• #23
    I agree with him that climate is changing and that there is no proof humans play a significant part in it.
  • #74

    EPA BS. But EPA would be a poor dog if it didn't wag its own tail.

    I'm sorry you have been led to believe the EPA BS.
  • #29
    When we all find out that people like you were wrong, comparable to the people against the earth being round, what will you say?
    "My bad" or something?
  • #60
    yeah but it needs to get in line. the way things are going we all could be long gone before science has its turn.
  • #82
    Being skeptical should be (and is) a requirement of every scientist. Unlike many reactionaries, at least he recognizes that the climate is changing. Can't think of an example of scienific avoidance causing death (I'm sure there are many just can't think of it right now), but I can think of many deaths that will occur if we induce ourselves into a state of poverty due to foolish, half cocked energy policies that won't even address the original perceived problem.
  • #83
    It seems like the Republicans deliberately place Young-Earth-Creationists on the Science Committee. Why? They do not belong there.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    Concerned. Ignoring scientific consensus as head of the science committee seems completely backwards. It's like appointing someone as secretary of state who believes that we have peace on earth.
  • #17
    But the problem is that there is no clear concensus. There are as many scientists and scholars that are Climate Skeptics as there are Climate Doomsayers.
  • #32
    @CanisCanemEdit yeah but all of those people work at the creation museums....
    Sorry but I can't trust people of that iq
  • #35
    @AceLuby - What stake do I have in lying? I have been watching this bologna for nearly 40 years.

    I suppose we can play PHD for PHD quotes, but I can provide as many noteable, mainstream skeptics as you can alarmists.
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    In the 70's it was Global Cooling, that morphed into global warming - that was hard to defend, so now it's Climate change (no kidding). You have one more step to go, it's called CYCLICAL climate.-- that completes the circle.....<wink>

    Besides, there is no scientific consensus that global warming is man made -- Getting science to agree on a consensus, is like herding cats.....

    Read this....
  • #96

    I believe that natural phenomena will occur in increasing velocity, such as earth quakes, hurricanes volcanic eruptions, etc., etc. However, it will not be caused by mans intervention, but God's -- coupled with increasing hostilities, famine and moral turpitude......
  • #98

    God is not about religion but a philosophy passed down to us by Jesus. God is science, he has allowed man to discover what's there for discovery.
    Note: There is over 28,000 christian denominations and sects in the world - whereas Christ established one faith and one church....obviously, there is something wrong with this picture.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    Doesn't believe in climate change? Or....that it's cyclical vs man-made? Maybe it's a good thing to have someone chairing the committee who doesn't jump on the latest bandwagon until something is actually proven. Perhaps he's more of a thinker than some would give him credit for.
  • #64
    After viewing some of these votes that I consider relevant concerning his position as the Chair of the Science Committee, I think he is a poor choice.

    Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.(Jan 2007)
    Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.(May 2005)
    Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.(Feb 2003)
    Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.(Apr 2011)
    Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.(Jun 2009)
    Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.(Sep 2008)
    Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.(May 2008)
    Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.(Feb 2008)
    Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.(Jan 2007)
    Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.(Aug 2001)
    Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.(Aug 2001)
    Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol.(Jun 2000)
    Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.(Dec 2006)
    Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.(May 2006)
    Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species.(Sep 2005)
    Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.(Nov 2003)
    Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.(Dec 2003)
    Voted NO on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.(Mar 2007)
    Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation.(Dec 2006)
  • #49
    Considering that the last guy to chair this committee was Todd "a woman's body has a way of shutting that whole thing down" Akin, this guy is a vast improvement.
  • #62
    I agree. I hope this new guy has what it takes to defeat the environment and save America from communist tree hungers.
  • #55
    @Dan_Tien Or a big meteor. Let's just not continue the farce that we can change the climate path of the planet by cutting back on hairspray or taxing SUVs.
  • #59
    @Jeff_Woehrle Maybe not, but we could eliminate damage to the atmosphere if SUVs ran with hydrogen fuel which produces water as exhaust waste instead of continuing to use gasoline and diesel which produce carbon monoxide and a host of other pollutants. All it takes to generate hydrogen is electricity and water. It would eliminate US dependency on foreign oil. It wouldn't even take much of a change to existing internal combustion engines, but we could discard all of the emission control devices and sensors on our cars. Americans walked on the moon over 40 years ago and they didn't use gasoline to get there. The story that pursuing practical hydrogen fuel is unfeasible or that it would require fossil fuels to achieve is a tremendous lie promoted by the existing oil company monopoly which would see its profits reduced to nothing if hydrogen fuel was available and outside their control. They have been quietly buying up workable hydrogen engines and are suppressing the related technology for as long as possible. This is one of the issues that get lost among the smoke and mirrors of celebrities, sex scandals and over-hyped political sound bites.
  • #13
    The climate changes, how much is caused by nature & how much by man, cows, etc is extremely hard to prove. Maybe this guy will cause a re-doubling of efforts to prove or disprove the manmade theory once and for all.
  • #33
    @CanisCanemEdit Well the thing is if you're right we're fine. If I'm right our grandchildren burn up. I'm not willing to take that chance.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    it scares me more that there are people on that committee that tink evolution is a lie from ''the pit of hell''...

    i have to also wonder about Smith's christian science religious affiliation. if he truly believes their views he does not know what science is...
  • #5
    Well I see the GOP hasn't learned a thing from the past election. They lost the Presidency again, they sold seats in both houses and they just keep on acting like Neanderthals. This is why I left the Party. It is no longer the Party of Lincoln. It's the party of the Lunatic fringe.
  • #102
    Science is proving that global warming has more to do with solar activity than anything man made. That was even stated by the UN. I do love the people who keep posting the government website as their source of facts. Global warming or ' climate change' as its called now since the temp hasn't changed in over 17 yrs, is just another money grab by the government.
  • #89
    well i have a better theory, on global warming. that G-D is really, really, really, truly pissed at this whole world again. but i guess you could call that more, TheTheology Propheticly rather than a theory. and when G-D is that angry, more than just the climate is going to be kindled. like syria, libia, sucession, mass murders, etc. etc.. etc...
  • #80
    For too long science propagandists have presented a distorted view on Climate Change to mostly perpetuate their funding. It's good to see someone who has a healthy level of skepticism. The MET office has shown no real warming has occurred in the last 16 years. Sea levels have actually gone down recently despite the claim of accelerated warming. NASA GIST and some other climate monitors have skewed the data showing temperature increase more due to urban effects then CO2 increases.

    The climate projections are based mostly on computer models and they have failed miserably in temperature changes. So it means the parameters are wrong and the models cant predict cloud effects which have a predominate effect of heat absorption or dissipation.

    The science has been highly politicized and real science needs to be ushered back in.
  • R Load more comments...