McConnell Will Allow A Vote On Bernie Sanders’ Nutty Climate Change Amendment

Doomed to fail, but, hey, nothing like people who take fossil fueled trips from all over the country complaining about the use of fossil fuels, eh?

(The Hill) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday he will allow the Senate to vote on an amendment asking if they agree that climate change is impacting the planet.

At his weekly press briefing, McConnell said “nobody is blocking any amendments” to legislation that would approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

But a measure proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had raised questions about whether he would stick to that commitment.

The Sanders measure asks whether lawmakers agree with the overwhelming consensus of scientists who say climate change is impacting the planet and is worsened by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

The actual text of the amendment is here, and, in part, reads

SEC. lll. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.
It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agree-ment with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that—
(1) climate change is real;
(2) climate change is caused by human activities;
(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world;
(4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and
(5) it is imperative that the United States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

On his government website we learn from Bernie

“The American people need to know whether Congress is listening to the overwhelming majority of scientists when it comes to climate change,” Sanders said. “On this issue, the scientists have been virtually unanimous in saying that climate change is real, it is caused by human action, it is already causing devastating problems which will only get worse in the future and that we need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. Do members of Congress believe the scientists or not?” the senator asked.

Sanders has argued against construction of the pipeline because it would promote greater exploitation of some of the dirtiest oil on the planet and increase greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

So, can we depend on Bernie to give up his own fossil fuels addiction, and walk or bike to work? No fossil fueled flights from Vermont?

Would Bernie support the construction of nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams in the U.S.? His home state of Vermont gets 70% of its power from nuclear, and 20% from hydroelectric (despite all the government “investment” into solar, wind, and biomass), both of which Democrats/liberals do all they can to block. Seriously, solar is great for Vermont, what with their average 157 days of sun a year.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “McConnell Will Allow A Vote On Bernie Sanders’ Nutty Climate Change Amendment”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Senator McConnell is to be commended for allowing the most important legislative body on Earth a vote on the validity of the scientific method.

    Senator Sanders is the smartest person in the Senate, and it’s not serendipitous that he is neither Republican nor Democrat.

  2. Nighthawk says:

    Smartest person?? Considering he has swallowed the debunked claim that “virtually the entire (97%) scientific community” agrees that climate change is caused by man’s activities exposes him as just another political tool of the warmist cult.

    The ONLY part that is true is number 1. Climate change is real. Always has been and always will be. That’s what happens on a dynamic planet.

    Numbers 2 through 5 are just complete BS.

  3. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Now, outline the “scientific method” as it applies to climate science. Of course, be prepared to have to give up your religion.

  4. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Fair enough.

    Observation: The Earth appears to be warming.

    Scientists set out to confirm this, using surface thermometers, satellites, ocean buoys, weather balloons. That the Earth is warming appears to be true, wouldn’t you agree. (This is a yes or no, not a yeah but, “It was hot a billion years ago, too!”).

    Question: Did this warming appear to be exceptional? According to the best available evidence in recreating past temperature swings, this warm period appeared to be occurring rapidly.

    Question: Why was the temperature changing? According to the best available knowledge the Earth could be warming because of changes in the Sun’s output (part of the overall warming in the past century), changes in the Earth’s orbit/rotation (e.g., these changes most likely trigger the change between glacial and interglacial periods over the past million years or so), unknowns or changes in greenhouse gases. We have excellent measures of the Sun’s output cycles, and the Earth’s orbital eccentricity and neither appear to be solely responsible for warming. The unknowns are still unknown, but hypotheses about clouds and cosmic rays have not been supported by evidence. One input that has clearly changed is the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Scientific hypothesis: The Earth is warming because of atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulations. This was an easy hypothesis to synthesize since it’s been known for over a century that greenhouse gases retain the Sun’s heat on Earth.

    Evidence in support: The Earth is warming. CO2 concentration has climbed steadily. It’s been demonstrated that the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. Thousands of scientific papers support the hypothesis and examinations (and papers) about solar output, orbital cycles and unknowns have not.

    So much evidence has accumulated in support of the hypothesis that it has become a scientific theory: The current rapid warming results from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

    Now, it’s a truism in the practice of science that you “Only find what you look for.” Many Deniers claim this describes climate science but that reasoning is flawed. Evidence refutes the concept that the Earth is warming from changes in the Sun or Earth’s orbit. No evidence has been presented that refutes the theory of AGW. The young scientist that falsifies the theory of AGW will become the most famous scientist ever.

    There has been NO other reasonable hypothesis proposed to explain the current rapid warming period. It is almost certainly from greenhouse gases added by us. But theories are never proven. They are always open to be falsified. But the current evidence in support of the theory of man-made global warming is overwhelming.

    The only reason we ever argue of the theory of AGW is because entrenched interests have a huge financial stake on policies that could result from its acceptance. We don’t argue over the underpinnings of the theory of gravity do we? Why IS there this attraction between heavenly bodies? What is the nature of the force from the moon that creates the tides? Why doesn’t helium falsify the theory of gravity?

  5. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    What do your comments have to do with scientific method?

  6. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Ummm… everything. You’re a science denier, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    The linkage between the observed warming and humans is not proven and not a necessity, and it is one of the most common mistakes in the current public debate.There is no fingerprint which proves that the warming is caused primarily by CO2 or other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In fact, the two primary “proofs” are circumstantial and very problematic.

  8. Jeffery says:

    drowningpuppies,

    What, to you, is the most likely reason for the rapid warming of Earth?

    What are the two primary proofs you find circumstantial and very problematic?

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    First, we should probably emphasize the obvious. The fact that no other explanation is known for the warming does not prove that an alternative does not exist.
    Second, the temperature increase over the 20th century is not unique at all.

  10. Hoss says:

    drowning, you know the lefties: in for a penny, in for a pound. They’re not gonna let go of the charade until the republicans decide to give in and give the democrats some kind of tax to further plunder the people with. lefties act as if the Earth’s climate has been static, and then we go through a global cooling scare only to be told we’re having global warming – which had to be re-branded as climate change because, damnit, the Earth went on a 15 year warming hiatus, and so on. It’s pathetic. Funny how the leading alarmist won’t release their self-professed “irrefutable” date because they call it proprietary, etc. They really have bastardized science. Global warming is nothing but the latest iteration of the population bomb.

  11. Jeffery says:

    hoss and puppies,

    Righties never want to discuss or argue global warming, but just Deny.

    hoss, no one claims that the Earth’s climate has been static, just that significant changes in the global surface temperature have physical causes and do not occur by magic. And the current rapid warming period IS significant. What you claim to know is that whatever the cause, it is not greenhouse gases.

  12. Dana says:

    If Senator Sanders’ amendment is to be voted on, does that not also include the possibility of his amendment being amended? 🙂

    It’s real simple: simply amend his proposed amendment to say something to the effect of “We aren’t going to impoverish ourselves just to please the left.”

  13. Dana says:

    Jeffrey’s favorite senator said:

    Sanders has argued against construction of the pipeline because it would promote greater exploitation of some of the dirtiest oil on the planet and increase greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

    Of course, those sources of oil are already being used, but the oil companies simply found different ways to transport it. Some is going by older, existing pipelines (thus more subject to leaks than a newly constructed one) and some is going by rail (and freight trains have been known to derail in the past). Shipment by rail means that the transportation itself adds CO2 to the atmosphere, because locomotives run on diesel fuel.

    The esteemed Jeffrey and his like-thinkers really want the tar sands oil to not be used at all, but that horse is already out of the barn; it’s being used. The Keystone XL pipeline would make transportation of that oil safer, more efficient, and add less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and ought to be the next best alternative for the environmentalists, but they won’t look that far.

  14. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    Would you or some other science Denier care to explain how the gradual change to renewable energy sources will impoverish us?

    (Hint: Study after study refutes your claims.)

  15. Hoss says:

    “Righties never want to discuss or argue global warming, but just Deny.”

    Hilarious coming from the side that said the debate was over since they never wanted to engage in the debate. And what about this “current rapid warming period” you cite that according to science is non-existent. Only you geniuses would put a monitoring station on the roof of a building in the middle of an urban heat island and then cry about how the temperature is higher. No sh*t.

    And yes, your side does act like climate is static. Climate change has become such a ridiculous charade that everything under the sun is now being blamed for it: you tripped going up the stairs; climate change. Prices went up on that North face jacket you wanted; climat echange. That’s almost how absurd it has become.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7873 access attempts in the last 7 days.