every country in the world has temperature records that show that temperatures are breaking records every year. No country has come out and said our records show the planet is not hitting record high temperatures, not one. Please name one if you can. Oh yes ….. they are all in on the scam, every country and every scientific institution on the planet is in on the scam. Really?

      • Steve, the physics world reluctantly informs you that heat cannot be trapped. Absorption of IR radiation by a substance does NOT constitute the “trapping of heat.” Neither a vacuum nor an inert barrier (an inert barrier is a barrier devoid of an internal source of thermal energy) of any substance known to man when placed between a high-temperature object and a low-temperature object will prevent a portion of the thermal energy in the high temperature object from being transferred in the form of heat to the low-temperature object. This includes completely surrounding the high-temperature with the barrier. Proving this falsity of this statement is pretty simple–just identify the substance or combination of substances that will keep (i.e., “trap”) heat in the high-temperature object. The only way to stop such a transfer of thermal energy (heat) is to bring the two objects to the same temperature.

        AGW alarmists often use the phrase “CO2 is a heat trapping gas.” In fact, your reference https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation explicitly states that “carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation.” If you claim “absorption of IR radiation” is a form of “trapping heat,” then why isn’t “emission of IR radiation” a form of “freeing heat,” which would make CO2 a “heat-freeing” gas? CO2 absorbs and radiates IR, but the former is not equivalent to “trapping heat” and the latter is not equivalent to “freeing heat.” Gee, I wonder why AGW alarmists only use the former.

      • Steve – July 28, 2017 at 4:19 pm

        https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation This is why the planet is warming

        Steve, I know it is silly and asinine for me to ask, ….. but why have you INTENTIONALLY refused to mention the SCIENTIFIC FACT that atmospheric water-vapor-also-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation, …….. and currently and/or normally there is fifty (50) times more atmospheric water (H2O) vapor [20,000 ppm] than there is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) [403 ppm].

        So Stevie, iffen you are going to act the part of our “resident boy genius” ……. then I suggest that for every “#” of degrees F or C that you truly believe atmospheric CO2 is causing the near-surface air temperatures to increase, ……. then best you multiply that “#” of degrees F or C by fifty (50) ….. and then you will also know how many “#” of degrees F or C that the atmospheric H2O vapor is causing the near-surface air temperatures to increase.

        So, iffen you claim a 2 degree F increase because of 403 ppm of CO2, ….. then you also hafta claim a 100 degree F increase because of the 20,000 ppm of H2O vapor.

        And Stevie, iffen you live in the Tropics, the average atmospheric H2O vapor is 40,000 ppm, which is one hundred (100) times greater than the CO2 ppm.

    • Can somebody please tell Jim Langevin that the whole State of Rhode Island, can fit into 20 different non-overlapping places in the Arctic National Wildlife area in the State of Alaska.

      I believe that entire area Is well North of the Yukon River, so it is unlikely that a few artillery rounds would start forest fires, if we moved Jimmy and his State to one of those prime fire free locations of his choice.


  1. Which ones are most active using twitter in place of learning science and real fact checking of science policy fraud embodied in AGW?

  2. David, thank you for the list. But once is enough .. brevity being the soul of wit and all that.

  3. Years ago (maybe 10?) the individual states hired a firm to write their climate reports. After the first report, there was a lot of cutting and pasting and soon all states had a very similar report. There were some odd mistakes because some things from one state just don’t fit to another state.
    After reading a dozen of these things it becomes clear how useless this exercise was.
    A new effort will be equally useless.

  4. It appears most congressmen, like most voters get their beliefs handed to them through media and propaganda rather thank from close inspection of the original science. The latter activity seems to be the usual cause for many of us being highly sceptical.

  5. For anyone that it’s not obvious to by now, many of these Republican congressman are provocateurs.

    • For anyone that it’s not obvious to by now, many of these Republican congressman are provocateurs.

      • Give them a little credit. The American Physical Society touts AGW. So does the American Institute of Physics.

        The real question is why do these organizations support a conclusion for which there is no good physical theory?

        Radiation physics does not say the climate will warm. It just says CO2 will increase the kinetic energy of the atmosphere. Where that energy goes and how it is dissipated is anyone’s guess. There may be no detectable warming at all, from increased CO2.

        The conclusion, ‘AGW‘ does not follow from ‘CO2 is increasing,’ alone. Then why is the physics establishment behind it? It’s not money, and it’s not power. It’s a true conundrum.

        But the support of the APS and the AIT justifies all the Republican believers.

      • @ Pat Frank July 27, 2017 at 6:11 pm

        Then why is the physics establishment behind it?

        Pat, it is not the “physics establishment” that is behind it, ….. it is the Board Members of those physics organizations that are behind it.

        And those Board Members are 100% supportive of it simply because they believe it is the Politically Correct decision for them to make.

  6. These elected officials could care less what any of us think. They are beholding to what ever group or person gives them the most in donations to fund their reelection.

    • So 65% of ALL US University Physics PhD graduates NEVER get a full time paying job working at their specialty.

      So guess how many PhD Physicists are readily available to work at selling global warming, as a Taxpayer funded lifetime career.


      • I have often wondered about this. Do you have a reference for the percentage figure? I know when I was going to school, there was probably less than a 10% survival rate for a B.S. in Physics, and I think I read someplace, that even the illustrious John Cook former cartoonist and web designer, known for SKS and his 97% fame, had opted to get a PhD in Philosopilcal Propaganda or some such thing, and was teaching at a University in Washington, D. C.???

      • George E, my guess is that 66% of the University Physics PhD graduates are readily willing and available to work at selling global warming, as a Taxpayer funded lifetime career.

        YUP, a lifetime government funded career at either “teaching it” or “researching it”.

      • Dear moderator. I simply put a contrary comment to the one above my reply, the counter arguments against AGW is funded by the fossil fuel industry, notably the Koch brothers. My behaviour is not abusive but based in fact. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort

        Reply: It was your use of language convey that idea that was unacceptable. I’ll admit I checked out the comment to which you were responding and I understand where you are coming from but…be nicer anyway~ctm

      • Kyle – it did and it concluded the surface temp record was reliable, there was no undue UHI effect and it was, indeed, warming…

        Did Koch keep funding after that? do they now?

        (I genuinely don’t know if they did/do)

      • It really is fascinating how you trolls elevate personal opinion to the level of fact.
        There is no evidence that the skeptics are funded by big oil or the Koch brothers, but that won’t stop you from presenting it time and time again as proven fact.

      • “the counter arguments against AGW is funded by the fossil fuel industry, notably the Koch brothers.”
        Mine are not. Prove it.

  7. The climate change pushing socialists like Bernie Sanders are being enabled by certain “Republicans” supposedly on our side, such as the self-described “progressive” Romney:

    Tom Nelson ‏@tan123 Feb 3
    “Republican elders float carbon [dioxide scam rip-off BS] tax” https://twitter.com/tan123/status/829124139600510976

    Who needs progressive socialist enemies when we got socialist “friends” like Romney and the Kennedy loving Schwarzenegger on this side of the aisle? Fight these traitorous scumb@gs!

    • Unfortunately, all politicians get rich when government grows more powerful.
      Even Republicans fall victim to this malady.

  8. Fact is that the great majority of Americans put the climate change way down on the list of their concerns, therefore view of their elected representative on the CAGW is of little or no importance to them.
    It is only a small minority made of the hard CAGW zealots or few unhappy sceptics that might vote for a senator or congressman according to the candidate’s climate change view regardless of his/her stand on everything else.

    • Yup. And a Pew poll shows that only 19% of GOP voters believe in the climate change scam.

      So why do certain “Republican” (Republican in Name Only!) politicians insist on back-stabbing their own constituents and siding with the the leftists and socialists on climate change?

      It’s a puzzle, but regardless, these traitorous Republicans need to be booted from office, pronto! It is among the most insidious things to have politicians from our own side betray us and align with the opposition on this most critical issue.

      Indeed, climate change is a litmus test issue because Republicans that go left on it show their true colors and that they have the same elitist mindset as the liberal literati like Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama. That’s why they are the worst of the worst. Get them OUT of office!

      Yes, any Republican that goes left on “climate change” walks hand in hand with this and all the other leftist nutcases:

      • “… align with the opposition on this most critical issue.”

        Eric, you can’t have it both ways either. It isn’t a critical issue or it wouldn’t be at the very bottom of everyone’s list of “things to do”.

        It a waste of time and money, and that’s the critical issues. Maybe you were trying to say that and it just came out wrong?

      • that they have the same elitist mindset as the liberal literati like Nancy Pelosi

        Hmm … “liberal literati”. “Illuminati” (time to spend a bit “mod” time”).
        Permission to invent a new word: “Liberalati”.

      • @ Gunga Din


        Love it!

        With literati I was trying to make some sort of connection to the elitist mindset in many academic circles, and to the leftist educational establishment. So that is shared by Republicans that go left on climate change. Those Republicans are part of the liberalati. !

      • Americans will pick the grapes as they did for a hundred years before the work was given to illegals. Does one think that the ilk of Tom Joad refused to work when they finally got to California? That they only went there because (like Germany in 2017) that’s where the best government handouts were?

        When I came to this part of Virginia in 1979, from Canada, and bought a basic rancher in a basic subdivision ALL of the contracted landscaping and gardening was being done by americans – black, white and in-between. But over the next decades they were put out of work by illegals who will take less and less. Now it’s all done by hispanics. It isn’t that americans can’t or won’t do the work; it’s that the work is not on offer to them. The answer is as simple as simply prosecuting those american employers who employ people not legally allowed to work.

      • Bartlby, climate change isn’t important. However the many sc@ms being conducted by those who claim to be fighting it are.

      • Isn’t “literate” something to do with “well read” ??

        Nobody ever said it meant that you had read “The Mill on the Floss.”

        One could read up on Physical Sciences to be literate.

        Only a total illiterate could ever utter such immortal words as ….. “We have to pass it, to find out what is in it ! ” …..

        That is the very definition of illiterate.


  9. “There has yet to be even one official government report, from anywhere on the planet, saying global warming is nonsense.”

    That’s a great symptom of the problem which is that pretty much every government on the planet subscribes to alarmist global warming dogma. They all have “Climate Action Plans” because, after all, it’s the environmentally responsible thing to do. Every government department and agency is required to produce statements and reports demonstrating how they are in compliance with the official “Plan”. [Witness the stupid hoops that the US DoD jumps through to comply.] And every statement and report has an introductory preamble that blindly repeats the dogma.

    Given this situation it’s hardly likely that we’ll soon be seeing any government reports that contradict what they’ve been faithfully committed to for years.

    • “There has yet to be even one official scientific report, from anywhere on the planet, saying global warming is nonsense.” I used your bit and did a bit of editing. I know …. all the scientists in the world are lefty socialists, changing the data to suit their religious beliefs on AGW and the are all buying Ferraris with all that funding money and they are still trying hide the moon landing lie!

      • But the data IS being tampered with. And let’s be honest, the “consensus” have little marketable skills outside of academia. Add in billions of dollars up for grabs each year, and the situation becomes obvious.

      • e: Not sure how much longer they will be able to keep crunching in the UK
        Well Feb 2017 was a warm one topping the charts in the series so far at 5.967C

        The 12 monthly average temperature has crept back up to 13.273C
        the result of 130,701,351
        individual temperature measurements taken around the Globe from (the same set of) NOAA Weather Stations since the beginning of 2011 cool

        On average every 1.5 seconds another temperature reading is added to the database …. wink

        I won’t lose them smile

  10. Once again, congresscritters show contempt for the citizens who elected them.

    The Democrat party and the Republican party need to learn a lesson from The Donald’s election. The American people are tired of being ignored and preached at by their supposed ‘betters’ and they’re not going to take it any more.

    How about we bring back real democracy and really make America great again.

    In fact, Trump is the outcome of a long process which has weakened institutions where people from diverse backgrounds once interacted: civic associations, neighborhood schools, union groups and locally oriented businesses. The process has been accompanied by an increasingly Manichean tone which casts politics as a fight between good and evil. Trump can be seen as a media-savvy celebrity delivering a food fight. Many voters understand that the nation’s political culture defines them as little more than unthinking consumers of media and messaging. link

  11. “to report on global warming” sounds pretty neutral. The globe has been warming since the little ice age i belive? Global warming is “happening”, sea levels have risen the past couple of centuries and are rising. Why not should the military keep an eye on changes in climate. Chances are the report will show how little critical the changes are? Even if proposed by “alarmists” it needs not be a bad idea.

    • Alexander, at what point did the US Military take on being climate monitors as part of their primary mission? What happened to NOAA? You know, that other huge federal group that monitors weather? Exactly how many federal organizations need to be doing this?

    • One from Louisiana so they can keep their toe in the water holding out for more federal money from rising seas nonsense in place of land subsidence in deltas.

    • Yup. In reality Darrell Issa is a worthless climate change pushing amnesty shill.

      He’s soft on the inside. And actually … soft on the outside too as he constantly caves to the liberal interest groups and liberal media.

      But what you expect from California? Like other liberal Republicans from California like the climate leftists Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carly Fiorina.

  12. We have indentified the weak links in the Republican chain. We should aim to remove these people from Office at the next election and replace them with people who have a clue. That goes for clueless Republican Senators, too. They should have to pay the price for their ignorance.

  13. O Topic…, I am looking for Climate Change studies that have a single or dbl. blind design. any help would b great.

  14. There are 33 Republican-controlled states in the Union currently. Any one of them could commission such a report on climate; all of them should. This is a strategy that will capture the enemy’s center of gravity – the scientific imprimatur for their belief system.

    Rather, any state—or better, a coalition of some of them—could commission and fund a red team / blue team debate and/or dialogue, if Pruitt’s effort to do so gets stalled. If the blue team ducks, they’ll look like quacks.

    I award myself +100 for this obvious (now) idea. Please endorse it, people! All it’ll take to get rolling is for one state legislator to submit a bill. (Give ’email a nudge, Heartland!)

    • Roger Knights, it seems to me that you have forgotten a simple “basic fact”, and that is, ….. the voting populace that elects the Congressional Legislators …….. are the same voting populace that elects the State Legislators.

      There is really not a problem for one (1) state legislator to submit a bill. The first problem is trying to get the “bill” approved for a “vote”, ……. and the 2nd problem arises in trying to get a majority of State Legislators to vote for it.

      • “There is really not a problem for one (1) state legislator to submit a bill. The first problem is trying to get the “bill” approved for a “vote”,”

        I didn’t claim that approval would be automatic. What I claimed was that “All it’ll take to get rolling is for one state legislator to submit a bill.” If 33 legislators submit a bill in each of the red states, the likelihood is that one, or more likely several, will pass it.

        ” … the 2nd problem arises in trying to get a majority of State Legislators to vote for it.”

        I didn’t claim that a majority would be needed. I wrote, “any state—or better, a coalition of some of them—could commission and fund a red team / blue team debate and/or dialogue.” This would make the blue team look like quacks if they ducked the debate, even if only one state (say Texas) sponsored it. The more states, the better, of course.

      • Roger K, I believe you misinterpreted my posted commentary. I was not stating, suggesting or inferring that you were making claims, specific or otherwise, about anything involving Legislative processes.

        I was merely stating or implying an actual fact that there are dozens to hundreds of different Bills submitted by members of the various State Legislatures during their yearly sessions, …… with only a few of said Bills ever making it to the per se “floor” to be voted on by all Legislators.

  15. Democrats do not do this to other democrats….
    …republicans do
    We’ve got to get rid of the RINOS

    • The heck they don’t! Have you so soon forgotten Harry Reid saying that Tulsi Gabbard should not be allowed in the democrat party? because she told the truth about Syria….

  16. “Which Republican congressmen have broken faith and voted to subject their people to servitude, oppression, and contempt?”
    So what did they do? It seems they just voted to maintain the Defense Dept reporting on global warming. It seems to me to be just a responsible vote against enforced ignorance.

    • So Nick, what is your solution to the proposed global warming issue? I don’t believe I recall you commenting on such. Just curious.

    • The DoD has the mission of defending the Nation and national interests. Anticipating weather and climactic conditions and their implications in potential areas of operations is all they need to make what ever adjustments are necessary for anticipated or ongoing operations. The US government has plenty of other sources to provide the DoD and congress with the climate information necessary to do this.

      Anything that doesn’t have to do with defense of the nation or it’s interests and the ongoing and potential operations needed to achieve that goal is a distraction and a diversion of valuable resources from it’s mission. Let others whose mission is to “report on global warming” do so if necessary and allow the DoD to use that information as needed for it’s planning while maintaining their long standing and important meteorological assets. Dump or reassign the personnel at the DoD formulating and making the climate reports as an unnecessary redundancy and diversion of DoD resources.

      • “making the climate reports as an unnecessary redundancy”
        So how does a possibly redundant report signify “voted to subject their people to servitude, oppression, and contempt”?

      • Redundancy is a waste at best, an attempt to influence at the worst. Repeat the report often enough and the idea is people will start to believe. That’s marketing, not science.

      • True.
        The DoD is to be “The Big Stick” we hope we never have to use. But it needs to ready and able. It is not to be used as a social engineering experiment or a front to siphon off the taxpayers’ money to promote Big Green causes.

      • Can always count on the Aussie troll to arrive and try to play a modified version of the “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” game.

      • (I feel a “snip” coming on but..)

        (DoD as a) social engineering experiment

        If they can’t WAAC, they should be WAVES.
        (I don’t think ducking will be enough this time. Anybody got a shovel?)

      • “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”
        I do know that
        “voted to maintain a report that might be redundant”
        is not the same as
        “voted to subject their people to servitude, oppression, and contempt”

      • “Can always count on the Aussie troll”
        ps I’m curious as to why y’all look to an Aussie here to tell you which US representatives you should purge from Congress.

      • “Redundancy is a waste at best, an attempt to influence at the worst. Repeat the report often enough and the idea is people will start to believe. That’s marketing, not science.”

        Cool we can just submit WUWT as the ‘red team’ report on climate science and save some money

    • It seems to me to be just a responsible vote against enforced ignorance.

      We’re talking about the DoD here, Nick. The DoD under Obama had it paying, in some cases, $100/gal or so for “bio-fuel”.
      Just who was enforcing ignorance?

      • GD
        Agree 100%. That was a phony way to divert DOD funds to support a failed goal to develop bio fuel and subsidize those who contribute to the party.
        Given the shortage of DOD funds, it is criminal to divert funds from the security of the Nation. There are more efficient ways to demonstrate that the Navy can use bio fuels to run the ships or fly aircraft than to waste critical DOD resources.

    • Nick, what part of the DoD mission is to REPORT on GW to the general public?
      They appropriately have units that monitor weather for their own military purposes but changes in climate (global warming) is very long term. NASA and NOAA can warn them if Chesapeake Bay’s subsidenceI’m sorry, sea level rise endangers the Navy installations in the next 50 years.

      BTW, I’m curious, has SLR over the last century interfered with Pendleton’s operations? Jus’ askin’.

  17. . . . and if the defence department now deems it politically safe to expose cAGW as not real

  18. I have a counter argument to the argument that bursting artillery shells causing fires is somehow an argument in favor of CAGW. And, my argument is the ‘well’ known fact that exposure to sunlight causes vampires to burst into flames. You see, vampires do not always burst into flames when exposed to the rays of the sun.

    How do I know this? Well, I have a sister. I have an older sister. And, trust me, she is most definitely a vampire of the most vile, bloodsucking kind. And, she waltzes out into broad daylight with nary a spark or a smolder. Nothing. Nothing at all.

    Now, if global warming makes exploding, hot, flaming, artillery shells somehow cause fires that they, otherwise, never ever would you would think it would make my sister spontaneously combust the moment a sunbeam hits her. But, it doesn’t.

    Now, if what I’ve just written sounds pretty stupid you can be proud that you’ve acquired a deeper understanding of our ‘enlightened’ public officials.

    • Considering the fact that even NASA has declared the world is greening, the argument that climate change was a cause of that fire is silly.

      Many years ago, 1982 I think it was during late spring, in Italy during a joint night training operation with the Italian special forces a parachute flare was fired while we were attacking an objective in a gorge next to a river. The damn thing floated over the river and caught the vegetation on fire on the sheer cliff on the other side. The fire climbed up that cliff. Nothing we could do about it. We eventually found a Carabinieri officer who once he saw it laughed and told us “No problem”. Nobody said a thing about “global warming” or “climate change” being the cause.

      During that same exercise we were being chased by the Italian Alpini (mountain troops). To get away from them we had to cross over the crest of a mountain. We were in summer uniforms and there was a regular blizzard at the top we had to pass through. Going down the other side in a snow field our guide told us to stay in his foot prints. Every so often he would reach over with his long handled ice axe and poke and a hole would open that was 20′ or more deep down to the jagged rocks below. The snow had bridged gaps in the rocks making dangerous traps. After he did that a couple of times we could tell where they were by their slightly darker tint. They really were perfect natural booby traps. Nobody thought anything about climate change then either. The Alpini gave up the chase.

      • Well now you would…

        See the many fires across the Mediterranean.

        and while it still snows in the Alps, the glaciers are in retreat…

      • I doubt it. Italians are rather laid back types. And what would you rather be happening Griff? The glaciers advancing to swallow portions of villages like they did during LIA?

  19. The question should be do you believe in catastrophic man made climate change.
    Not do you believe that the climate changes.

    But if you want to get to the real motive of the matter the question should be, Do you believe in a one dictatorship planet bought about by the global centralisation of power over all energy distribution.

  20. A report, here or there, makes no difference. I’m pretty sure most politicians of any color know that the report is what you use as cover to do what you were going to do anyway. And we’ve reached the point where nobody is going to pay much attention to another global warming report. It’s not like we don’t get them every day anyway, is it?

    If politicans are serious about reversing the more insane aspects of global warming that have been put into law, then they will commission a suitable report first. Almost anyone, including most readers of WUWT, could write such a report failry quickly, and it would be at least as intellectually and scientifically rigorous as the ICCP Summary for Policy Makers. It would not be difficult to write a better one that makes persuasive reading.

  21. The argument that global warming is an existential problem was abandoned for obvious reasons; the data do not support the argument. Instead, they cleverly switched to the climate change argument where there is endless anecdotal evidence of something that can be used as evidence of climate change. How do you prove that a decrease in sperm count in (pick your species) is not caused by climate change. Congresspersons, being of ordinary intelligence and no scientific training, have no ability to sort this out.

  22. So the Dems are united in being wrong consistently. I suppose that stems from the whole premise behind it all of more money for power, redistribution of wealth, and vote buying. The behavioral impetus should be easier to model than the climate.

  23. On mobile no names came up. This scam like housing and higher education has always been a bipartisan proposition. Call it the real Green Party as in greenbacks.

    I am disappointed in my own Congressman Diane Black who heads the House Budget Committee. Way to much wasted green money and very little that might meet real needs. Our people are bad. The others are much much worse. We suffer on

  24. You need to be very careful and reflect on the reality of politics. There are subtleties here. Some of the people on those two lists are your friends.

    Never use a scattergun when well-placed rifle shots are sufficient.

    • Having their constituents annoyed with some of a congress member’s policies, and letting them know it was supposed to be a good idea.

  25. Speaking of the Pentagon… I walked into an office on an Air Force Base one summer day a few years back and thought it was closed as it was almost completely dark. Only when you peaked into offices did you see the base civil engineers’ dimly lit by their computer screens. It was almost creepy the way people started appearing out of the darkness to chat with a visitor to their cave. I asked why the rooms and halls were so dark and they said they were trying to reduce their power use. Crazy! I can only imagine what effect that must have had on their productivity for some vague goal of reducing their imaginary carbon footprint.

    • Perhaps they wouldn’t now, since so many US bases have solar panels or renewable energy deals, which are saving the US govt money…

      • How do you know it’s saving the US government money? This is a basic question of audits and accountability, not executive orders and appearances.

  26. Well, looking at both the UK and the US government during this summer’s hiatus, it is clear democracy sometime means that things can not be done as planed.
    That may be bad, but autocracy is far worse, despite not suffering from such malady.
    Even politicians eventually revert if not fully but at least to the necessary degree of sanity.

  27. BTW the history of the US military makes it pretty clear that when push comes to shove climate and weather are secondary considerations for operations. During WW II when the logistics system could not keep up during the break out and advance across France the conscious decision was made by the US command to make equipping the units with winter gear a low priority in order to get more fuel and ammo to the front. The result was the majority of US combat soldiers suffering through one of the worst winters to hit Europe in memory during 1944-45 during the biggest battle the US fought inadequately clothed and equipped for the conditions. Thus during the Battle of the Bulge, more US soldiers became casualties due to cold injuries and illnesses associated with cold and wet conditions than enemy fire.

    Same kind of thing happened earlier in the war in May 1943 when the US took the Aleutian island of Attu back from the Japanese. US troops were inadequately equipped for the wet cold conditions and cold injuries and illnesses resulted in higher casualties than the Japanese.

    And in the Pacific during the Guadalcanal campaign August 1942 to February 1943 they didn’t even have enough canteens to supply each Marine with two for the initial invasion. Despite the several battles and heavy fighting more Marines became casualties due to malaria and other tropical diseases and heat injuries than to enemy action. But in that case, unlike the fighting in the European theater, the enemy was even less prepared to deal with the conditions and suffered a much higher proportion of casualties to those causes than the Marines and Army troops did on the island.

  28. Wow! The lists are pretty impressive – I had no idea there are that many Republicans capable of clear scientific thought. There may yet be hope for America!

    • Sadly there is one Neanderthal leading the pack who worships money over any genuine attempt to monitor the impact our attempts to be wealthy have on the planet.

    • “Wow! The lists are pretty impressive – I had no idea there are that many Republicans capable of clear scientific thought.”

      Around here we call those sorts of people “Dupes”. Even Republicans can be fooled by Leftwing/MSM CAGW propaganda.

      With all the establishment institutions buying into the CAGW idea, it’s a wonder there are any skeptics still standing. But there *are* skeptics still standing and the reason is the skeptics can see that the CAGW narrative looks like a “house of cards”. All claims, no evidence.

  29. Mod: glad to see High Octaine Payne banned. Nevetheless here is a piece I was writing when he disappeared…

    I shouldn’t rise to the bait, really, but …

    You may be a Paine but you are certaInly not High Octane.

    Some of the incoming Sunlight does indeed get absorbed in the atmosphere, just as some gets reflected straight back to space from cloud tops and surface. So what? The rest gets absorbed by the earth’s surface – which would therefore warm up except for the fact that an exactly corresponding amount of energy (on average over a long timescale) leaves the surface towards the atmosphere and, ultimately, to space.

    This (long term) perfect balance ensures that the earth’s surface neither warms nor cools on average, with an estimated stable average surface temperature of around 15degC, that value being entirely dictated by the complex mix of gases in the atmosphere including the ‘insulation’ afforded by water vapour and CO2. The scientific debate is now entirely and exclusively about whether the doubling of CO2 due to industrialisation, predicted to occur by the end of the century, will cause a harmful or a benign temperature increase.

    But you knew that didn’t you? I guess you are just having a lark to draw attention to yourself (fail). Please desist. You are doing an annoying disservice here to all us sane climate change sceptics.

Comments are closed.