I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Fortunately, the number of way-out skeptics getting the spotlight has shrunk, isolating them more all the time. We’re approaching the Silent Minority of skeptics and un-, mis- or dis-informed people with a grassroots effort, through a pre-election awareness effort built around The Great Warming

On the individual level, we’re inviting everyone who can get to a screening of The Great Warming, opening on Nov. 3rd across the country, to “Convert 2 Skeptics” – bring two friends, family members or co-workers to this more inclusive but still hard-hitting documentary, and talk with them about it afterwards.

On the broader level, we’re working with groups that are new to – and were sometimes hostile to – environmental activism like Evangelical Christians and Churches of Christ. Their pastors and leaders are starting to talk to congregations about reducing our impact on the planet, and people are listening. When you get beyond differences on where we came from, most families and individuals want the same things for where we’re going. Our core group includes Friends of the Earth and Union of Concerned Scientists as well as a range of faith groups, all of whom call tackling global warming a moral imperative.

I’m actually [slightly] grateful to Inhofe, for at least putting global warming front and center again before the election. It’s not showing up in the media or on platforms much these days, if at all, and it shouldn’t take a Katrina or a gasoline price hike to wake us up…

For more info on the film and campaign, you can visit

said more than once that “in the 70’s the scientists were predicting another ice age. and it didn’t happen”. also said “in the 40’s, humans spewed more co2 than in any other previous decade, and the earth cooled after the 40’s”

this guy isn’t worth my time, but i’ll take a moment to rebut these two points. on point #1, approximately 3 decades later, science has advanced in such leaps and bounds – ie. unravelling and mapping in detail the entire human genome which incidentally is composed of 3.1 billion base
pairs of dna – to the extent that man has a superior grasp of the sophisticated climate mechanisms in place on this planet, mechanisms that take decades to understand given their scale. Further, unlike the 70’s where scientists weren’t focusing on any single chemical culprit to make grand scale climate predictions, in the past decade, they have intensely scrutinized a single compound – co2 – and its effect on earth’s climate. The analysis has reached the point where to quote Al Gore, “out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero”. Amazing. There isn’t any disagreement
whatsoever among the top peer-reviewed climate scientists that human activity is responsible for most of the warming in the last 50 years and that this human-induced warming from ghg emissions
will accelerate in the coming decades. Who are you going to believe, a republican politician from oklahoma who is incapable of backing up his junk science assertions with scientific proof, or the professional climate
scientists who study the climate for a living every single day.

on point #2, again, pure junk science at work. Mr. Inhofe fails to recognize that the global climate system is much like a super-tanker. You cannot just turn a steering wheel on a supertanker and expect it to do a u-turn
right away. Mr. Inhofe demonstrates the mentality of a 4 yr old child in suggesting that the 1940’s co2 uptick should have produced subsequent warming. There were probably a myriad of other natural climate systems at work that would have produced a cooling effect, with or without a ’40’s co2 uptick. Perhaps the co2 uptick in the 40’s simply
muted the cooling in the 1950’s.

It is important to challenge junk science at every moment. Disgusting that Mr. Inhofe can mutter junk science on national television, probably influencing millions of redneck minds in the process

Or just bother to pick up “scientific americian” or “New scientist” now and then. If you feel up to it, go to you local university and flip through, Nature, science or Geophysical Research letters etc… or even go through a introductury text book on Atmospheric radiative transfer, Climate, or even just Earth Sciences.

“It’s like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in ‘and it’s the Jews’ fault.’”

Well, at least it’s not the fault of that pesky liberal media again

http://comlogic.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_comlogic_archive.html

The blog was about Inhofe putting a stop to the EPA’s effort to measure air pollution in natural-gas fields using infrared camera to detect gas leaks.

Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, outlined his complaints in a recent letter to Robbie Roberts, administrator for the EPA’s Region VIII office in Denver.
In the letter, Inhofe seeks answers to 14 questions about the EPA’s activities, including whether it had permission to film oil and gas activities on private property. … (Inhofe complains that) the agency’s actions … “give rise to concern” and threaten the “trust” between regulators and industry.

Yeah, like we should “TRUST” the O & G indusrty.

All it takes is someone willing to sell out his fellow Americans and enable the destruction of the planet for 30 pieces of silver.