Finding Noah might be easier than finding a Republican who can win in NJ.

---

I talk to myself because mine are the only answers I'll accept - George Carlin

God told Noah he was fed up with us so I'm not sure why this guy says we don't know who is causing it this time. Obviously it's God. And if you want further proof, God has never accepted federal money because of the separation between state and church.

huh?

Religious types disputing global warning always reminds me of that joke about the priest on top of a burning building who turns away firemen, a helicopter and the offer of a parachute because he's waiting for God to save him.

I gave you big enough brains to understand science!

And then I gave you scientists as some of you were still too slow!

And then I gave you a terrifying escalation of global weather events!

What more did you want!?

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

That's clever.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

. Heard it differently.

“I sent you firemen, a helicopter and a parachute! What more do you want?”

I think that your version has been edited by the global warming crowd.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Only one of the three incumbent NJ Republican House members is favored to be re-elected; no other Republican is favored to win, even in the two districts with a retiring Republican House member.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Wrong answer, if he's in the Republican primary he will lose.

Right answer is "God gave us the dinosaurs so that we can have coal and oil. It's his providence to his people. Us refusing to use it for energy and jobs is sinful and an insult to his gifts. You must reject the infidels rejecting God's gifts and the lies about climate they tell you to lead you into the path of the evil one."

That's the answer to win.

Getting harder for politicians to say scientist don't agree as most do seem to agree. They are all getting funded from somewhere so that's pretty even on balance.

Pretty soon we won't be able to say an event was a natural occurrence or act of god.

https://www.cnn.com/...tml?no-st=1539280271

Ah, I was looking at republicans winning from a historical perspective not just the upcoming election.

Meaning that climate change is going to be a month and a half long, then things will return to normal?

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

the 'funding' line of argument is always a bit funny to me. why exactly does funding make research suspect? federal money also funds medical research - does this guy now doubt the germ theory of disease? it funds physics research - does he doubt the standard model of the atom? it funds math research - does he doubt that the angles inside a triangle add up to 180 degrees?

no, because he's too ignorant to know about those things, and he can't gin up some cheap political points out of it.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

The funding argument makes sense but I don't give it much weight. If scientist agreed climate change was nothing to worry about and didn't require any further research, a lot of folks with grants measuring temperatures and ice cores may be out of work. Therefore, there's motivation to find climate change will have drastic effects in the next ten years so the scientist can ask for more grant money and ensure they have something to do.

But the other side of the coin is the folks denying it are often paid by groups with interests convincing politicians there is no need to look further in climate change and enact legislation to curb carbon.

Can't discount the underlying source of funding and motivations of the scientist but can't use it as out outright disqualifier of the opinions either.

Sure he wasn't saying go ask NOAA?

shhhh. stop being rational, we're talking climate change and republicans here!

Given that Noah wasn’t around 5 billion years ago I’m going with this explaination.

Here is the Exxonmobil position on Climate Change (bolded by me):

"Our position on climate change
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks."

I think it's obvious that Exxonmobil will have its own opinions on what actions are appropriate/prudent/etc at present; and, they are only advocating for action "to further quantify and assess the risks." But even they are on record that carbon emissions are having a warming effect. Are they part of the left-wing conspiracy of climate alarmists?

I might move this one down a notch on my "prominent Grossmans about to win big in November" list.

The burning question for me is, what does Kanye West think of global warming...