A Quote by Rob Portman

When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade. — © Rob Portman
When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.
The only basis for even talking about global warming is the predictions spewed out by computer models. The only quote/unquote "evidence" of global warming is what models are predicting the climate and the weather will be in the next 50 to 100 years. Now, what those models spit out is only as good as the data that's put in, and it's an absolute joke. In terms of science, it's a total joke. There is no warming, global or otherwise!
See, I am the mayor of Realville, and science is not up to a vote. It either is or isn't. Whatever it is, it is or isn't, but it's not up to a vote. Global warming doesn't exist because a "consequences of scientists" agree. Manmade global warming either is happening or it isn't, but it isn't up to a vote. But it is being presented to you as a consequences of scientists. Therefore, the science is not settled. Besides that, we all know that it's a hoax now. It's just some people don't want to accept that, but it is.
There is no science in global warming. "Mr. Limbaugh, that's typical of what you! That's the most outrageous statement I've ever heard anybody ever make! No science in global warming?" Do you know how I know there's no science in global warming, folks? Because they tell us a "consensus of scientists" agrees that X. There is no consensus in science.
And many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem cause the science doesn't back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there's been zero warming. None whatsoever.
Think of a single problem confronting the world today. Disease, poverty, global warming... If the problem is going to be solved, it is science that is going to solve it. Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do. If anyone ever cures cancer, it will be a guy with a science degree. Or a woman with a science degree.
Geologists and paleo-climatologists know that in the past the Earth's temperature has been substantially warmer than it is today, and that this warming has occurred under purely natural circumstances. Until we can say precisely how much of the current global warming and greenhouse gas increase is the result of this normal temperature cycle, we will not be able to measure how much human activity has added to this natural trend, nor will we be able to predict whether there will be any lasting negative effects.
There is a movement of more people recognizing global warming as a danger, recognizing the human contribution to global warming, recognizing the necessity for doing something about it. So there's a trend in that direction, and that trend is consistent with what a climate swerve - which is, as we're both saying, a mindset.
The burning of fossil fuels has altered the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so rapidly and so abundantly that now, we are driving not just the warming trend, not just the sea level rise that is a consequence of the warming trend that is melting polar ice and alpine ice, but also [ocean acidification].
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming... it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. Climate change - it happens, with or without our help.
The first wave of the Internet was really about data transport. And we didn't worry much about how much power we were consuming, how much cooling requirements were needed in the data centers, how big the data center is in terms of real estate. Those were almost afterthoughts.
Global warming ... may be a plaintiff lawyer's dream. And it's interesting, in a perverse way, to imagine how a jury in 2050 might react to some of the recent industry-backed studies minimizing the dangers of global warming. I suspect future jurors will not be amused.
I believed there was enough evidence to go to trial. Grand jury said there wasn't. Okay, fine. Do I have a right to disagree with the grand jury? Many Americans believe O.J. Simpson was guilty. A jury said he wasn't. So I have as much right to question a jury as they do. Does it make somebody a racist? No! They just disagreed with the jury. So did I.
The science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous... Based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert.
What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years.
You can only analyze the data you have. Be strategic about what to gather and how to store it
It's rare to find someone excited over jury duty. If they're out there, I've never met them. Not a one. When the summons for jury duty arrives in the mail, how many people scream, 'Yes!' and run to clear the calendar? None. Our first and only reaction is, 'Oh, no,' quickly followed by, 'How can I get out of this?'
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!