Home | About | Donate

The House Science Committee’s Shameful Climate Sideshow


#1

The House Science Committee’s Shameful Climate Sideshow

Peter Frumhoff

There are a lot of ways one can imagine, in principle, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology holding a constructive, timely hearing on the state of climate science and its implications for our nation’s climate and energy policies.


#2

They know yet the profit they seek is in denying that they know!

When it comes to climate catastrophe, humanity and the world itself should be considered collateral damage.

Someday the answer to a certain poignant question, asked by the young, will be >>> "Yeah, they did it for the money!"


#3

There is plenty of information out there to make a rational decision without the House Science Committee's propaganda. There are three kinds of deniers: those who know the truth and lie about it (the House Science Committee), those who purposefully choose to be uninformed and those who just don't quite have the intelligence to understand what is going on. Once you understand the basic science of what is going on you don't even need to see the ice melting or the thermometer rising to know what we are doing has to result in global warming.


#4

"Today's hearing was just another shameful production"

Paid of, as usual, by US CITIZENS.

"...egregious efforts to misconstrue Science and Evidence for Partisan Purposes must be Called out and Rejected by the MAINSTREAM MEDIA ...for the DISTRACTING and DANGEROUS sideshow that they are."

That is why, in a nutshell, this Travesty has lingered for so long.

The Mainstream Media is now completely OWNED by the Very Entities who profit from this insidious Status Quo.

There used to be Laws against this kind of Media Monopoly, but the concept of De-Regulation was Sold, as a good thing for us Citizens, and for our Nation, and finally, after years of successful skullduggery by these Treasonous Weasels, Implemented.

And here we are.


#5

Thank goodness - a scientist finally talked to a civil engineer. We also, by law, design dams and modify existing potentially hazardous dams - at great expense - to withstand a "probable maximum precipitation" event. Such an event even over a 1000-year time horizon is far less likely than the more remote catastrophic climate change possibilities. So, even if these crackpot "skeptic" arguments had some merit, aggressive action of CO2 emission would still be warranted - because there is such consensus for taking action against other, far less serious and more remote geologic and meteorological catastrophes - with still plenty of controversy about their level of risk - but absolutely no controversy about taking action against them at all!

I'll leave the reader to figure out why climate change hazards are treated so differently - not only dismissiveness, but attacked with religious fervor by various business interests and their politicians.


#6

Money is moot when the Earth is burning.


#7

Ever notice that the theocrats are "thrilled about this? Just a waitin' for that rapture.