Physics always Wins.

Discuss architecture, planning, interiors, landscape, and environmental design related-topics. Moderated by the ArchitectureWeek editorial and support team.

Physics always Wins.

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:35 pm

Climate Change, Population Explosion, Nuclear Proliferation, , Financial crises, Epidemic Disease & shortages of Food and Potable water, are all evidence of failed Design Intelligence. The congress of the United states is riddled with failure after failure as those who are charged with the responsibility to serve the people choose to serve the special interest of the wealthy.

In these early decades of the 21st century, we are witnessing stresses and shocks that come with a new intensity. The long held fundamentals of a strong economic system -- globalization and free trade -- have increased efficiency, but they have created challenges for the stability of our markets. Trade with China has damaged the American working class and their lifestyle by undermining the wage structure. The working class, by design is being forced to work for less and expect less. Less education, less opportunity, wealth, healthcare and less political influence. The wealthy get richer and the working class gets poorer by design.

Industrialization in the last century has accelerated human progress but has given us a rapidly growing global population and a warming world in this century. It's not that the 20th century was devoid of significant challenges. What distinguishes today's threats from those of the past are the escalating rate at which they are occurring, and the growing interconnectedness of our planet. The working class in America is now expected to become more like the workers in other parts of the world. Supply and demand mandates it. It is intentional. The working class, you and I, are required now to settle for less. Those who control the trade agreements, have embraced this idea that ordinary Americans will have a future defined by less wealth and not more. The middle class is consequently shrinking. There is no movement to stop that. Failed design intelligence is at the root of the problem. A poorer working class is a weaker America. That is precisely what the communist governments want.

Fossil Fuel drives the currents of global change in many ways.

This past year, the New York Times announced the closure of their environmental desk. Along with many, I am stunned to see this team disbanded; over the last several years they have consistently provided high-quality reporting on critical environmental issues, especially the climate crisis. The Huffington Post is now watering down it’s commentary and embracing topics mre appropriate for Soda head.

Newspapers and news magazines are generally are under economic stress, and unfortunately, the Times is also profoundly affected by the tectonic shifts in the media landscape. Its role in informing U.S. policy debates, however, is unique. Walker Architects is sad to see this dedicated desk come to an end, I hope that its tremendous reporters can, as the newspaper's leadership promised, continue their crucial work and can help influence the general newsroom by incorporating important environmental perspectives throughout the paper. We need to understand the nature of the changes taking place, because they are intentional. Climate change is a global problem that needs to be solved, the solutions to a correction are being blocked and that too is intentional.

Corporate America exists to create profits for a few and barriers to their profits are bad and opportunity to make more profits are good. Good and bad are now defined in perverted ways. A poorer American Working class is bad in the context of our national interest but in the context of Corporate America lower wages are good. Congress is literally confused about whose interests should take precedence, the working class or Corporate America; they are choosing to destroy the working class and the poor with little or no mercy. They routinely support the most outrageous policies such a climate change denial and sustaining all three branches of the government as a secret government within the government. Denial of climate change is insane and the creation of a secret government is unconstitutional!

Several Democratic lawmakers in January urged President Barack Obama to use his broad powers to curb carbon emissions through federal agencies, saying Congress may be unable to agree on action to address climate change. Congress is riddled with climate denial and many have signed pledges to forestall taking action on the climate change problem by entering into agreements with David and Charles Koch.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and California Representative Henry Waxman, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched an effort to focus congressional and public support on the president's efforts to reduce carbon pollution. We now see some improvement in that matter.

"Carbon pollution is wreaking havoc on our atmosphere and on our oceans, and it's time to bring all hands on deck as we seek to meet that challenge," Whitehouse said in a statement.

The lawmakers, who are both previous sponsors of bills aimed at capping and setting a price on carbon pollution, said executive action is needed because they cannot pass similar legislation in the deeply divided Senate and House.

"Progress in Congress may be so difficult or protracted that you should not hesitate to act," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Obama on Thursday.

Also signing on was Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources.

They hope their efforts can become bipartisan but were not sure if they will find Republican partners.

There is confusion about how serious the problem is and how important it is to get an accurate perspective on the probable consequences of failing to act cogently. The physics of the matter is established, the delay is about dollars… not sense.

Climate change certainly is real and it presents a potentially severe threat to biodiversity. Changes in climate drive changes in habitat for every species of life. Species will be required to disperse and adapt rapidly as the climate changes the food chain is increasingly fragmented. Rapid adaptation has little or no successful history, with but a few exceptions. To keep pace with the changing climate is not an anticipated capacity for life on earth today. An important challenge for conservation is therefore to sustain the environmental conditions to which these many species have adapted.

Dispersal is universally considered important for biodiversity conservation. However, the significance of long- as opposed to short-distance dispersal is insufficiently recognized in the conservation context. Long-distance dispersal (LDD) events, although typically rare, are crucial to population spread and to maintenance of genetic connectivity. The main threats to global biodiversity involve excessive LDD of elements alien to ecosystems and insufficient dispersal of native species, for example, because of habitat fragmentation. In this article, we attempt to bridge the gap in the treatment of LDD by reviewing the conservation issues for which LDD is most important.

Simulations demonstrate how the relative importance of landscape structure in determining migration ability may decrease as the potential for LDD increases. Thus, if LDD is the principal mechanism by which rapid large-scale migrations are achieved, strategically planned networks of protected habitat may have a limited impact on rates of large-scale plant migrations. We relate our results to conventional principles for conservation planning and the geometric design of reserves, and demonstrate how reversal of these principles may maximize the potential for conservation under future climates. In particular, we caution against the justification of large-scale corridors on grounds of climate change since migration along corridors by standard dispersal mechanisms is unlikely to keep pace with projected change for many species. An improved understanding of the dispersal mechanisms by which species achieve rapid migrations, and the way that these processes are affected by patterns of landscape fragmentation, will be important to inform future conservation strategies.

Our food chain is tied to other species. The same is true regarding our social structure and our economy. Today, vulnerability in one area leads to vulnerability in others in a way that is fundamentally new. Shocks and stresses in a single place inevitably ricochet throughout every other. Issues once identified and analyzed individually -- our environment, the economy, and social challenges -- are now inextricably interlinked. The same is true of natural phenomena and the entire circle of life.

Those who create wealth are those with the smallest share of it. Those who provide the labor are the many who create the wealth for a few who provide the capital. The working class needs government to act with Design Intelligence but they have the least influence over government. Wealth has too much influence and the working class too little. The problem is that the focus is not on the issues that are the most important but rather the focus is on the special interests of the few.

The big problem is that Climate Change Won’t Wait for anyone.

Change usually happens very slowly, even once all the serious people have decided there’s a problem. In a country as big as the United States, public opinion moves in slow currents. Those currents are subject to traditions and cult wisdom and are estranged from science. Since change by definition requires going up against powerful established interests, it can take decades for those currents to erode the foundations of our special-interest fortresses. Good and bad are now defined in perverted ways.

Climate change is not convenient therefore it is not a fact as long as it remains feasibly deniable. Take, for instance, “the problem of our schools.” Don’t worry about whether there actually was a problem, or whether making every student devote her school years to filling out standardized tests would solve it. Just think about the timeline. In 1983, after some years of pundit throat clearing, the Carnegie Commission published “A Nation at Risk,” insisting that a “rising tide of mediocrity” threatened our schools. The nation’s biggest foundations and richest people slowly roused themselves to action, and for three decades we haltingly applied a series of fixes and reforms. We’ve had Race to the Top, and Teach for America, and charters, and vouchers, and… we’re still in the midst of “fixing” education, many generations of students later. Good and bad again are now defined in perverted ways. Education is in decline and it is driven by intention. Education is not something that conservative believe that tax dollars should be surrendered to fix. All budgets that the legislature sees are declared to be inflated budgets by the conservatives and consequently trimmed back. We can’t properly fund education because of a belief structure rigidly cemented in place. The “NO MORE TAXES” disease is crippling education in America now ranked only 15 among civilized countries.

Even facing undeniably real problems -- say, discrimination against spam people -- one can make the case that gradual change has actually been the best option. Had some mythical liberal Supreme Court declared, in 1990, that spam marriage was now the law of the land, the backlash might have been swift and severe. There’s certainly an argument to be made that moving state by state (starting in nimbler, smaller states like Vermont) ultimately made the happy outcome more solid as the culture changed and new generations came of age.

SPAM = G_A_Y_ I wrote the later word not the former. Some other person changed that with a coded formula! This is an outrageous attack on free speech. Those responsible should be prosecuted! This proves what is going on in America today is exactly as I have declared here! Evil is made manifest by the quality of it's choices.

Our societies are built to move slowly. Human institutions tend to work better when they have years or even decades to make gradual course corrections, when time smooth’s out the conflicts between people. But technology is forcing rapid changes and this transformation has impacts and the future shock is not the most serious impact.

That has always been the difficulty with climate change – it is simply the single greatest problem we’ve ever faced. It’s not a fight, like education reform or abortion or spam marriage, between conflicting groups with conflicting opinions. It couldn’t be more different at a fundamental level. That is part of the problem. Physical reality can’t be decided because it is already decided. Physical reality is something you have to live with, or you die.

We’re talking about a fight between human beings and physics. The physics is entirely uninterested in human timetables and profits. The time for fossil fuels has come and is now on the way out. Physics couldn't care less if precipitous action raises gas prices, or damages the coal industry in swing states. It could care less whether putting a price on carbon slowed the pace of development in China, or made agribusiness less profitable. It simply is not a dollars based problem because it is already decided by the physics of the matter.

The climate is going to change. Physics doesn’t understand that rapid action on climate change threatens the most lucrative business on Earth, the fossil fuel industry. It’s implacable. It does not cognitively engage, It takes the carbon dioxide we produce and translates it into heat, which means into melting ice and rising oceans and gathering storms.

As a species we are in a position unlike any we have faced since prehistoric times. We need design intelligence to comprehend the true nature of the problem we created for ourselves. Unlike other problems, the less you do, the worse it gets. The decision is already made. We need to correct the error. Do nothing and you soon will have a nightmare on your hands. CO2 Energy Storage is a solution we created with Design Intelligence. The DOE will not respond to us at all. They will not even explain why they will not respond.

If we continue to refuse to solve the crisis of affordable healthcare for another decade, the cost will be massive the death rate will be created by the decision to protect the profits of a few at the expense of the lives of the many.

What happens when we ignore the healthcare needed? What happens when we make that care too expensive for the working class to have it? The biology of the matter is not subject to debates about the cost, a consequence attends upon the political decisions and if we continue to operate the healthcare industry as a for profit enterprise, all the suffering created by failed design intelligence will accumulate. But when we returned to it, the problem would be about the same size. We need a national healthcare plan that works, not something in between.

Design Intelligence contributes a value we can no longer afford to ignore.

Unless we act soon in response to the climate change timetable established by the physics, there’s not much reason to act at all. The failure to act will result in deaths that could be avoided. Unless we act soon to address the failure to provide affordable healthcare, the consequence will be tantamount to murder. The failure to act cogently in the best interest of the people is tantamount to murder under both scenarios. The inability to make a decision to do something is the same as a decision to do nothing, even if it feels different.

We all have read stories of people who’s power was cut off in winter because they could not pay their bills, and the consequence for them was to freeze to death. We know they did not choose to die that way. The failure of design intelligence to be engaged created that outcome. The same is emergent in the matter of climate change and healthcare in the United States. Members of our congress are using denial of the climate science and the delay they are engineering will result in deaths and severe economic crisis.

Reason currently has no purchase where profits are the top priorities. This condition will become more egregious not less. Unless you understand the importance of design intelligence as distinct from considerations about profit you don’t understand climate change – or Healthcare, Epidemic Disease, Population Explosion, Nuclear Proliferation, or famine and drought. All of these are evidence of failed Design Intelligence. Money based decision making is a deeply flawed philosophical error that reduces the whole world to selected form. A stunted abstract form of decision making that ignores physical realities in favor of those who profit at the expense of those who do the labor.

The physics will drive changes. We can't control the next disruption or catastrophe -- but we can control how we respond to these challenges, how we absorb the shocks of our world, and how quickly we recover from the blow. In other words, we can apply design intelligence to make our institutions, communities more resilient. People are against the impact the physics will force, they expect cogent responses. We must have more design intelligence in our institutions, our industries, our government and our global relationships. We must avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable.

That’s why the Obama administration is sometimes peeved when they don’t get the credit they think they deserve for tackling the issue in his first term in office. The measure they point to most often is the increase in average mileage for automobiles, which will slowly go into effect over the next decade. They did do something that they actually could accomplish to make a positive difference.

It’s precisely the kind of gradual transformation that people -- and politicians -- like. Unfortunately the physics will not change any more rapidly than the human activity changes. It will take time for climate changing greenhouse gasses to be absorbed by natural processes and the consequential impact to decline. We should have adopted it long ago (and would have, except that it challenged the power of Detroit and its unions, and so both Republicans and Democrats kept it at bay). But here’s the terrible thing: it’s no longer a measure that impresses physics. After all, physics isn’t kidding around or negotiating. While we were discussing whether climate change was even a permissible subject to bring up in the last presidential campaign, it was melting the Arctic. If we’re to slow it down, we need to be cutting emissions globally at a sensational rate, by something like 5% a year to make a real difference.

Do you understand?

Physics does not care what we think or what we do. It is forced by our activity. If it hurts when you hit yourself in the head with a rock, that is the “physics” of hitting yourself in the head with a rock, the pain is physics too. Stop doing that and it probably get’s better faster than if you do not stop. But bear in mind some of the damage might be permanent. We can’t debate the lack of wisdom in damaging yourself with a rock nor can we debate the outcome if you do not stop. The out come will be the outcome. Humanity has physically engaged in a manner that is changing the climate in exactly the same sense.

Stupid is not a permanent problem. However physics is.

Humans are not born resilient -- we learn, adapt, and improve upon our resilience. The same is true for organizations, systems, and societies. But what makes some people or organizations more resilient than others? Through research, practice, and experience -- including The Rockefeller Foundation's 100 years of work -- we have learned that resilient systems share five core characteristics:
• Spare capacity, which ensures that there is a back-up or alternative available when a vital component of a system fails.
• Flexibility, the ability to change, evolve, and adapt in the face of disaster.
• Limited or "safe" failure, which prevents failures from rippling across systems.
• Rapid rebound, the capacity to re-establish function and avoid long-term disruptions.
• Constant learning, with robust feedback loops that sense and allow new solutions as conditions change.

It’s not Obama’s fault that a correction is not engaged. Failed Design Intelligence is often ignored where the decisions being made are all money based decisions. For Obama, faced with a Congress bought off by the fossil fuel industry, a realistic approach would be to do absolutely everything he could on his own authority -- new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, for example; and of course, he should refuse to grant the permit for the building of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, something that requires no permission from John Boehner or the rest of Congress. But the political realities do apply as well as the physics. Design Intelligence requires application and performance. The work of governing is paralyzed without it.

Yet, despite all we know about resilience, there is much more we have to do, share and learn to put in place resilience strategies and, importantly, connect those strategies across sectors to successfully recover from the current and unknowable future risks we face. Nature is resilient.

The White House, for instance, overruled the EPA on its proposed stronger ozone and smog regulations in 2011, and last year opened up the Arctic for oil drilling, while selling off vast swaths of Wyoming’s Powder River Basin at bargain-basement prices to coal miners. Politically this worked for him. His State Department flubbed the global climate-change negotiations. (It’s hard to remember a higher profile diplomatic failure than the Copenhagen summit.) Washington rings with rumors that he’ll approve the Keystone pipeline, which would deliver 900,000 barrels a day of the dirtiest crude oil on Earth. President Obama’s new auto mileage regulations would have made a positive impact but that is now offset by the pipeline and it’s impact.

There is an example of failed Design Intelligence right there, if that actually happens. The point is we do this kind of political thinking all the time. The physics however is hard wired and the consequences are inevitable. The gains do not engage correction if those gains are offset by bad decisions in the management of the carbon pollution.

If he were serious, Obama would be doing more than just the obvious and easy. He’d also be looking for that Pearl Harbor moment. God knows he had his chances in 2012: the hottest year in the history of the continental United States, the deepest drought of his lifetime, and a melt of the Arctic so severe that the federal government’s premier climate scientist declared it a “planetary emergency.” Where does he stand on this important issue. Clarity is not possible without Design Intelligence, we must prepare for the problems ahead. We simply do not see Design Intelligence being engaged to shape the most resilient future state of our planet.

In fact, he didn’t even appear to notice those phenomena, campaigning for a second term as if from an air-conditioned bubble, even as people in the crowds greeting him were fainting en masse from the heat. Throughout campaign 2012, he kept declaring his love for an “all-of-the-above” energy policy, where apparently oil and natural gas were exactly as virtuous as sun and wind. There is error if the false belief that the physics of the matter no longer applies, should continue to prevail.

Hurricane Sandy created a political opening, his people let reporters know on background that climate change would now be one of his top three priorities (or maybe, post-Newtown, top four) for a second term. Well that is a good start, but it’s a long way from a cogent action plan to transcend fossil fuel.

The president declared that climate change was “real,” thus marking his agreement with, say, President George H.W. Bush in 1988. In deference to “future generations,” he also agreed that we should “do more.” But addressing climate change, he added, would involve “tough political choices.” Indeed, too tough, it seems, for here were his key lines:

“I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth, that if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody is going to go for that. I won’t go for that.”

It’s as if World War II British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had declared, “I have nothing to offer except blood, toil, tears, and sweat. And God knows that polls badly, so just forget about it.”

Thousands of people will descended on Washington D.C. on President’s Day weekend, in what was the largest environmental demonstration in years. There is however the possibility that the president is simply not up to this task, to follow through, and that we’re going to have to do it for him, as best we can.

Building resilience is not the task of a single actor or a single sector, no matter how innovative or passionate. Rather, building resilience requires partners from every sector: governments who must create the right policies, plans and infrastructure investment; businesses who ensure the functioning of our economic systems; communities and civic institutions who must organize to be more flexible, responsive and robust; organizations and individuals who have the core skills required to adapt and cope. At the core of the issue is the need for Design Intelligence, to comprehensively identify, analyze, and refine the solutions to problems driven by physical realties. Problems that can only be solved with a physical solution.

Building resilience is not a luxury -- it is a 21st century imperative driven by the physics of our planet. Climate Change, Epidemic Disease, Population Explosion, Nuclear Proliferation, shortages of Food and Potable water, are all evidence of failed Design Intelligence. Money based decision making is driving the world to form and it is a deeply flawed rubric.

Paid Liars, and Fakes Exposed

CEO Joseph Bast (Heartland Institute…fake science)
Patrick Michaels (Kato Institute Counterfeit Climate Report)
Willie Soon (Paid by Big Oil)
Tim Ball (Not a climate scientist he taught Geography)
Lord Christopher Monckton (Lied about the credibility of his paper and his qualifications in mathmatics)
Bob Carter (False claims that he is a Climate Science Researcher)
S. Fred Singer (Distortion Artist and paid to lie)

The congress is now full of liars who have sold our future for a hand full of beans.
SEE the next post on Climate Change Denial!
Last edited by WalkerARCHITECTS on Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am

Re: Physics always Wins.

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:30 pm

Physics always wins. Reality and Physics are not interested in debating the matter with the people listed below. These people are interested in ignoring the realities of a major global problem. They are not acting responsibly nor rationally. If you live in a State that elected one of the people listed below, take action by calling them out. The time has come to remove everyone of the people listed below from the Congress of the United States. Not because they are affiliated with one party or another but simply because they are LIARS!

The problems we face a very serious. The physics of the matter are well understood, human activity is largely responsible for the climate change phenomena. Why is it then, that in 2013 we have to convince some of our lawmakers to believe in science? Physics always wins. The science on the matter is settled. Read the statements associated with each of those listed below. You will understand that the individual making that statement is uninformed, is a liar or is protecting special interests. The time has come to vote them out. Share this post on facebook!'t%20believe%20in%20global%20warming.jpg

Ninety-eight out of 100 climate scientists agree: Climate change is real, human activity is contributing to it, and it poses significant risks to our environment and our health. Why is the science subject to so much denial of the facts?

Apparently, science is the inconvenient truth and it is not good enough for the climate deniers in Congress. Best information is inconvenient and lies are easier than accepting the facts.

Some have compared this so-called "warming period" to what they say are similar events during the Middle Ages. (No word yet on whether any of them were able to hop in a DeLorean to see it for themselves...). The realities of climate change are not going to change because we do not like the inconvenience of an intrusive body of fact.

The truth is that the warming we've seen in the last 100 years is much worse -- and much faster -- than what we've seen in any time period before.

Denial and out right lies, will not change the reality of climate change.

If we want to get anywhere on combating climate change in Washington, we need to change the conversation -- and it starts with calling out every single one of these climate deniers.

The sources of these deniers are often from paid deniers, people paid to lie about the science!

Lies like those being disseminated will result in deaths, it is already starting to happen and those who are forestalling action on the matter at hand, should be held accountable, if they are lying about the reality of climate change and it’s impact on our future.

If some group of persons obstructed a fireman trying to rescue people trapped in a burning building, and death of those in peril resulted, those responsible for that obstruction would be subject to prosecution. That is precisely the situation that climate change denial creates. The science is settled, but the politicians are stalling to serve the financial interests of a few. This is a classic example of money centered politics. Congressmen who pledge to create legal barriers to assist the profits of a few and by doing so damage the entire population of the planet should be held accountable.

Check out this list of every climate denier we could find walking the halls of Congress -- then add your name to hold these guys accountable today:

Thanks for everything -- and keep up the great work.

Climate change is real, it's caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientifically proven fact. We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

We will continue updating the list below as supporters get answers to the basic question of whether their representatives in Congress accept the science on climate change. We hope that this list will shrink as members clarify what they truly believe about climate change.


Rep. Robert Aderholt
AL 4
I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions.' [source]

Rep. Rodney Alexander
LA 5
Introduced H Res 974 declaring that “the impacts of climate change and proposed resolutions, tainted by the recent uncovering of climategate, are not universally accepted….” [source]

Rep. Michele Bachmann
MN 6
Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.' [source]

Rep. Lou Barletta
PA 11
You know there's arguments on both sides. I'm not convinced that there's scientific evidence that proves that. I believe there's some that can also argue the opposite,' he said. [source]

Rep. Joe Barton
TX 6
“You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong,” Barton said as he challenged Gore’s conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures. [source]

Rep. Dan Benishek
MI 1
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, Rep. Benishek has said that climate change is “all baloney” and “just some scheme.” Pointing to his background as a general surgeon, Benishek claims he’s “a scientist” who has the expertise to know that climate change is “unproven science stuff.” [source]

Rep. Marsha Blackburn
TN 7
Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the climate-gate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment. And why? To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about the Democrat’s climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation, not a rush to judgement by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen.' [source]

Rep. John Boehner
OH 8
George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.' [source]

Rep. Kevin Brady
TX 8
Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.' [source]

Rep. Jim Bridenstine
OK 1
He downplayed the need for more climate research by noting that atmospheric temperatures have not risen over the last decade, and said temperatures coincide more with solar activity than with man-made factors. “Global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago,” he said. “Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with sun output and ocean cycles.” He noted the Medieval Warm Period that happened “long before cars, power plants and the industrial revolution.” And he noted the Little Ice Age, which also happened irrespective of human activity.” Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years,” he said. [source]

Rep. Mo Brooks
AL 5
I'm also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I'm approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.' (also numerous quotes from a March 31, 2011 committee hearing)[source]

Rep. Paul Broun
GA 10
In June 2009, Broun received a standing ovation when he said that global warming is a 'hoax'. He said 'Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.' [source]

Rep. Larry Bucshon
IN 8
The data does not support the premise that carbon dioxide emissions are playing a significant role in the world temperature variations. The temperature of the Earth has been changing over centuries with warmer and colder periods throughout history.' [source]

Rep. Michael Burgess
TX 26
“My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the science behind global temperature changes is not settled.” [source]

Rep. Dave Camp
MI 4
What is the science of climate change? What can it definitively tell us? Can it say who is responsible for it? Can it tell us what impact we can have on it, and if we can, what are the results—both positive and negative? From what I have read, there remains a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about climate change.' [source]

Rep. Eric Cantor
VA 7
“If there’s been any constant in human history, it’s been climate change. The real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all of that.” [source]

Rep. Shelley Capito
WV 2
Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous. [source]

Rep. John Carter
TX 31
“Global warming is simply a spam scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.” [source]

Rep. Bill Cassidy
LA 6
It could be secular. It could just be a shift on the axis.' [source]

Rep. Steve Chabot
OH 1
Climategate is “just another example of many in the press, and many in the academic/scientific community having bought into the whole global warming/climate change ‘religion,’ no matter what the facts are.” [source]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz
UT 3
Chaffetz lambasts global warming (calling it “a farce”). [source]

Rep. Mike Coffman
CO 6
Climate change is naturally occurring. What influence do we have over that, we certainly need to look into, but that's subject to debate. [source]

Rep. Doug Collins
GA 9
When asked if he believes human activity is contributing to climate change, Representative Collins answered “no.” [source]

Rep. Michael Conaway
TX 11
Science is never settled…they changed the phraseology because the climate isn’t warming.[source]

Rep. Kevin Cramer
When asked if he believed that human activity is contributing to climate change, Mr. Cramer answered “no” and went on to say: “The manipulation of free markets by economic policy disguised as environmental policy based on inconclusive science should not be tolerated. Free people producing energy other free people want and are willing to pay for should be the core of U.S. energy policy.” [source]

Rep. Rick Crawford
AR 1
He also fielded a question regarding climate change and President Obama’s environmental agenda. “There’s not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the President, I think, is committed to. We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time. and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research.” “I don’t see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas.” [source]

Rep. John Culberson
TX 7
This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the air we exhale, carbon dioxide, is toxic and poses a danger to our well-being…. While this blatant power grab is disappointing, the truly alarming part is that the scientific evidence the EPA used to support its conclusion comes directly from United Nations (U.N.) climate data – the same data that were recently found to have been deliberately manipulated to support the global warming movement. When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the proposed endangerment finding in April, she readily admitted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Emails recently made public offer definitive proof of a collective effort among some U.N. scientists to misrepresent climate data in order to foist their political agenda onto the public.' [source]

Rep. Steve Daines
In a radio interview with Montana Public Radio, Daines admits the climate is changing but questions the impacts by man, that there is “significant debate here,” the “jury is still out,” and brings up the debate of sun/solar cycles versus greenhouse gases. [source]

Rep. Rodney Davis
IL 13
During an interview with Illinois Public Media radio, a constituent asked Representative Rodney Davis what he planned to do to combat climate change, and he responded that “global warming has stopped 16 years ago.” He then went on the say that climate change is real but the debate is over whether or not it is manmade or natural. [source]

Rep. Jeff Denham
CA 10
Some wouldn’t view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue. We don’t have complete factual information yet. From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don’t know that there’s anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet.' [source]

Rep. John Duncan
TN 2
Supports claim that global warming is “the greatest scam in history.” [source]

Rep. Jeff Duncan
SC 3
I don't believe in climate change. I don't believe in man-I believe the climate is changing, but I don't believe it's man driven. [source]

Rep. Blake Farenthold
TX 27
Global warming is scare tactic used by groups with a political agenda. [sic]' [source]

Rep. John Fleming
LA 4
“Quietly released scientific report without fanfare. Global warming, to the the extent that it ever existed, halted 16 years ago. So, what is Washington controlled by the radical environmental agenda?” [source]

Rep. Bill Flores
TX 17
It is time we stopped putting petty politics based on dubious “agenda-driven, scientific” research ahead of creating more American energy. [source]

Rep. Randy Forbes
VA 4
Elected officials need to depend on experts in the field to make determinations on the degree to which our planet is warming, and there is evidence among scientists and researchers pointing in both directions. [source]

Rep. Virginia Foxx
NC 5
North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx referenced books by climate-change skeptics and lamented that some environmentalists “think that we, human beings, have more impact on the climate and the world than God does.” [source]

Rep. Trent Franks
AZ 8
I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations. [source]

Rep. Cory Gardner
CO 4
Representative Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado and a skeptic of human-caused global warming... '“I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news.' [source]

Rep. Scott Garrett
NJ 5
The real question that still exists in a lot of people’s minds, experts and non-experts alike, on the area of global warming and what role the government should have in this realm. … I’ve heard a number of experts on both sides of the equation on this issue and to me the evidence, the question is still out there.' [source]

Rep. Bob Gibbs
OH 7
It is clear that science has not been able to document what is happening and if human activity is causing a problem or not . Many scientists are on both sides of this issue and the proponents of climate change have not substantiated their findings based on sound science.' [source]

Rep. Phil Gingrey
GA 11
Filed petition with EPA claiming: 'Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured' [source]

Rep. Louie Gohmert
TX 1
We’re finding out the world is staying the same or actually cooling.' [source]

Rep. Paul Gosar
AZ 4
Further, “global warming” now known as “climate change” is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York. [source]

Rep. Trey Gowdy
SC 4
Global warming has not been proven to the satisfaction of the constituents I seek to serve.'[source]

Rep. Tim Griffin
AR 2
“I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.” [source]

Rep. Morgan Griffith
VA 9
[Climate Change] led to the Vikings dominating Europe for several hundred years.' [source]

Rep. Michael Grimm
NY 11
I have been one of the guys who have been skeptical of global warming from the beginning. The jury is obviously still out on it. We see nothing but conflicting reports from scientists across the globe. I’m not sure, I’m not a scientist.' [source]

Rep. Ralph Hall
TX 4
I'm really more fearful of freezing. And I don't have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they're not basing it on real scientific facts' [source]

Rep. Gregg Harper
MS 3
I don't believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming.' [source]

Rep. Andy Harris
MD 1
Harris said there is a recent warming trend, but “I don’t understand or know, or I don’t believe anybody really knows, how to place that in historic perspective.” He also said human contribution to climate change “is also a complex question,” and that even if humans are contributing, “can you change that contribution given that we burn a lot of carbon-based products to create the energy we need to run the economy of the world?” [source]

Rep. Vicky Hartzler
MO 4
Enjoying another beautiful global warming day in Missouri! Rep. Skelton and the UN Summit need to quit their dist. of wealth for a hoax.' [source]

Rep. Doc Hastings
WA 4
Hastings told the Columbia Basin Herald he understands global warming exists. He said the cause of global warming is the concern. Hastings said he is not convinced people and their actions are the cause of global warming and questions if it is a natural process because the earth has warmed and cooled many times throughout history. [source]

Rep. Richard Hudson
NC 8
When asked if human activity is contributing to climate change, he responded no. [source]

Rep. Bill Huizenga
MI 2
Today’s global warming doomsayers simply lack the scientific evidence to support their claims. A host of leaders in the scientific community have recognized that the argument for drastic anthropogenic global warming is no longer based on science, but is being driven by irrational fanaticism.' [source]

Rep. Randy Hultgren
IL 14
The greatest impact on our climate clearly is the sun, and we have very little impact on the sun and how much energy and temperature the sun is sending to the earth. We have seen clearly over thousands of years that at different times more energy has come through and different times less energy has come through, and that variation has impacted climate change. Over the thousands of years that’s been recorded we’ve had both colder times and warmer times. It happens to be that we’ve recently come out of a warmer time and now actually we’re headed in to a little bit of a colder time, the impact of the sun is much different than impact that we could have had.' [source]

Rep. Duncan Hunter
CA 50
Hunter ridiculed the notion that climate change needs to be addressed by Congress. “Nobody really knows the cause,” he said. “The earth cools, the earth warms…It could be caused by carbon dioxide or methane. Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2…Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives…We ought to look out for people. The earth can take care of itself.”[source]

Rep. Robert Hurt
VA 5
Hurt said Climategate is “scientists who have given us something that is not true. It is faulty information and it has real consequences in the 5th District, in the loss of jobs and in power bills from Appalachian Power Co.” [source]

Rep. Darrell Issa
CA 49
One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.[source]

Rep. Lynn Jenkins
KS 2
I cosponsored a res. overturning an EPA rule that says man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health. [source]

Rep. Bill Johnson
OH 6
In another, more accurate, sense, Johnson is a man with a degree in computer science who is awash in oil and gas money and denies climate science, asserting in 2011, “I am not an alarmist that believes that greenhouse gas emissions coming from the coal industry are causing major problems.” [source]

Rep. Walter Jones
NC 3
“However, there is substantial disagreement regarding the extent of this warming, whether it’s caused by human activity or simply nature taking its course, and what solutions, if any, should be implemented. The bottom line is that the scientific community does not speak with one voice on this issue.” [source]

Rep. Steve King
IA 4
There are a couple of German engineers that took that theory apart and proved it wrong in a lab. I’ve read through that, but I’d have to go back to school for a half a year or a year to tell you I followed every bit of their rationale. But the presumption of the Greenhouse Effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly rebutted.' [source]

Rep. Jack Kingston
GA 1
We have a moral duty to be good stewards of the environment but growing the government’s coffers and killing jobs based on questionable science is a bridge too far.' [source]

Rep. Doug LaMalfa
CA 1
It’s “bad science.” It’s “Al Gore.” It’s a “naturally occurring cycle.” You should “look at the numbers.” [source]

Rep. Doug Lamborn
CO 5
Lamborn said there are “a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is man made.” However, he said there is “not much unanimity” about it. At that statement many audience members commented that 98 percent was “pretty unanimous.” Lamborn said he spoke to a scientist who believes that global warming is man-made and “should materialize” 50-100 years from now. He said there are issues that need dealing with now. Eckler asked again if he would listen to the evidence claiming global warming is here and now. After more back-and-forth on the issue, Lamborn said, “I think we’ve beaten this horse to a pulp. I’m listening to all sides.” [source]

Rep. James Lankford
OK 5
This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else. And that generation will be ticked.' [source]

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer
MO 3
Luetkemeyer’s legislation would prohibit U.S. contributions to the IPCC, which is nothing more than a group of U.N. bureaucrats that supports man-made claims on global warming that many scientists disagree with…. Meanwhile, our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling. [source]

Rep. Cynthia Lummis
“We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.” [source]

Rep. Thomas Massie
KY 4
Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Mr. Massie, a Kentucky Republican, said he was “disappointed” that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on “human activity” and accused some of “denying the evidence of scientists.” “As somebody with a science-type background, I took offense at that,” Mr. Massie said during a panel meeting billed as “Conversations With Conservatives.” “I would challenge him to show us the linkage — the undeniable linkage — between droughts and the change of weather, and some kind of human activity.” [source]

Rep. Tom McClintock
CA 4
We're all told of course the debate is over and that all the scientists agree... and as all of you know, that is succinctly not the case.' [source]

Rep. David McKinley
WV 1
Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame. [source]

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
WA 5
We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing.' [source]

Rep. Candice Miller
MI 10
There is little doubt that the world’s climate is changing, because the climate has always changed. Just ask the dinosaurs or remember the ice age and how huge glaciers melting and moving formed our Great Lakes. The question is whether the current climate change is human-induced.' [source]

Rep. Jeff Miller
FL 1
"I have scientists that I rely on, the scientists that I rely on say our climate has changed,” Miller said. “It wasn’t just a few years ago, what was the problem that existed? It wasn’t global warming, we were gonna all be an ice cube. We’re not ice cubes. Our climate will continue to change because of the way God formed the earth." [source]

Rep. Markwayne Mullin
OK 2
I haven’t seen the reports that would get me to believe that anything’s different than the patterns that we have that we’ve gone through through the time of records. [source]

Rep. Mick Mulvaney
SC 5
Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil – because of baseless claims regarding global warming.' [source]

Rep. Randy Neugebauer
TX 19
What we have here is a case of formulating scientific findings that back up policy, instead of creating policy that is backed up by legitimate science. Proponents of man-made global warming in Congress will use every opportunity they have to invite witnesses to testify before Congress who only share their point of view. We now have clear evidence of what we knew all along, that there are perhaps thousands of scientists who don’t share these views, and sadly have been the subject of concerted efforts to discourage and suppress their findings from publication.' [source]

Rep. Kristi Noem
Voted for an SD House Resolution stating that: 'That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative' [source]

Rep. Devin Nunes
CA 22
However, scientists admit that they cannot be sure whether the Earth’s temperature is rising due to cyclical warming and cooling processes, or whether and how much humans are influencing it.' [source]

Rep. Pete Olson
TX 22
The emails that emerge from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data.' [source]

Rep. Erik Paulsen
MN 3
When asked if human beings are contributing to global warming, Paulsen said he wasn’t smart enough to know whether that’s true or not. [source]

Rep. Stevan Pearce
NM 2
“I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap... why should the rest of be penalized in our standard of living for something that can’t be validated?” [source]

Rep. Scott Perry
PA 4
I do believe global warming is occurring. …However, I do take exception, whether it’s man-made or not [source]

Rep. Robert Pittenger
NC 9
We don't have the facts yet.... Those in my party understand that in some great measure this is a hoax. [source]

Rep. Ted Poe
TX 2
The consensus has been for some time that global warming, climate change, continues because man is the perpetrator. Now we are beginning to learn that may not be true, that there is not a consensus that there is global warming or climate change. We now have heard about Climategate, where the expert scientists hid emails in England that disagreed with the so-called consensus that there is global warming and global climate change. We have heard now new evidence that even NASA is involved in not revealing evidence that contradicts climate change.[source]
Rep. Tom Price
GA 6
This decision goes against all common sense, especially considering the many recent revelations of errors and obfuscation in the allegedly ‘settled science’ of global warming.' [source]

Rep. Scott Rigell
VA 2
Does not believe that climate change is caused by human actions. [source]

Rep. Phil Roe
TN 1
Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate. While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy.' [source]

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
CA 48
Too often, when congress is asked to pass environmental legislation, the legislation is based on emotional junk science rather than data based on reproducable, rigorous, tested, peer-reviewed results. In no area has this been more obvious than climate change. Because the Kyoto Treaty and much of the suggested environmental legislation would decimate jobs in southern California, constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occuring.' [source]

Rep. Todd Rokita
IN 4
I think it’s arrogant that we think as people that we can somehow change the climate of the whole earth when science is telling us that there’s a cycle to all this. [source]

Rep. Peter Roskam
IL 6
Roskam drew the ire of the crowd by calling global warming junk science. [source]

Rep. Keith Rothfus
PA 12
When asked, 'Do you believe that global warming which is now referred to as climate change is a fact, and if so do you believe that it is man-made?' Rothfus responded, 'I do not believe it’s man-made and I am not convinced that it is a fact. I think the science is still out. I think for the last 15 years we haven’t had any warming.' [source]

Rep. Paul Ryan
WI 1
Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow. [source]

Rep. Steve Scalise
LA 1
Asked whether he worries that he could be wrong, Scalise cited an “increasing number of scientists who are raising major questions about the global warming theories.” [source]

Rep. James Sensenbrenner
WI 5
I think that the science is inconclusive on this...I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.' [source]

Rep. John Shimkus
IL 15
Filed petition with EPA claiming: 'Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured' [source]

Rep. Lamar Smith
TX 21
“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don't know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,” he said in a statement (San Antonio Express-News, 12/6/12) [source]

Rep. Chris Stewart
UT 2
The science regarding climate change is anything but settled. ' [source]

Rep. Steve Stivers
OH 15
Disagrees with the statement: “Man-made global warming is a scientific fact.” [source]

Rep. Steve Stockman
TX 36
“The new fad thing that’s going through America and around the world. It’s called global warming.” [source]

Rep. Lee Terry
NE 2
There's an argument here on the true impact of man... Is it really 97 to 3? I don't think so.'[source]

Rep. Glenn Thompson
PA 5
In the debate and most of the debate of the majority party here, it’s not so much based on real science as political science or even, to some degree, science fiction. And so, to look at why this–and I looked at every piece of legislation in terms of cost benefits. And when we look at the benefits of this, I think human activity, it’s acknowledged, does contribute towards carbon dioxide emissions. But it’s less than 4 percent. To put that into perspective, forest fires, wildfires contribute 10 percent of CO2 emissions. And so not even with the debate of, you know, are we warming the Earth or not warming the Earth, there’s a lot of smart folks out there that are publishing research or earning their dissertations based on debating that science. But what the experts agree upon, the researchers agree is, human activity is less than 4 percent contributes towards CO2 emissions.' [source]

Rep. Mac Thornberry
TX 13
Global Warming: Politics or Science? Some scientists believe that the temperature of the Earth is increasing rapidly. Others, such as those at the United Kingdom’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies, say that the Earth’s temperature is not much different now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The case that man is causing any change in temperature is even more hotly contested.'[source]

Rep. Pat Tiberi
OH 12
GOP Rep. Pat Tiberi of Genoa Township doesn’t think there is a consensus among scientists about whether global warming is proven. [source]

Rep. Scott Tipton
CO 3
Scott Tipton (R-CO) conceded that climate change exists, but argued that it’s caused by natural climate cycles rather than humans. “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” the Tea Party freshman argued. Acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America,” said Tipton. [source]

Rep. Fred Upton
MI 6
Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature under debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050 it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings [on the Climategate emails].' [source]

Rep. Ann Wagner
MO 2
Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science...'[source]

Rep. Tim Walberg
MI 7
I read scientists, editors…an equal number at the very least that say just the opposite that this is something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.' [source]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland
GA 3
Westmoreland, who isn’t convinced that global warming is occurring, denied that he was trying to divert attention from Gore’s testimony. Also Filed petition with EPA claiming: 'Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured'[source]

Rep. Ed Whitfield
KY 1
Misrepresenting scientific research to support one’s own personal beliefs, particularly on an international stage, is dangerous, disingenuous and simply unacceptable. I call on Mr. Gore to come clean about the real science surrounding climate change and let the American people come to their own conclusions on global warming.' [source]

Rep. Joe Wilson
SC 2
When asked if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, Rep. Wilson answered “no.” [source]

Rep. Robert Wittman
VA 1
We must recognize that these climactic cycles of heating and cooling have been going on well before man appeared on earth.' [source]

Rep. Todd Young
IN 9
“The science is not settled.” [source]

Rep. Don Young
I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.' [source]

Sen. Kelly Ayotte
Asked if she believed in climate change, she said, “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.” [source]

Sen. John Barrasso
When Barrasso was in college and medical school, he said, the 'best science at the time said that the Ice Age is coming.... So all I'm saying is, how much of the wealth of this nation are we going to put at risk for something that may be poorly spent money?' [source]

Sen. Roy Blunt
“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.” [source]

Sen. John Boozman
Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.'[source]

Sen. Thomas Coburn
“I’ve read the basic scientific studies, and a lot of it doesn’t add up for me,” [source]

Sen. John Cornyn
“Taxpayer funded research by NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) concerning the warmest years on record has been the subject of dispute and after challenges, has been changed and re-released. What is less known is why the changes were made and what inherent flaws existed in the original data, if any. It is important to understand the reasons behind these alterations and further to avoid suspicion that data was massaged to fit the prescribed theory that global warming is attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”[source]

Sen. Michael Crapo
While there is no dispute over the fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the planet’s history, the underlying cause of these climactic shifts is ultimately not well-understood and is a matter of vigorous debate.' [source]

Sen. Ted Cruz
There remains considerable uncertainty about the effect of the many factors that influence climate: the sun, the oceans, clouds, the behavior of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas), volcanic activity, and human activity. Nonetheless, climate-change proponents based their models on assumptions about those factors, and now we know that many of those assumptions were wrong.' [source]

Sen. Deb Fischer
Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, 'I certainly don't support cap-and-trade.' She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate. [source]

Sen. Chuck Grassley
But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy.' [source]

Sen. Orrin Hatch
There is also some disagreement among scientists as to whether global warming – regardless of its cause – would result in a net benefit or detriment to life on earth. Scientific studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that humans tend to fare better during warming spells than periods of cooling.' [source]

Sen. John Hoeven
Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.' [source]

Sen. Jim Inhofe
I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists.'[36] [source]

Sen. John Isakson
Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint.' [source]

Sen. Mike Johanns
There is a significant debate as to what role man plays in warming of the climate. [source]

Sen. Ron Johnson
“I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination. It's far more likely that it's sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time.” [source]

Sen. Rand Paul
[Scientists] are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this.' [source]

Sen. Rob Portman
When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.' [source]

Sen. Pat Roberts
There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism.' [source]

Sen. Marco Rubio
The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather. --- 'I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it,' he told the Tampa Tribune [source]

Sen. Richard Shelby
Global warming continues to be an issue of significant debate in Congress and throughout the scientific community. In addition, important scientific research is ongoing as there are still many questions that must be answered before we take steps to address this issue. For example, is the climate change phenomenon cyclical or is it a function of manmade pollutants, or both? I believe the science must be firmly grounded before we take any actions that could seriously cripple many sectors of our economy.' [source]

Sen. Pat Toomey
My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.' [source]

Sen. David Vitter
I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory.' [source]

Sen. Roger Wicker
Science shows that there is an increase of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. But it has not been compellingly proven that mankind is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, nor is it clear what impact CO2 has on Earth’s temperatures.' [source]

Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am

Re: Physics always Wins.

Postby psikeyhackr » Thu May 29, 2014 3:53 pm

45 years after the Moon landing and or economists or the media cannot talk about planned obsolescence.

But a new car and it is added to GDP. But what happened to the depreciation of the old car. Physics causes the depreciation so there is no getting away from it happening but if economists do not compute it then we are really not keeping track of reality. ... imgar.html
User avatar
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Physics always Wins.

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:05 am

I wish I could respond but I do not understand what you said or how it could be relevant to my post. Accounting is not part of the conversation.
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am

Re: Physics always Wins.

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:07 am

I wish I could respond but I do not understand what you said or how it could be relevant to my post. Accounting is not part of the conversation.
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am

Re: Physics always Wins.

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:10 am

I wish I could respond but I do not understand what you said or how it could be relevant to my post. Accounting is not part of the conversation.
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am

Return to Architecture Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

User Control Panel


Who is online

In this forum zone there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 508 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:21 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.