Town Hall Hilarity: Climate Denying Congress Critter has “read stuff”

April 13, 2017

Climate denial not being well received in congressional recess town halls.

I can vouch for the resistance movement in my small midwestern republican town, where climate change is at the top of the priority list.

Below, my response to the “it might not be human caused, we just don’t know” line.

UPDATE: Not just Arizona. Here in my state of Michigan, even in a conservative district, climate change is a hot button issue.


BYRON CENTER, MI – In a departure from recent events hosted by U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, his 8th town hall of the year featured one common discussion point: climate change and global warming.

The town hall, held at the Van Singel Fine Arts Center in Byron Township, was Amash’s 3rd this week, and marked his 8th such meeting with constituents since the beginning of the year.

Though he’s touched on the topic of climate change before, every answer from Amash seemed to leave constituents wanting more, prompting even more questions on the topic.

Discussion of global warming kicked off early in the night when a crowd member asked Amash if he voted against the Great Lakes Restoration bill. Amash said he did, because it was included among other legislation he does not support.

The same audience member asked his stance on global warming.

“I believe the climate changes,” Amash said. “The question is, what do you do about it? The data set we’re dealing with is very small.”

The congressman’s answer was met with boos from a majority of the audience.

“(The data set) is factually very small, unless you think the earth is only a couple thousand years old,” Amash said. “We have to take that into consideration.”

He offered an unpopular solution to global warming: a strong economy.

“A strong and prosperous economy is what helps keep the environment clean,” Amash said. “The stronger the economy, the more your country innovates.”

The crowd wasn’t buying his answer. His response was, yet again, met with a chorus of boos.

Later, a woman asked what Amash’s constituents can do to change his mind on global warming.

Amash reminded her that he represents about 700,000 people in Michigan’s 3rd congressional district. That’s a lot of people with differing views, he said.

“It’s easy to say, well all the people around me have the same views,” Amash said. “But I deal with a large district. People have different views on many things and I have to take that into consideration.”

After several more questions about global warming, the conversation shifted to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Amash has said in the past that, while he supports the EPA, he thinks the organization frequently oversteps its bounds, especially when it gets involved at the community level.

“I do think the federal government has a role in the environment,” he said. “There are places where the EPA should have a role, but I do think the EPA overreaches. I do support eliminating the EPA’s authority over those things.”


29 Responses to “Town Hall Hilarity: Climate Denying Congress Critter has “read stuff””

  1. indy222 Says:

    This is too infuriating to watch all the way through.

  2. Peter, big thank you for recording the drama of human induced global warming so well. John, Ipswich, Australia.

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    I heard somebody say blame East Anglia somewhere in there. Does that mean East Anglia is in Canada ?

  4. ubrew12 Says:

    “Why should we believe YOU, a politician, about the climate, rather than 97% of all Scientists?”

    “I’m glad you asked that question, because that meeting was actually about ‘The Scientific Method’!”

    “Ok…. Same Question!”

  5. This is exactly the kind of town-hall reception that every single Republican deserves:

    Make it so, folks!

  6. J4Zonian Says:

    This is an impressive bunch of activists. A lot of them knew where he was going as soon as the words “East Anglia” were out of his mouth. They must have read stuff too.

  7. Tom Bates Says:

    Why are you folks so angry when somebody does not believe your theory of God? This is why you call us deniers, if you were the pope you would be saying atheists. You have a religion and not a science no matter how many priests or PHDs make the claims. Climate is changing and has changed for a long time. If one looks at say Alaska it was warmer than today in the past as they have found trees under a glacier in Alaska that date from 1000 AD and before. That happens to be the same time as the viking founded settlements in Greenland which means it was warmer than as well on the other side of the Americas which suggested the whole northern hemisphere was warmer. You can argue that all you want we simply do not care what you think only what you can prove and you cannot prove the world was warmer from CO2 as the data shows no high concentrations of CO2. The same with the end of the last ice age, a few hundred years and most of the ice was gone per NASA with similar low CO2 concentrations. That leaves one thing that could have warmed the world, the sun simply had to be putting out more solar gain,more than today. Since the world has been warming for 400 plus years, the solar gain has increased from the little ice age low and may continue to do so in the future. What has CO2 contributed to the warming. One study was done on the subject of actual measured warming as opposed to modeling, from 2000-2009, 2/10ths of a watt per sq. meter, 4150 times less than today’s average solar gain. If that increase continued to 2100 AD the increase from 2000 would be 0.038F due to the CO2 increase.

    • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

      Angry? Too damned right.
      We have the same amount of contempt for lying climate deniers as for arsonists, vandals, drug pushers, pimps, slave drivers, serial murderers, cigarette companies and coal barons etc who have no respect for people, and who destroy (or defend destroying), the only home we have for profit and damage the health of the population and the creatures on whom we depend for our present and future existence.
      I refuse to allow you and your fellow psychopaths to use ours and our children’s lungs as free air filters, defile and cook our planet while pocketing the profit without bearing any of the costs.

      And you wonder why people are angry?

      I swear if you got an extra brain cell, you’d be twice as evil.

      • Tom Bates Says:

        I see you are the typical angry leftist liberal. Why not look at the actual data instead of quoting all fellow believers and the lobby groups which benefit from the AGW claims. Explain to yourself how Hansen can claim many feet of rise in the ocean in 20 years when the actual data from say Johnston Atoll shows a 3 inch rise trend in the next 100 years. One has to be wrong. Explain to yourself why Miami is brought up as the poster child of rising oceans when if you look the the actual data and the actual government agency in Miami to handle the problem, it is ground subsidence causing the city to sink and that is due to over pumping and diversion of surface waters. Explain to yourself why antarctica ice is increasing per NASA. Explain to yourself why the arctic was ice free in summer per NASA from 8500-6500 BP when CO2 levels were much lower than today and somehow all those millions of tons of Methane were not released into the atmosphere. Explain to yourself the medieval warm period and the little ice age, which had no connection with CO2 levels. If you do that you may understand our objections.

        • Tommy Poo,

          When are you going to retract and apologize for the lies you told about the NASA/GISS global temperature program nearly a year ago? You know, the lies I was able to disprove with global temperature results I personally computed from raw temperature data (i.e. temperature data with no NOAA/NASA/GISS adjustments)?

          Have you no decency? Do you not have even a shred of integrity? Or do you even care about things like decency and integrity? (Note to lurkers: those are rhetorical questions).

        • sailrick Says:

          “Explain to yourself why the arctic was ice free in summer per NASA from 8500-6500 BP when CO2 levels were much lower than today ”

          Yeah right. Atmospheric CO2 is over 400ppm and was never over 300ppm in the last 800,000 years.
          And we have increased it 100 times faster than nature has done in at least 450,000 years, about 140 years verses 15,000 years

          How ironic that you call AGW religion. You are the ones who’s opinions are based in pure belief.

        • schwadevivre Says:

          Your lie about sea level rise again and you wonder why we find you an annoying leech

          The figures do not back you up. The last 100 years alone has seen 210 mm sea level rise, more than 8 inches. The last 24 alone years has seen 3.5″

        • Julian Bond Says:

          “Angry Leftist Liberal”. Yup. Why do you think that’s a term of abuse?

    • sailrick Says:

      Our theory of God?
      Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory in the same way Gravity and the Heliocentric solar system are theories.

      Deniers are Not Skeptics. You believe dozens upon dozens of flat out lies and myths about climate science, with no skepticism whatsoever, while dismissing the HUGE body of evidence for AGW, agreed on by virtually every major professional science organization in the world, that’s relevant to earth sciences.

      What the politician said about East Anglia and Dr. Mann is FALSE
      climate gate was a 100% FAKE scandal, as 7 different investigations found.

      Dozens of scientists have done temperature reconstructions that all produced basically the same temperature graphs as Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature graph.

      The Michael Man “trick” spoken of in one of the hacked emails was nothing like what has been alleged by deniers.
      Mann is a paleoclimatologist, who used tree ring data going back something like 2000 years for the chart.

      We have measured global temperature records that are pretty reliable back to about the mid 1800s. The tree ring data correlated well with these measured temps, up until the last 30 years of his chart, about 1960. and it correlated well with other proxies up to then. (proxies like ice cores, sea and lake bed sediments, fossil coral, etc)

      The tree ring data, for some reason was inaccurate for that 30 year period after 1960.
      How do we know? Because we have the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE from both land based and satellite stations.

      So Mann patched onto his tree ring chart, the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE for those years.

      This was all explained in the IPCC report, where Mann’s research paper and this hockey stick chart were published. Nothing was hidden. It was presented that way, so the public and policy makers could see the whole temperature chart up to the present.

      And that is the “trick”. Not a trick like to fool, but a technique for patching the measured temps onto the tree ring generated chart to represent the last 30 years after 1960.
      And that non issue, is what all the nonsense is about.
      That was the trick. But the deniers turned it into a worldwide conspiracy to “hide the decline”.

      In other words, the skeptics are saying that Mann should have used the tree ring data, that he knew was wrong after 1960, instead of the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE.
      There was no decline to hide. We know because we have the MEASURED TEMPERATURES

      Get it?

      • climatehawk1 Says:

        In British slang, “trick” simply means “technique.” Sometimes used that way in U.S. as well.

        • lesliegraham1 Says:

          They know that already. Like the rest of that pathetic Gish gallop of the same old wearisome nonsense it has been falsified a million times.
          They just carry around the last little remnant of their utterly discredited fake scandal like an insecure toddler still clutches to the last little remnant of his security blanket.
          You can tell they sense it’s all over for them and many must be worried about having to face trial. Not the paid shills and their useful idiots perhaps but those who deliberately mislead shareholders at least

        • Lionel Smith Says:

          Understanding that ‘trick’ can be British slang would require knowledge that East Anglia is an area of Britain, soon to be an area of England as the Union fractures post-Brexit.

    • Tommy Poo,

      It’s been nearly a year since I called you out on your lies about the NASA/GISS global temperature work. Remember how I was able to show that the warming trend you get from raw temperature data is nearly the same as the NASA warming trend?

      You still haven’t retracted your lies or apologized for them.

      To refresh lurkers’ memories, here’s Bates’ original lying post:

      Here is my response:

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      The difference between (blind) belief and understanding clearly escapes you for you have precious little of that latter as your seemingly endless repetition of that Gish Gallop of non-science demonstrates.

    • schwadevivre Says:

      Tom, I’m an atheist, in my Disqus profile I label myself a sects offender, I do not worship anyone or anything. On the other hand I do fact check, look at graphs and statistics and, look at different opinions. If I find an opinion that is based on deliberate fabrication, distortion, lies and ignorance I say so.

      You are ignorant, lie, distort, and fabricate utterly inable to argue the points about which you pontificate.

      You do not know the difference between the stratosphere and the troposphere. You deliberately distort sea level rise figures (despite having your distortions explained to you, twice). You deliberately confuse wattage increase per square metre with overall energy input. You cite propaganda from known fabricators like Anthony Watts

      In this post you waffle about mediaeval warm period. This event was local not global, was due to decreased vulcanism and changes in solar activity which in turn led to changes in ocean circulation. The onset of the MWP was slower and at it’s height was not as warm as today.

      Today we do not have a decrease in vulcanism and solar activity is actually a little lower than average. We do know for a fact that for the first time in 4 million years the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has passed 400 ppm.

      Yet again you cite your 2/10 of a Watt per m^2 (Watt is always capitalised because the unit was named for a person) and forget to multiply that by the area over which it applies in this case 510/2 million sq kilometers. Let me do the math for you

      The total is 51,000,000,000 Watts = 51,000 MWs per day and that is solar gain, meaning it does not go away.

      Now fuck off back to the swamp of ignorance from which you crawled

      You again in utter and complete ignorance

    • sailrick Says:

      Here is the reality of human carbon emissions.

      The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission

      “Want some perspective on how much carbon dioxide human activity produces? Here it is.”

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      That is stratosphere data, and proves the opposite of your claims, as you have been told several times, you f-ing moron!

      Can we PLEASE block this ass from posting here?!?

      • greenman3610 Says:

        to the extent that he represents the general intellectual level of most climate deniers, I still think he has a value.
        It’s sort of like, every town needs a drunk, as a warning to young people about how they could end up.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Once that drunk has wandered into the street and been run over multiple times by the truth, he becomes not an object lesson but just a nasty and smelly blotch of road kill. Our young people are not that dumb, and neither are Crockers that we need such a useless POS like Master Bates jerking us around. Bates has long outlived his usefulness (And I am still unconvinced that he is really a denier—-nobody could be that dumb. Perhaps he is a POE?)

        • smithpd1 Says:

          greenman3610 said:
          “I still think he has a value.”

          Respectfully, I disagree. Bates has taken up this entire comments section. Trash like this prevents rational discussion of the post and makes your readers angry. Less obnoxious deniers may serve you (and us) better.

    • schwadevivre Says:

      Again you show you do not know the difference between stratosphere and troposphere

  8. […] Most important for me, it is clear that climate change is now at the top of the policy agenda for the activated voters in the Resistance movement.  My feeling has been, backed up by polling from folks like Ed Maibach, above, that climate has been an issue bubbling just below the surface.  In the several resistance groups where I’ve attended meetings, climate change is making to number one or two on the list of priorities – I believe because it is finally, brutally clear to all, that if we don’t force the politicians to recognize it, and do it soon, it won’t happen. Lots of work to do, but the tide is turning. We can do this – if we keep up the heat. […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: