Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Atomic Scientists Bulletin)   US House of Representatives passes bill that prevents scientists at the Energy Department from doing... science   (thebulletin.org) divider line 48
    More: Fail, consequences of climate change, NCA, James Lankford, Lawrence Krauss, climate change deniers, Australian Government, United States Congress, ocean acidification  
•       •       •

3181 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2014 at 5:59 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-24 03:38:52 PM  
And just what in The Hell were you expecting from the 1% Puppets?

I am waiting,,,


/quiet, too quiet
 
2014-07-24 03:49:25 PM  
Are they afraid they will be blinded?
 
2014-07-24 03:52:22 PM  
It is indisputable that human beings are affecting this planet.  We've hunted species to extinction, create smog and pollution that can be seen for orbit, and dump enough things in our rivers that they catch fire.  What exact are conservatives objections to figuring out what else we've managed to screw up in the biosphere before it become an immediately deadly problem?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-24 03:58:31 PM  
Who cares?

/there's money to be made
 
2014-07-24 04:01:59 PM  

Karac: It is indisputable that human beings are affecting this planet.  We've hunted species to extinction, create smog and pollution that can be seen for orbit, and dump enough things in our rivers that they catch fire.  What exact are conservatives objections to figuring out what else we've managed to screw up in the biosphere before it become an immediately deadly problem?

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]


That is a stupid concept.
The entire list of things to improve, from kids to trees will be old and die before climactic changes do any farking thing to help them.
IN REAL WORLD, there is serious human malfeasance to address IN REAL TIME.
 
2014-07-24 04:25:54 PM  
Is the Obvious tag melting?
 
2014-07-24 06:03:25 PM  
bitsandpieces.us
 
2014-07-24 06:03:47 PM  
It's just like the laws that prohibit collecting data on gun violence.
 
2014-07-24 06:07:55 PM  
I'm starting to get the feeling that this isn't my planet & I have no right to clean water or air and if that's the case, why in the hell am i here?
 
2014-07-24 06:19:01 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]


The opposite of pro is con.  Therefore the opposite of progress is...
 
2014-07-24 06:22:07 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]

The opposite of pro is con.  Therefore the opposite of progress is...


The opposite of professional is confessional...
 
2014-07-24 06:22:20 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]

The opposite of pro is con.  Therefore the opposite of progress is...


So what is the opposite of confidence?
 
2014-07-24 06:37:43 PM  
Oh for fark's sake...
The GOP: Anti-science, big business blowing assholes

They're like cartoon villains only more obviously evil.
 
2014-07-24 06:39:06 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]

The opposite of pro is con.  Therefore the opposite of progress is...

So what is the opposite of confidence?


Providence
 
2014-07-24 06:52:26 PM  
forgot to mention this is the Australian House of Clowns, FYI.
 
2014-07-24 06:56:01 PM  
That's a fun game

protection - contection
prohibition - conhibition
pro-choice - con-choice
proverb - converb

/this game sucks
 
2014-07-24 07:10:00 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]

The opposite of pro is con.  Therefore the opposite of progress is...


Actually the opposite of pro is re. So it owuld be REGRESS.
 
2014-07-24 07:10:49 PM  

Isitoveryet: forgot to mention this is the Australian House of Clowns, FYI.


No, the article starts out mentioning the idiocy coming from the Australian government, but then discusses the US House bill. It will probably die in the Senate, but that's hardly a cause for relief.
 
2014-07-24 07:11:42 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]

Why would you slander baboons like that?
 
2014-07-24 07:12:40 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Isitoveryet: forgot to mention this is the Australian House of Clowns, FYI.

No, the article starts out mentioning the idiocy coming from the Australian government, but then discusses the US House bill. It will probably die in the Senate, but that's hardly a cause for relief.


thank you ... Wolf Blitzer ... for that correction.

/seriously, thank you.
 
2014-07-24 07:17:33 PM  

Karac: It is indisputable that human beings are affecting this planet.  We've hunted species to extinction, create smog and pollution that can be seen for orbit, and dump enough things in our rivers that they catch fire.  What exact are conservatives objections to figuring out what else we've managed to screw up in the biosphere before it become an immediately deadly problem?

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]


Because doing anything to prevent further damage, and/or repair existing damage, would cost money AND would impact big business' profits.
 
2014-07-24 07:19:58 PM  
The real news here is that a bill was passed.  Congrats America!
 
2014-07-24 07:21:21 PM  
Where are the Fark Independents to defend this?

You ever notice how the Fark Independents seem to...ignore...this kind of (anti-science) stuff? And the racist stuff? And the "Christianity is the only acceptable religion" stuff?

Basically, the Fark Independents are willing to accept ANY AND ALL bullshiat from the Republicans as long as it means they will pay lower taxes. It's insanity.
 
2014-07-24 07:56:12 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: [bitsandpieces.us image 493x373]


Poor analogy.
A congress of baboons is a well organized society.
 
2014-07-24 08:11:08 PM  
If the Democrats do manage to take control of the house they need to pass a law that prohibits politicians from shutting down or defunding scientific persuits and projects. Science does not have a political bias and needs to be removed from that influence, in other words separation from science and state.
 
2014-07-24 08:40:10 PM  

Nightshade50: If the Democrats do manage to take control of the house they need to pass a law that prohibits politicians from shutting down or defunding scientific persuits and projects. Science does not have a political bias and needs to be removed from that influence, in other words separation from science and state.


Not so sure all that funding was actually going to "real" science. Could just as well be prepaid agendaizing.
 
2014-07-24 08:43:40 PM  
In a future ad: Now that all your east and south coast cities are way under water, you may want to move to the two new Outback Seas. Marina and coast properties are going fast. Be sure to visit the Museum of Drowed Polynesian and Micronesian Cultures.

images.smh.com.au
 
MFK
2014-07-24 09:03:18 PM  

snocone: Karac: It is indisputable that human beings are affecting this planet.  We've hunted species to extinction, create smog and pollution that can be seen for orbit, and dump enough things in our rivers that they catch fire.  What exact are conservatives objections to figuring out what else we've managed to screw up in the biosphere before it become an immediately deadly problem?

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]

That is a stupid concept.
The entire list of things to improve, from kids to trees will be old and die before climactic changes do any farking thing to help them.
IN REAL WORLD, there is serious human malfeasance to address IN REAL TIME.


Nice. That should get bites.
 
2014-07-24 09:19:59 PM  

MFK: snocone: Karac: It is indisputable that human beings are affecting this planet.  We've hunted species to extinction, create smog and pollution that can be seen for orbit, and dump enough things in our rivers that they catch fire.  What exact are conservatives objections to figuring out what else we've managed to screw up in the biosphere before it become an immediately deadly problem?

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]

That is a stupid concept.
The entire list of things to improve, from kids to trees will be old and die before climactic changes do any farking thing to help them.
IN REAL WORLD, there is serious human malfeasance to address IN REAL TIME.

Nice. That should get bites.


shh, they are circling, might land
 
2014-07-24 09:33:46 PM  
FFS, is there anything that speaks of your personal night terrors than something you legislate against?
 
2014-07-24 10:34:21 PM  
I'm not sure which is more worrying, the implications of the article or the comments from readers below it.
 
2014-07-24 11:59:13 PM  
Fred Flintstone dominates Congress...
 
2014-07-25 12:46:19 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: It will probably die in the Senate, but that's hardly a cause for relief.


From Congress.gov:

07/17/2014 Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Paper Shredders.

\Not really.
\\The Library of Congress could stand to get a little more snarky, though.
 
2014-07-25 09:11:34 AM  
Here's an idea: maybe the department of energy should focus on things like storing nuclear waste or authorizing the building of additional nuclear power plants or research related to fusion technology.  Climate studies are not in their purview.  There's another organization called NOAA.  That's who is supposed to do climate related things.  Maybe the EPA, although I see that as more of an agency that should be responsible for monitoring pollution instead of studying the effects of pollution.

I will also state that man made climate change only occurs in a very limited local area.  Example: Paving large areas does create a slight increase in temperatures.  It does not result in raising of average global temperatures.  There isn't enough pavement on the planet to do that.  Lets review again: The earth is BIG.  It takes lots of things working together, the main factors affecting climate are solar output, solar weather, and orbital mechanics for the earth and moon.  The largest secondary affects are atmospheric content (carbon dioxide making up less than 1% of the total atmospheric content), which fluctuates in amounts as large as thousands of a percent, ocean temperatures (an effect of solar output), percent water vs. land on the surface, and about a thousand other little things, which include geological/volcanic activity.  Total man made greenhouse gas output is less than that of a major volcanic eruption. 
Ergo, man made climate change on a global scale is, currently, impossible without the use of multiple nuclear weapons.  Lots of nuclear weapons.  That's also not to say that it couldn't happen in the distant future as population increases.

That doesn't mean that pursing green technology isn't worthwhile, or striving for a cleaner place to live is a bad thing, or that preventing pollution is bad.  No duh, it is.  It also means that the alarmists need to chill the fark out (no pun intended).  It also doesn't give industry a free pass to pollute in order to make money.  It does mean that there is a balance between environmental concerns and our economy.
 
2014-07-25 09:15:54 AM  

snocone: Karac: It is indisputable that human beings are affecting this planet.  We've hunted species to extinction, create smog and pollution that can be seen for orbit, and dump enough things in our rivers that they catch fire.  What exact are conservatives objections to figuring out what else we've managed to screw up in the biosphere before it become an immediately deadly problem?

[i.imgur.com image 500x333]

That is a stupid concept.
The entire list of things to improve, from kids to trees will be old and die before climactic changes do any farking thing to help them.
IN REAL WORLD, there is serious human malfeasance to address IN REAL TIME.


Is REAL TIME! the new RON PAUL!?
 
2014-07-25 09:18:34 AM  

bobothemagnificent: Here's an idea: maybe the department of energy should focus on things like storing nuclear waste or authorizing the building of additional nuclear power plants or research related to fusion technology.  Climate studies are not in their purview.  There's another organization called NOAA.  That's who is supposed to do climate related things.  Maybe the EPA, although I see that as more of an agency that should be responsible for monitoring pollution instead of studying the effects of pollution.

I will also state that man made climate change only occurs in a very limited local area.  Example: Paving large areas does create a slight increase in temperatures.  It does not result in raising of average global temperatures.  There isn't enough pavement on the planet to do that.  Lets review again: The earth is BIG.  It takes lots of things working together, the main factors affecting climate are solar output, solar weather, and orbital mechanics for the earth and moon.  The largest secondary affects are atmospheric content (carbon dioxide making up less than 1% of the total atmospheric content), which fluctuates in amounts as large as thousands of a percent, ocean temperatures (an effect of solar output), percent water vs. land on the surface, and about a thousand other little things, which include geological/volcanic activity.  Total man made greenhouse gas output is less than that of a major volcanic eruption. 
Ergo, man made climate change on a global scale is, currently, impossible without the use of multiple nuclear weapons.  Lots of nuclear weapons.  That's also not to say that it couldn't happen in the distant future as population increases.

That doesn't mean that pursing green technology isn't worthwhile, or striving for a cleaner place to live is a bad thing, or that preventing pollution is bad.  No duh, it is.  It also means that the alarmists need to chill the fark out (no pun intended).  It also doesn't give industry a free pass to pollute in order to make mone ...


What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2014-07-25 09:39:26 AM  

bobothemagnificent: The earth is BIG. It takes lots of things working together, the main factors affecting climate are solar output, solar weather, and orbital mechanics for the earth and moon.


TIL that seven billion people are not "lots of things."
 
2014-07-25 10:10:14 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: bobothemagnificent: Here's an idea: maybe the department of energy should focus on things like storing nuclear waste or authorizing the building of additional nuclear power plants or research related to fusion technology.  Climate studies are not in their purview.  There's another organization called NOAA.  That's who is supposed to do climate related things.  Maybe the EPA, although I see that as more of an agency that should be responsible for monitoring pollution instead of studying the effects of pollution.

I will also state that man made climate change only occurs in a very limited local area.  Example: Paving large areas does create a slight increase in temperatures.  It does not result in raising of average global temperatures.  There isn't enough pavement on the planet to do that.  Lets review again: The earth is BIG.  It takes lots of things working together, the main factors affecting climate are solar output, solar weather, and orbital mechanics for the earth and moon.  The largest secondary affects are atmospheric content (carbon dioxide making up less than 1% of the total atmospheric content), which fluctuates in amounts as large as thousands of a percent, ocean temperatures (an effect of solar output), percent water vs. land on the surface, and about a thousand other little things, which include geological/volcanic activity.  Total man made greenhouse gas output is less than that of a major volcanic eruption.
Ergo, man made climate change on a global scale is, currently, impossible without the use of multiple nuclear weapons.  Lots of nuclear weapons.  That's also not to say that it couldn't happen in the distant future as population increases.

That doesn't mean that pursing green technology isn't worthwhile, or striving for a cleaner place to live is a bad thing, or that preventing pollution is bad.  No duh, it is.  It also means that the alarmists need to chill the fark out (no pun intended).  It also doesn't give industry a free pass to pollute i ...


You forgot to ask me the magic question: Ask me if I care.

Lee Jackson Beauregard: bobothemagnificent: The earth is BIG. It takes lots of things working together, the main factors affecting climate are solar output, solar weather, and orbital mechanics for the earth and moon.

TIL that seven billion people are not "lots of things."


Proof you know nothing of how weather and climate actually function.
 
2014-07-25 10:24:44 AM  
bobothemagnificent: ...(carbon dioxide making up less than 1% of the total atmospheric content)...Proof you know nothing of how weather and climate actually function.

Yeah, it's proof alright.
 
2014-07-25 10:29:16 AM  

Nightshade50: If the Democrats do manage to take control of the house they need to pass a law that prohibits politicians from shutting down or defunding scientific persuits and projects. Science does not have a political bias and needs to be removed from that influence, in other words separation from science and state.


Congress cannot bind the hands of a future Congress in that manner.
 
2014-07-25 10:30:03 AM  

bobothemagnificent: Proof you know nothing of how weather and climate actually function.


Yeah, proof.  I think I'll trust the opinions of actual farking scientists over those of a special ed teacher.  No offense.

"My ignorance is as good as your knowledge"
 
2014-07-25 10:43:59 AM  

bobothemagnificent: Total man made greenhouse gas output is less than that of a major volcanic eruption.


Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 35 gigatons a year. Volcanic emissions from all volcanoes on the planet combined are less than 0.5 gigatons per year. The major climate impact from volcanoes is sulfur aerosols - but those aren't greenhouse gases. (Sometimes Sulfur Hexafluoride is detected, but even there, humans emit a lot more SF6 than volcanoes.)
 
2014-07-25 12:24:16 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: bobothemagnificent:


Do you, meaning "you", ever contribute anything other than rabid personal attacks?
 
2014-07-25 12:26:33 PM  

snocone: Shakin_Haitian: bobothemagnificent:

Do you, meaning "you", ever contribute anything other than rabid personal attacks?


You've been in these threads before.
 
2014-07-25 12:45:40 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: snocone: Shakin_Haitian: bobothemagnificent:

Do you, meaning "you", ever contribute anything other than rabid personal attacks?

You've been in these threads before.


And, Bingo, did not answer simple question.

Oh yea, I have.
 
2014-07-25 12:49:04 PM  

snocone: Shakin_Haitian: snocone: Shakin_Haitian: bobothemagnificent:

Do you, meaning "you", ever contribute anything other than rabid personal attacks?

You've been in these threads before.

And, Bingo, did not answer simple question.

Oh yea, I have.


There's no point in even tryin to correct someone who is harping on talking points that have been shown to be wrong decades ago.
 
2014-07-25 12:57:43 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: snocone: Shakin_Haitian: snocone: Shakin_Haitian: bobothemagnificent:

Do you, meaning "you", ever contribute anything other than rabid personal attacks?

You've been in these threads before.

And, Bingo, did not answer simple question.

Oh yea, I have.

There's no point in even tryin to correct someone who is harping on talking points that have been shown to be wrong decades ago.


Do go on,,
 
2014-07-25 01:12:47 PM  
There will be no substantive action on climate change: too many people who actually matter (to politicians) stand to lose too much money for anything to be done.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report