Well, it's relevant because if nothing else, the earth and it's people will now suffer more because less will be done about climate change with the GOP in control.
Here's another way... No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
those are pretty graphs but they are lies... here the truth it was only .03 who endorsed agw global warming in their papers. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030,2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Here's another way of looking at it...... A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[122] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[34] US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[123] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[124] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[28] American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[125] Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[31] International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[73] Australian Coral Reef Society,[126] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[127]
let me bring this back to the election subject and why it is a beautiful day... you see we took out hypocrites. you know people like you who sell greenhouse gases 2000 times worse than co2... yet you pollute threads here with your lies and junk science. ---- U.S. MID-TERMS, TOM STEYER AND THE DEATH OF 'CLIMATE CHANGE' AS A SERIOUS POLITICAL ISSUE 123 6 141 by JAMES DELINGPOLE 6 Nov 2014, 6:52 AM PDT 289POST A COMMENT There are many reasons to celebrate the Republican party surge in the US mid-term elections but for me they boil down to two words: "Tom" and "Steyer." If you had to pick one person who embodied everything that is most irritating and wrong about the Obama administration - the Solyndra-style crony capitalism, the war on free markets, small business and cheap energy, the hypocrisy, the injustice, the dogged pursuit of suicidal leftist causes - then liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is your man. And this is what is so good about the US mid-term results. Not only did they personally cost Steyer many millions of dollars in wasted campaign expenditure - nearly $75 million of the funding for his Nextgen Climate superPAC came out of his own pocket: think how many tartan ties you could buy with that! - but they represented the US electorate'scomprehensive repudiation of the notion that "climate change" is the most pressing political issue of our age. No it isn't. It really, really isn't. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that the economy, for a start, is much more important. The idea that anyone should ever have thought otherwise - especially people as eminent and influential as the President of the USA and his Secretary of State John Kerry (who considered climate change at least as great a threat as Islamic State) - will surely remain one of the greatest puzzles to future historians of the Obama administration. Why, these historians will wonder, did Obama choose to stake his reputation - in his second term especially - on an issue so relatively trivial and so liable to blow up in his face as new scientific evidence emerged (eg the fact that there has been no "global warming" since 1998)? One of the answers they'll come up with, presumably, is Tom Steyer. Steyer isn't, of course, the only creepy rich liberal hypocrite to talk the green talk whileprivately feathering his nest with fossil fuel interests, nor is he the only one to have abused his cosy relationship with Washington by encouraging it adopt "clean energy" policies from which his own investments benefit. Numerous liberal one-per centers (aka the Billionaires Club) have had their snouts in the green trough in one way or another for years, whether it's Al Gore with his (now happily) defunct Chicago carbon trading exchange, or the various Hollywood celebrities who enjoy preferential land deals in return for championing the work of The Nature Conservancy, or all the "investors" in "clean energy" scams which only exist because they were propped up by taxpayer- and QE-funded "green jobs" stimulus dirty money. It's just that Steyer happens to be about the worst of the bunch, that's all. Anyway, what the mid-term results would seem to suggest is that the American people have lost what little remaining appetite they had for the Great Green Climate Scam. And that maybe, with luck, we'll be seeing a bit of pushback from Congress on the disastrous measures which have been foisted on the US economy in the name of lining the pockets of green crony capitalists and obama campaign donors saving the planet from the greatest threat it has ever known. There's encouraging talk that the Republican controlled Senate may now nix the $12 million it pays annually to the corrupt, self-serving, politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Which isn't a lot of money to remove from the insatiable green maw. But it's a start. And it won't half irritate the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who, like Obama and Kerry, seems determined to stake his reputation on ridding the world of the evil ManBearPig. Better still is the news that James Inhofe is likely to lead the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans take control of the Senate next year, replacing Barbara Boxer. The symbolism could scarcely be more delicious: a robust climate realist ("denier" as his enemies would call him) and longtime scourge of environmentalist nonsense seizes the iron throne from a Californian Democrat eco-loon so rampantly green she makes the WWF look like Exxon. Already you can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Inhofe's arch enemies at the Environmental Protection Agency. The next couple of years in America's climate debate are going to get very ugly. But in a good way because now, at last, it's the realists rather than the alarmists who hold the balance of political power.
I liked some things about the Obama years. They killed the coal industry. Coal is horribly polluting, responsible for the mercury contamination in our fish we can't eat anymore. I love eating fish so that mattered to me. There might have been something else but I can't think of anything right now... nope, nada The Obamacare thingy is truly a stomach churner. They turned the actual work of writing the thing over to industry lobbyists! Back storyemocrats need those Black votes like a crack whore needs rocks. All the close elections would go Republican if Blacks voted 50-50 between the major parties. I knew from the get-go, and stated it here, before Obama was elected, that they would go so far as to destroy the economy in order to reward Blacks. They leveled the playing field with regard to healthcare pretty much at the expense of all the working people that had plans they liked, pretty much at the expense of taxpayers, pretty much at the expense of the overall economic recovery. Now Democrats are all in wonderment at the idea that the voters wouldn't give them two more years to do an encore! That speaks volumes to their overall non-contact with reality.