Paul Ryan: Humans might not be cause of climate change

[jaysunb]

The planet has faced climate change forever and humans' pollution might not be to blame for shifts, Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan said Monday during a debate against his Democratic challenger.
Ryan, favored to win re-election to his seat representing GOP-leaning southern Wisconsin, faced off against businessman Rob Zerban for an hourlong forum that touched on world events, domestic politics and the economy. One of the sharpest differences came when the moderator asked each candidate if he thought human activity is to blame for changes to the planet's climate.

"I don't know the answer to that question," Ryan said. "I don't think science does, either."

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-debate-democratic-house-challenger-211652690--election.html

[postulater]

1. Gooood god. Get a brian Ryan.

Go back to 7th grade.

And ask for a tutor this time.

[BlueJazz]

2. Paul Ryan is correct. Humans might not be the cause of climate change.

And also: It might not rain in Florida for the next 3 months.

( figured the odds are about the same)

[BootinUp]

11. Why do you choose www.fcpp.org for information on this?

A quick glance at their front page is enough to make me avoid them as a serious source of information. Seriously.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. What's your opinion on Paul Ryan?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

22. Uh huh

[valerief]

3. Asshole. I wish we could be the cause of Congress change. nt

[Johonny]

4. I don't think science does, either<- WOW, the most important question of lifetime

yet while his job is to know if it does or doesn't... he doesn't know and has not bothered to look at available information. If this was say Ebola or ISIS and Paul Ryan said he did know the answer he'd lose this election. But the single most important issue facing humanity today... he hasn't bothered enough to even look. The answer is: base on available science every major climate review says that it is highly likely human activity is driving climate change. The IPCC summary for politicians takes about 15 minutes to glance over. This is why he should not be reelected. It scares me that he is so lazy that he doesn't know such a basic thing about a critical issue.

[logosoco]

6. WHat's really sad about this is that the repubs are going to be sitting around

defending their stance about humans not causing climate change while the actual effects are happening.

He says "we've been having climate change forever", yes, the earth has changed much over the years, but the thing is, not when there were this many people, when our way of life has evolved to what it is now and will be impacted more dramatically.

[arcane1]

9. Are you volunteering?

[arcane1]

12. Regarding the climate, it's important to focus on what we can control. All else is surrender.

[logosoco]

15. That's real interesting that you can think that all the stuff going into the air isn't affecting

the climate, but changes in the environment will affect the people adversely.
That must be some pretty magical place you are viewing things from.

[Beaverhausen]

20. No evidence humans are causing it?

None?

Welcome to DU.

[hatrack]

21. Go and read something, and maybe try and learn something, and stop wasting our time

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/

[arcane1]

26. How many times must I tell you to put the penis DOWN before posting?

Jeez!

[bravenak]

28. Oh, My! My word!

Go home to Evilandia. The trolls miss you.

[bravenak]

31. Troll.

[LeftyMom]

32. Oooh, an old skool fundie racist! You hardly ever see an honest one anymore.

"people will shamelessly and freely mix with the cursed descendants of Ham"

[hatrack]

36. I know! It's so . . . quaint!

[LeftyMom]

40. I'm calling you a racist. God, being imaginary, can't be anything. nt

[LeftyMom]

44. "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit." -JRRT, 1:1

Books say stuff. Some of that stuff is fictional, as with your favorite fairy tale.

[arcane1]

41. You are sooo good-lookin'

[tazkcmo]

50. Is that why Jewish folk don't eat ham?

It's cursed? I thought it was cured...

[hatrack]

33. For lo, as it says in Keeling 19:58, "Verily, the smallest trace of my gas shall yield thy doom."

Is that your phone? I think Answers In Genesis is looking for one of its lost sheep - shearing time again!

[hatrack]

38. Blah BLAHBLAH blah blah blahblahblah BLAHblahblah BLAH blahblah BLAHBLAHBLAH

Was there anything else?

Any other Bronze Age maledictions you'd like to bring down on my impious ol' meanie self?

Or can we wrap up this little exchange here and now?

[jaysunb]

45. YOU ARE HERE : DU ville..for FUNDIE ville, take the frieght elevator down

and turn right.

[uppityperson]

34. Time to put down the bottle.

[NoGOPZone]

46. I'm betting MIRT gets here before Jesus does

On edit: I win

[bravenak]

49. HODOOOOR!!!

[tazkcmo]

48. And a big boat with dinosaurs and rabbits

and a guy living in a fish.

[hatrack]

13. "I'm not a scientist, and the scientists don't know either."

FUCK YOU, Paul FUCKING Ryan, you lying bag of pus.

Just FUCK YOU.

[bvf]

17. Never thought I'd be defending pus

but your comparison is unfair to the millions of gallons of pus around the planet.

[gratuitous]

18. But how do you feel, hatrack?

I sense you're blocking.

I'm waiting for the day when someone like Ryan pops off with this "I'm not a scientist" shtick that the next question to him is, "So, even though you're not a theologian, could you favor us with your analysis on the existence of God?"

[hatrack]

23. Sorry to be so . . . . restrained . . .

Don't be like me - you've got to let it out from time to time!

[Beaverhausen]

24. Did anyone watch this debate?

How did Zerban do?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

27. "I don't know the answer to that question," Ryan said. "I don't think science does, either."

Your first comment is correct Ryan. It also disqualifies you to make the second. Logic however is difficult for most conservatives.

[gordianot]

51. No truer words were ever spoken by Mr. Ryan "I don't think" whatever the context.

I met Science one time and am sure he does not believe in Ryan and is not a Republican.

[rickford66]

29. He's not an economist either, but has an economic plan.

[spanone]

35. he's proudly ignorant...."I don't think science does, either."

[SheilaT]

52. Yes, climate changes over time.

And yes, the climate changes in the distant past could not possibly have been from what humans did.

But more to the point, since we KNOW the climate is changing, and how it is changing, if it is at all possible for us to do something about it we need to.

I think among the problems with the whole climate change deniers, is that aside from not understanding anything about science, is that they don't understand just how profound a few degrees of change can make. That lack of understanding, of course stems directly from their ignorance of science. But a few degrees warmer doesn't just mean turning on the a/c earlier in the year, as a few degrees colder wouldn't just mean turning up the heat a little. It matters across the globe and across the entire biosphere. Biosphere - everything that is alive.

When the growing season shifts, it will affect what crops grow successfully, which will affect whether or not people starve. Animal species will possibly die off because the specific plant they need to eat will grow too early or too late. Some insects will proliferate, perhaps destroying the crops that do grow. It's impossible to think of all the possible scenarios here.

As terrible as Ebola is, and as much as I am sincerely convinced that we are in almost danger from it in this country, I do respect the potential for that disease. But what we ought to be more worried about is something that we might not even be looking at: a disease that kills all the bees. Or one that wipes out all the chickens. Or all the cows. Yes, I know you vegetarians will feel justly smug that us carnivores lose those things, but what if some terrible plant blight kills all the wheat. Okay, so the gluten intolerant folks won't care. But think a little harder. Read up on the Irish Potato Famine. Yes, that country was uniquely vulnerable because it was so heavily dependent on one crop, the potato. But we have a similar problem here in that we don't really grow very many varieties of any plants, and some of the major ones are hybrids that do not yield seeds, meaning the farmers need to buy new seeds every single year. Okay, then, the seed company makes continued profits, and whether or not that is justifiable, what if something happens to their ability to produce new seeds? In two words: worldwide famine.

I know, I'm being a bit apocalyptic here, but when we have idiots like Paul Ryan willfully embracing ignorance, we can all lose.

[randome]

55. Absolutely! The cause doesn't matter. Getting sucked into that argument is foolish.

What matters is that Democrats want to do something about the effects while Republicans want to pretend everything is fine.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Someone should send this to Paul Ryan:

[Javaman]

54. playing to his moron base.

on edit: if you read the yahoo comments, you can read some of the comments made by the very mouth breathers he was playing to.

[pampango]

56. Typical. Adopt a policy first - environmental laws are bad - then fit the 'facts' to that policy.

"Humans do not cause climate change." - If they did, new laws which add costs to and regulation of corporations would be a logical solution. Can't have that, can we GOP?

"Studies that conclude that global climate change is real and primarily caused by humans cannot be 'real science'." - If the studies were 'real', again there would be a case for new environmental laws.

"Scientists are divided on whether climate change actually exists." - Of course, they are not divided, but it serves the purpose of the climate change deniers to pretend that those 'in the know' are split about causes and solutions. Sowing confusion and doubt serves their purpose more effectively than attempting to prove anything conclusively which they cannot do anyway.