Inhofe Hearing Accuses Media of ‘Hyping Scientifically Unfounded Climate Alarmism’
Inhofe Hearing Accuses Media of ‘Hyping Scientifically Unfounded Climate Alarmism’
Among scientists, there is no doubt humans are responsible for climate change. One of the few remaining doubters is Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).
In his last week as chair of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, Inhofe said goodbye “with a final hearing aimed at spanking the press for its coverage of climate change.” A few lowlights from Inhofe’s hearing:
- Inhofe: “Poorly conceived policy decisions may result from the media’s over-hyped reporting. Much of the mainstream media has subverted its role as an objective source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate. … Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.”
- Dan Gainor, Director, Business & Media Institute: “We’re here to discuss the media coverage of the climate change debate. But there’s only one problem, there is almost none of that debate actually in the media. … This goes against the basic tenets of journalism to be skeptical of all sides of an issue.
- Dr. David Deming, University of Oklahoma: “There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. … As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.”
The media does deserve to be criticized for its climate change coverage; for years, reporters have tried to show “journalistic balance” by injecting more doubt than can be supported by scientific evidence. The media watchdog FAIR explains why the concept of “fairness” applies differently to scientific issues than it does to political issues:
The professional canon of journalistic fairness requires reporters who write about a controversy to present competing points of view. When the issue is of a political or social nature, fairness - presenting the most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight - is a fundamental check on biased reporting. But this canon causes problems when it is applied to issues of science. It seems to demand that journalists present competing points of view on a scientific question as though they had equal scientific weight, when actually they do not.
Journalists have long inserted doubt into their reporting on climate change. A FAIR study found that between 1988 and 2002, “53 percent of articles in the mainstream media” cast doubt on global warming science.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Was he talking about media coverage of climate change or of the past 6 years of candy ass treatment of the Bush admin?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:24 pmI wonder what evidence James Inhofe has to present against global warming? Any? Any at all? Any experiments you’ve conducted James? Any studies that you’ve commissioned James? I didn’t think so. What an imbecile.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:25 pmWhat always amazes me about the those that deny global warming is that they appear to refuse to concede that cleaniing up the air would generally improve the human condition in many parts of the world. Would it eradicate global warming? I really don’t know. Might it lessen the effects? Common sense seems to indicate it might. Would it make going outdoors bearable? Most likely, yes. So why not do it. Industry will just pass the costs on to consumers anyway. And consumers seem to be fine with the whole ‘green’ thing. What’s the problem?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:26 pmInhofe is doggedly stupid, isn’t he?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:26 pmI was wondering why the MSM hasn’t been giving time to the other point of view that the Earth is actually the center of the universe. Damn one-sided press.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pmGo back to Oklahoma and keep track of who your kids are sleeping with you perverted Luddite.
-GSD
December 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pmLets see a Senator from Oklahoma, A Business Institue professional and a Doc from U of O. hmmmmmm let see what they all have in common.
They are funded by the oil companies. *yawn* I’m sure they want equal converage of the Earth is flat therory as well. LOL
December 7th, 2006 at 4:35 pmpo, I agree with you 100%. A friend of mine went to Mexico City for a week (vacation to see relatives) and he said his eyes were burning and throat became soar.
I always think about just how big our atmosphere is compared to the size of Earth. All pictures from the moon and in orbit show that the atmosphere is NOT that thick. Regardless of the effect of our smog on global warming, human beings have got to have some concern over poisoning our atmosphere. We know that plumes from volcanoes can spread around the globe. We know that plumes from radiation accidents can spread around the globe. Yet we ignore the smog created in many, many cities. Sad really.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:38 pmUniversity of Oklahoma. Why am I not surprised?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:38 pm.
Inhofe is both an idiot and a liar.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:44 pmChimpy is gutting the Clean Air Act so polluters can belch more lead into the air. He must want kids to be stupid so they’ll grow up Republican.
Inhofe obviously ate lead paint chips as a child. He probably believes the Earth is only 6000 years and Noah kicked the dinosaurs off the Ark.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:44 pmMy husband and I drove through 40 to 50 miles of farmland in Arkansas yesterday, mostly rice fields. We saw three ducks. We should have saw thousands. We were shocked and awed.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:50 pmDid you know the “toothbrush” was invented in Oklahoma?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:54 pmSure enough. Otherwise it would have been called a “teethbrush”.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pmDid you know the “toothbrush†was invented in Oklahoma?
— Tuber
Wrong…
From the Library of Congress for your enjoyment =)
The toothbrush as we know it today was not invented until 1938. However, early forms of the toothbrush have been in existence since 3000 BC. Ancient civilizations used a “chew stick,” which was a thin twig with a frayed end. These ‘chew sticks’ were rubbed against the teeth.
The bristle toothbrush, similar to the type used today, was not invented until 1498 in China. The bristles were actually the stiff, coarse hairs taken from the back of a hog’s neck and attached to handles made of bone or bamboo.
Boar bristles were used until 1938, when nylon bristles were introduced by Dupont de Nemours. The first nylon toothbrush was called Doctor West’s Miracle Toothbrush. Later, Americans were influenced by the disciplined hygiene habits of soldiers from World War II. They became increasingly concerned with the practice of good oral hygiene and quickly adopted the nylon toothbrush.
Some other interesting toothbrush facts:
* The first mass-produced toothbrush was made by William Addis of Clerkenwald, England, around 1780.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pm* The first American to patent a toothbrush was H. N. Wadsworth, (patent number 18,653,) on Nov. 7, 1857.
* Mass production of toothbrushes began in America around 1885.
* One of the first electric toothbrushes to hit the American market was in 1960. It was marketed by the Squibb company under the name Broxodent.
Inhofe looks a bit red to not be experiencing some type of warming. How much do they pay you to sell out the rest of the world there buddy? Does it decrease now that you are no longer chairman?
And, oh yeah. Bye!
December 7th, 2006 at 5:13 pmDid you know the “toothbrush†was invented in Oklahoma?
Sure enough. Otherwise it would have been called a “teethbrushâ€.
Comment by Tuber
That’s frickin’ evil, Tuber. I love it…
But I would have sworn the toothbrush was invented in Weippe, Idaho, because, damn…
December 7th, 2006 at 5:20 pmIntelligence presence in congressmen and senators is also a overhyped concept…
December 7th, 2006 at 5:24 pm#17,
I believe that it was “Dental Floss” that was invented in Weippe, ID. Of course the original Weippe version was just a short length of rope.
I could be wrong, though. Little help Wayne…
December 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pmWhen the issue is of a political or social nature, fairness - presenting the most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight - is a fundamental check on biased reporting.
I would even question the wisdom in this statement.
Presenting the debate over many social issues in a “he said, she said” format can also be very misleading, actually serves as cover for biased reporting, and helps the media abdicate their role of civil society’s watchdog.
You see, instead of getting objective facts, we get opinions. Many times these opinions are presented as an appeal to authority, even when these are espoused by people who have no credentials in the topic at hand -such as Congressmen weighing in on sex education.
Rather than a hazy, subjective goal of “fairness”, journalists should stick to the purpose of presenting the facts in an objective way. After all, there is such a thing as an objective truth.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pmMay this be the very last time we discuse Inassloaf.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pmOf course the original Weippe version was just a short length of rope.
Comment by Tuber
But only for those with more than one tooth.
Hint: A high compliment to a lady at the bar in Weippe — Nice tooth.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pmHE IS PROOF OF EVOLUTION! Or the lack thereof. James InAHuff is one stupid Okie bas**rd. Cleaning the air is a great idea, even absent GWarming. That cow can’t realize that because his redneck constituency wants to keep burning the trash they haul in their F-150’s. God help us.
Texas Juice
December 7th, 2006 at 5:48 pmIt’s kind of hard for the media to NOT be advocates when all the facts and evidence advocate just one possible position.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pmIs Mr. In-a-Huff really a Poster Child for the Oklahoma educational system?
If so, we need to spend a LOT of money down there to bring them at least into the 19th Century! That applies to all those sheeple who keeps voting him back into office.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:58 pmI believe that it was “Dental Floss†that was invented in Weippe, ID. Of course the original Weippe version was just a short length of rope.
I could be wrong, though. Little help Wayne…
Comment by Tuber
Modern dental floss was invented in the early 1800s by Levi Parmly, a New Orleans dentist. =)
December 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pmModern dental floss was invented in the early 1800s by Levi Parmly, a New Orleans dentist. =)
Comment by Wayne
How totally prissy. :P
Weippers is tough. No, I’m not from Weippe. Hell, I live in Idaho, but am not from here!
December 7th, 2006 at 6:07 pmInhofe’s apparent thickheadedness is deliberate. Attacking intellectuals is a sign of fascism. However, the deliberate deployment and promotion of ‘outliers’ which muddy the consensus of science on an issue, say stem cells, climate, tobacco, lead etc, is a studied political tactic. The GOP has been at it for a long time - read some Chris Mooney
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
December 7th, 2006 at 6:08 pmadd to my previous post:
The floss Parmly made and gave his patients was actually made of silk.
From the Wiki:
Levi Spear Parmly, a dentist from New Orleans, is credited with inventing a legendary form of dental floss. He had been recommending that people should clean their teeth with silk floss since 1815.[1]
Dental floss was still unavailable to the consumer until the Codman and Shurtleft company started producing human-usable unwaxed silk floss in 1882. In 1898, the Johnson & Johnson Corporation received the first patent for dental floss. Other early brands included Red Cross, Salter Sill Co. and Brunswick.
The adoption of floss was poor before World War II. It was around this time, however, that Dr. Charles C. Bass developed nylon floss. Nylon floss was found to be better than silk because of its greater abrasion resistance and elasticity.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pmOy, I’m on track and we’re doing dental floss this evening? Oh well, I’m off into the Houston evening to knock some cowboy hats off heads….
December 7th, 2006 at 6:16 pm#29 - Wayne,
Thanks for the ready-for-Jeapardy enlightenment on dental floss, but a bit off topic, don’t ya think?
We should be talking about that other orifice, that In-a-huff talks through!
December 7th, 2006 at 6:18 pmOy, I’m on track and we’re doing dental floss this evening? Oh well, I’m off into the Houston evening to knock some cowboy hats off heads….
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Cool! The bigger the hat, the smaller the man. Have fun!
December 7th, 2006 at 6:27 pmThanks for the ready-for-Jeapardy enlightenment on dental floss, but a bit off topic, don’t ya think? — upside00
Yeah, but I was answering a question directed at me.n =)
Inhofe is bought and paid for by the oil interests, period. Hecannot back his insane position with any science whatsoever.
The 2 top contributers to Inhofe are the oil and gass industry, followed by the electric utilities lobby
December 7th, 2006 at 6:29 pm#31,
I believe that since Inhofe and his hearing are both just jokes, the humor in the comments is very much on topic. In a warped sort of way.
Oh, and Zooey, you have inspired a new anecdotal quip that I will use when appropriate:
“Lonelier than a dentist in Weippe”.
Night all…
December 7th, 2006 at 6:36 pmWayne - I know his funding source, the same as Rep. Smokey Joe’s in Texas and the good Sen. Ted Good-for-a-bridge-to-nowhere Stevens.
To them Global Warming is when the sun comes up in the morning, and they still can’t figger owt how that happins, ben watchin’ it ever day to!
December 7th, 2006 at 6:37 pm“Lonelier than a dentist in Weippeâ€.
Night all…
Comment by Tuber
Cheers!
December 7th, 2006 at 6:40 pmWell. I’m here to say he may be right. Most of what I’ve read hear seems to come from the “it makes sense to me” arguments. The thing here is, what you would need to prove or disprove what he is saying is 3000 years of climate history, something we don’t have. Science is never finite, it’s just best guess scenario, and whatever you can prove in a lab. Real life, and our planet are, sorry to say, not in a lab. Their are plenty in the scientific community that disagree with the THEORY that humans cause global warming. Dr. Kerry Mullis, Nobel Laureate being one of them. Remember, in the 70’s all you ever heard about was “Global Cooling” we were, without a doubt, headed for an ice age. Now were warming up. Again nothing is finite, it’s all in our perception. Just cause some dip shit with a lab coat tells you humans cause global warming doesn’t mean he’s right. And if hundreds of dipshits in lab coats tell you this, remember, they could actually be wrong.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:59 pmTHEORY - you use that word as if it means ‘guess’, Raoul - am I right? Care to elaborate on what you think a scientific theory actually is? Care to take a walk through the evidence one way or another? Or are you happy to leave us with that upsupported straw man about the coming Ice Age?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:24 pmGet me i science textbook … preferably hardcover … Inhofe needs some sense beaten into him.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:33 pmInhofe is “Satan”. He spreads evil and hate.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:36 pm#37,
You have your math wrong, let me see if I can assist. Actually, you have thousands (pronounced “thousands”) of educated, trained, and credentialed scientists worldwide (potentially in lab coats depending upon whether or not they are in their “lab” at the moment) postulating with confidence that Global Warming is occurring and that the largest contributing factor is human activity.
Then you have one dipsh*t (pronounced “Inhofe”) claiming that Global Warming is not happening and that all the glaciers that are melting are actually doing so because, as everyone knows, glaciers are liberal and they are obviously trying to influence our elections.
The only variable in the equation is whether the number of dipsh*ts is ONE or TWO, depending on whether you wish to be included in that category or not.
Good night again…
December 7th, 2006 at 7:39 pmWell stated Tuber. Yet another good laugh today.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:01 pm. And if hundreds of dipshits in lab coats tell you this, remember, they could actually be wrong.
Comment by Raoul Duke — December 7, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Kerry/kary mullis/mullischs/molliscks/malliscks-whatever-Dipshit your the man-you need to have Dr. Mullis bend over and do what you normally do in those situations. Lab coat not required.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:04 pmIt’s always amazed the length these men go to,to oppose science with hearsay just to defend their corporate and oil company buddies. A true sellout the the USA and the world for the good of themselves and their lobby interests.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:07 pmRoal Duke uses and trusts in science in many different ways, accept when is comes to politics. heh.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:12 pm#37 Roaul Duke
December 7th, 2006 at 8:14 pmLet’s see. You discredit the findings of the 1200 scientists of the Union of COncerned Scientists, including over 40 Nobel laureates. But you are in rabid support of one scientist while stating that science is finite. You throw in a couple redneck swearwords and, voila, you smugly posit a ‘reasoned’ argument. Take a trip to Glacier Park and see for yourself, Raoul.
Is he also upset about the theory of evolution, the age of the universe & planet, the effect of acid rain, the staggering rate of species going extinct, the shrinking ice bergs & glaciers, the rising ocean temps, the massive number of dead innocent Iraqis, and the fact that the Constitution & Bill of Rights are useless pieces of paper under Bush’s dictatorship?
No, of course he’s not upset about those issues. The media has done a superbe job of keeping them under wraps. Pity it couldn’t keep global warming out of the public’s eye, also.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:47 pmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=/ news/ 2005/ 05/ 01/ wglob01.xml
There is always some totalitarian insisting that this or that has no valid opposing view. Funny that, but eventually the other side gets their say:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=/ news/ 2005/ 05/ 01/ wglob01.xml
http://www.canada.com/ nationalpost/ financialpost/ story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
“Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.”
Signed by 66 quite reputable scientists, from Freman Dyson to these emminent gentlemen, each of which knows more and understands more about this issue than the lot of you put together:
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:04 pmInhofe corrupts society by imposing a US Senate santioned insanity his religious behaviour is wrong. Another nominee for the Bush/Cheney Conservative Barnyard of Shame.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pmAbout global warming, I assumed it was a fact until I read Michael Creighton’s “State of Fear” and I am now on the fence about it. I read the bibliography and it is astounding the research he did on this book. I do think the media blows it all out of proportion. I don’t think the environmental efforts we make will help a whole lot, but it certainly won’t hurt anything and we need to pull back on using energy anyway, among other things.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:34 pm#48 Bryce Lee
only 66 disagree when thousands of scientists agree with global warming? Your odds are way off bud.
instead of relying on right wing slanted rags such as the telegraph, go to the source.
Union of Concerned Scientists
December 7th, 2006 at 9:37 pmInhofe should stop using electricity, computers, cars, plastic, telephones, medication, eyeglasses, elevators, refridgerators, and any other item which relied upon science to create.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:43 pmJudy , Michael Creighton is a science fiction author, not a scientist. There is a quite substantial difference.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:43 pmHe is hardly an authority on global warming hahaha
Bush says we need to invade Iraq to prevent them from attacking us in the future. If that is the case, shouldn’t we take all measures to reduce global warming just in case global warming will destroy us in the future?
December 7th, 2006 at 9:43 pmImoff is trying to get some shots in before he ousted from his position…
December 7th, 2006 at 10:16 pmshouldn’t we take all measures to reduce global warming just in case global warming will destroy us in the future?
—— FU Father Eisenman
Yes, but we have to also prepare for the effects that will affect us, because of the damage already done.
Even if our civilization stops burning fossil fuels immediately, the damage already done will continue to increase global warming for at least the next 100 years or so.
In 2095 the summer time and winter time temps in Illinois are expected to match the current summer and winter temps in today’s East Texas.
Sad, huh?
December 7th, 2006 at 10:16 pm#48 How about telling us the total amount that those schmucks receive from the administration.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:18 pmSeems angie likes to lie on multiple threads. Skank.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:45 pm#58 — red state idiot angie
Posting the same post to every thread is uncool and just proves the kind of asshat troll you are.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:47 pmDeming has been called the “man without a department” because the U of Oklahoma has kicked him out of the Geology Department for writing outrageous letters to the campus newspaper, etc, but they can’t fire him due to tenure.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:49 pmhttp://www.cir-usa.org/cases/deming_v_oklahoma.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5067.html
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=257
Hey angie, you should get together with mikey. Maybe you can turn him straight…or he can turn you straight. All of those Republican closet issues confuse me.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:49 pmI think Angie took a dump on every thread and left.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:03 pmThe score is 928 - 0, and the media still reports it as a tie. The most esteemed scientific journal published a review of 928 artilcles in refereed scientific journals, and found that not one disputed the premise that climate change is happening and that it is mostly caused by human activity. Yet a similar study of the media treatment of climate change found that 53% of new articles gave equal credence to the skeptics. If this was reporting on the Super Bowl, America would be outraged.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:05 pmOf course it did. That is because it is a worthless toad that can’t defend its position (whatever the hell that may be).
December 7th, 2006 at 11:06 pmAbout global warming, I assumed it was a fact until I read Michael Creighton’s “State of Fear†and I am now on the fence about it.
Comment by Judy Mitchell — December 7, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
I know! I used to think dinosaurs were extinct until I read Michael Crichton’s “Jurassic Park” and now I am on the fence about it, too.
He also made extensive research on the subject for years, and I was impressed when I learned about it.
Now, some people criticise my “gullibility” and “ignorance” by saying Crichton is a science-fiction writer not a scientist, but I think his opinion (and mine, for that matter) is every bit as good as that of someone who has spent their entire life doing research on the subject.
(Do I need to clarify? The above is all sarcasm….)
December 7th, 2006 at 11:12 pm#66 Do you think she is serious? Wouldn’t it be incredible if someone actually read a book of fiction (more likely listened to it on “books on tape”) and actually took it for fact?
December 7th, 2006 at 11:18 pmAbout global warming, I assumed it was a fact until I read Michael Creighton’s(SIC) “State of Fear†and I am now on the fence about it. I read the bibliography and it is astounding the research he did on this book.
Comment by Judy Mitchell
Judy,
December 7th, 2006 at 11:19 pmIf you were so influenced by Michael Crichton’s book, I think you might have noticed to the correct spelling of his name. Besides, as Wayne noted in #53, Crichton is not a science but a science fiction writer. Some of the “data” he uses in his book is even fake. Maybe you ought to read some non-fiction books about global warming and review your stance again.
I think Angie took a dump on every thread and left.
Comment by ForTruth
How lovely…
December 7th, 2006 at 11:19 pm#67 - JPark,
My father thinks Ann Coulter is a comedian. Seriously.
The man is a retired Judge, for heaven’s sake.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:21 pm#70 No offense to your family, but I am glad he is retired.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:24 pm#71 - Me too. :{
December 7th, 2006 at 11:27 pm#72 My family has always been liberal and Reagan pushed us further left. If only all righties would have to live on survivor’s benefits the US would be a much better place.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:32 pmWouldn’t it be incredible if someone actually read a book of fiction (more likely listened to it on “books on tapeâ€) and actually took it for fact?
Comment by JPark — December 7, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
To be honest, I don’t know what to think anymore about some people.
Mr. Hendler has posted many comments on the merits of Crichton’s book; it seems he is dead serious about it. He defended himself against criticism thread after thread, post after post.
After a while, I’d just poke fun at him. Just like I did with Judy. I’ll try to keep that in mind in case I do run into someone who spouts such nonsense. You never know with these anti-science conservatives.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:35 pmJPark,
My family has been fairly moderate in the past, but in the last fews years they have swung right, and I really don’t get it. My boys and I are the “back sheep” of the family, since we’re “bleeding heart liberals.”
December 7th, 2006 at 11:37 pmI will take McCain over this shyster any day of the week.
http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200010251159.shtml
And I`m a liberal.
Imagine that.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:38 pmSamsa?
Are you related to sammy sosa?
December 7th, 2006 at 11:39 pmI think #37, Raoul Duke, is right: Many of the hysterical NGOs, Al Gores and media totally obscure a lot of the facts. They never mention the fact that the World’s volcanos spew out an order of magnitude more greenhouse gases than the entirety of humanity. They also never mention that the climate does change due to the processes in the sun, the Earth’s 23,000-something year wobbling movement, etc.
What they do say however, is that it is humanity’s fault, or there are too many people in the world, or we shouldn’t have industry but go back to the way people lived before the industrial revolution. Those “lines” are not useful comments. What is needed is real solutions. Humanity should go from burning wood, coal and petroleum to instead get our energy from nuclear power and — with a little more research — fusion. That would be a clean way of getting energy. When it comes to transportation, we should go from using gasoline to hydrogen (which only results in water). Clean. We should build magnetically levitated trains which are faster than cars and even more convenient than airplanes for shorter distances. That would also reduce many traffic accidents.
Man should act as Earth’s gardener so to speak. There is no other species on Earth that could take our position. We should take care of the planet — no one else will. We should grow up and stop fighting wars, stop allowing poverty, etc. OK, you get my point. (I hope.)
December 7th, 2006 at 11:40 pmAbout global warming, I assumed it was a fact until I read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear†and I am now on the fence about it. I read the bibliography and it is astounding the research he did on this book.
Do more research. Check out what reputable scientists have to say about Crichton’s book. Here’s a good place to start:
NRDC
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp
December 7th, 2006 at 11:44 pm[…] Other views: Think Progress Tags: Inhofe, Senator, global warming […]
December 7th, 2006 at 11:44 pm#75 Wow, that is weird. I can’t imagine being moderate and then swinging right during the Bush years. I don’t get that at all.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:45 pm#74 There is nothing else to do but poke fun at that misogynistic moron. I would get my science from Douglas Adams before that hack, Crichton.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:47 pm#78 Nice cut and paste, paid troll.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:47 pm#78 The following bullshit has been paid for by Exxon/Mobil.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:48 pmI think #37, Raoul Duke, is right
Comment by golvmatta — December 7, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
No, he’s not. He’s way off.
They never mention the fact that the World’s volcanos spew out an order of magnitude more greenhouse gases than the entirety of humanity.
They have mentioned it and it is false. If you have sources other than Limbaugh to back up this rubbish, please provide the links.
They also never mention that the climate does change due to the processes in the sun, the Earth’s 23,000-something year wobbling movement, etc.
They have mentioned it too. The difference this time is that humans have had an impact on our planet’s climate.
What they do say however, is that […] we shouldn’t have industry but go back to the way people lived before the industrial revolution.
Who in the world advocates this nonsense? Is this your own strawman argument, or did you borrow Limbaugh’s again?
The rest of your post is closer to what most around the world are saying we need to do: Find alternative sources of energy, develop more efficient carbon-based technologies, invest in public transportation, and overall be better stewards of the planet we live in by using our natural resources more sensibly.
So you are not saying anything new here.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:52 pmJPark,
Ah, The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy…. yes, I’d get my science from Mr. Adams anytime. Or from HG Wells, or Jules Verne.
The difference is that Crichton purports to have “debunked” global warming science and deniers have taken the book over the opinion of the experts.
But you know that…
December 7th, 2006 at 11:59 pmWow!! Michael Christon (?) whatever….what about that racist book of his (Rising Sun) where he said (about 15 or 20 years ago) that the Japs were taking over the world and America was going to be overwhelmed by the insidious hoards of Asiatics capable of anything…. and then after his book came out Japan went into a 10 year recession…? Jeesh. Crichton’s a right-wing hack. ‘corse, maybe his novel caused the Japanese to lose their way.
Seriously, I read part of his anti-environmentalist screed without paying for it…and it was a call to arms for rightwinger’s to kill a few “commies for momie”, anyone who thinks environmentalists would start a earthrending catechism just to prove a point…whatever….should join the Nazi party or it’s modern equivalent, the Republican party…no difference…
anyway, not sure what rock Inhofe crawled out under ..but I hear Oklahoma has a church on every corner and is VERY flat. And all the Indians who used to own Oklahoma..died in suspicious ‘accidents’.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:06 amJPark: I didn’t cut and paste anything. (If I had cut and pasted anything I shouldn’t have gotten those grammatical errors in my earlier post.)
December 8th, 2006 at 12:21 am#85: Well, I don’t think the problems involved are going to be solved on a blog. I almost only see people’s opinions and not the truth. The stuff that floats around on this blog aren’t so very scientific.
Here is a thought I think you will agree with however: Even if Senator Inhofe is wrong, I think it is correct of him to have a hearing about it. If he is wrong then hopefully (if honest scientists are allowed to testify, and he is prepared to be open-minded, etc.) he will get straightened out fairly soon and we will all benefit from having come closer to the truth. What do you think?
December 8th, 2006 at 12:33 amBy the way, Gregor Samsa, I hate Limbaugh.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:44 am#50 Judy,
December 8th, 2006 at 12:54 amHave you also read The Andromeda Strain by Crichton? Our entire population was within hours of being wiped out by a germ from space. That book also was ‘researched’ and had dozens of scientific references. Who do you believe - a fiction writer or the 1200 scientists and 928 reports which conclude that global warming is caused by people. Bush even had Crichton to the White House for a private meeting, while suppressing and refuting any credible science.
Judy, you are the one in an active state of denial.
global warming? big deal.they are gonna put colonies of humans in
space in about 20 years,and with all the money I made in both
Bush`s terms I expect I will be on that shuttle bus to the sky.
Back to work you govt. mules!!
The more you work the more I make!Keep working for my safety in
about 20 years.I will see ya there!!
Or maybe not if you don`t have enough moolah!
Oh well no matter I do and that is all that counts.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:09 amzooey,
I nice juicy “georgia cheer†for you!!
Oh my,I think that one was in there since turkey day.
Bwahahahaaaaaaaa!
let`s see where was I……………..
$7,269,686…………..
and 21 cents.
Back to work govt. mules……..you`re making my life so easy!!!
Did I mention I have RETIRED STINKING RICH at the ripe old age of
38?
Never again will work adorn my thoughts.
Bush is a Godsend for REAL Americans.
I just wish there weren`t term limits.
This is like a GREAT BIG MONEY MACHINE!!!!
We`ll be back in about 10-15 years to get the rest!!!
angie-the proud corporate raider!!!
Bwahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!
Have a nice christian CHRISTMAS!!
That is if you don`t have to work Christmas day and all.
muwahhhhhh!!!
December 8th, 2006 at 1:28 amWhy Americans Hate Democrats — A Dialog
Just because it is such a damned good piece of writing, the following is an exerpt from Jane Smiley’s seminal piece in Slate Magazine:
The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don’t share those same qualities, don’t know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?
Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can’t understand it and don’t respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn’t vote—they are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.
Although it originally appeared shortly after the last election, I think the article is so fundamentally honest and insightful that it bears dissemination until every American has read it. You can read the whole thing here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109218/
December 8th, 2006 at 1:46 amI wanted to see a film clip of Gore on the Oprah show…but ended up reading the blog there about global warming. Its astonishing how ill-informed the general public is, how vicious they are about this subject. Sorry, Americans, its just scientific facts. Too bad the president of this country is leading the pack on this type of atitude, really sobering. Very sad.
The worst seemed to be the Bible people mixed with the conservative crowd. In total denial that anything has to change or that any change could possibly bring about positive results in quality of life for everyone.
America is a rich country because we have led the way in new technologies from the industrial revolution to the space age. We are missing the boat on this one as a country! Europe is ahead of us in alternative technology research and development, education, etc. And this will be, without a doubt, the basis for future wealth…
Because whatever you think about global warming, oil is not a renewable resource. One day it will be scarce and expensive. And the countries that have developed renewable energy technologies to support modern life will be the new super powers.
We will have to throw ALL the oil men dinosaurs and lobbyists out of office to move ahead on this issue…
December 8th, 2006 at 1:48 am“Much of the mainstream media has subverted its role as an objective
source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate….”
NO SIR, it is government subversion; journalist attempt to report on the facts government so converniently leaves out in it’s “objective releases” and lies. They must try to do this around their executives.
“…there is almost none of that debate actually in the media. … This goes against the basic tenets of journalism to be skeptical of all sides of an issue….”
December 8th, 2006 at 6:52 amHow ironic; when the press displays skepticism and discernment, or asks questions they call it LIBERAL.
“Much of the mainstream media has subverted its role as an objective
source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate….”
NO SIR, it is government subversion; journalist attempt to report on the facts government so converniently leaves out in it’s “objective releases” and lies. They must try to do this around their executives.
“…there is almost none of that debate actually in the media. … This goes against the basic tenets of journalism to be skeptical of all sides of an issue….”
December 8th, 2006 at 6:52 amHow ironic; when the press displays skepticism and discernment, or asks questions they call LIBERAL.
Our nations biggest failing after Iraq early in the 21st century is our treatment of the environment during the Bush administration.
In the long term development of alternative energies would ensure that the US would continue to be a world leader in the manufacture of new technologies. By artificially retarding efforts to impose tougher emission standards on industry we are accelerating the downfall of those industries.
Bush’s policies have already cost the auto industry thousands of jobs by not imposing tougher emission standards. There is a reason that the vast majority of hybrid vehicles do not come from Detroit.
If and until we realize that saving the environment is the biggest monetary opportunity of the 21st century we will lose good paying manufacturing jobs in this country to the rest of the world.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:00 amOur nations biggest failing after Iraq early in the 21st century is our treatment of the environment during the Bush administration.
In the long term development of alternative energies would ensure that the US would continue to be a world leader in the manufacture of new technologies. By artificially retarding efforts to impose tougher emission standards on industry we are accelerating the downfall of those industries.
Bush’s policies have already cost the auto industry thousands of jobs by not imposing tougher emission standards. There is a reason that the vast majority of hybrid vehicles do not come from Detroit.
If and until we realize that saving the environment is the biggest monetary opportunity of the 21st century we will lose good paying manufacturing jobs in this country to the rest of the world.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:00 amWhat’s there to debate?
December 8th, 2006 at 7:46 amHumans ARE adding to Global Warming.
We also have the power to do something about it, if we can get the “Environmental Obstructionists” radical right wing to stop long enough to listen to the evidence. Also, there is NO scientific evidence that Global Warming is not caused by humans.
Who gives a rat’s ass what this has-been failure has to say? He’s leaving in shame and disgrace to once again hide under his rock; a rock that will soon be far too hot to pick up, allowing his escape, thanks to idiotic ramblings of men like him. Good riddance to bad rubbish, baby.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:29 amhttp://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195
http://newsbusters.org/ stories/ cnn_anchor_falls_asleep.html
http://www.washtimes.com/ national/ 20061206-112922-6839r.htm
ROTFL
December 8th, 2006 at 8:38 amI sure hope his knuckles don’t get scabby from dragging on the ground as he leaves office. It’s utterly AMAZING that we have elected officials this ignorant. How in the hell do people like this get elected??
I think there’s a mentality with Republicans that unless the mainstream media agrees with them, they’re biased. This is a result of the media kissing Bush’s ass for the last 6 years. Look how “amazed” everyone was when NBC finally called a spade a spade and labeled what is happening in Iraq a civil war. No!! Really?? Gosh, is that ok with W?
I hope Al Gore runs for president because he’s our only hope when it comes to the global warming issue…
December 8th, 2006 at 9:06 amYou wanna know what causes “global warming”? The globe. Ever heard of the Vikings? What set them free to rape & pillage was a great “Global Warming” that melt hundreds of miles of ice in a very short time. Ever heard of Greenland? That now ice covered island was once lush & green hence the name when discovered. And all of this long before Henry Ford rolled out the first Model T. You people are incredibly stupid, ignorantly absurd. Thank God you don’t breed in numbers.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:12 amThat performance just earned him several hours of ass kissing on Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reillys’ pathetic shows.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:29 am[…] Read the rest of it at thinkprogress.com […]
December 8th, 2006 at 9:30 amObjectivity is fine in a social or political context, if the person has a point to make… instead, it is usually rhetoric or read from the Talking Points sheet. However, as a liberal, I do not feel like I need to subject myself to inane bantering of a person that is obviously not dealing with reality… that is not what “respecting opposing views” means. There is nothing wrong with refusing to argue with a person that is not presenting a reasonable debate or position.
The same with science… whether it is Global Warming, Intelligent Design or Lead in the Air (I guess we did such a good job of cleaning that up the EPA now wants to let people go back to polluting).
When they talk about “bias” they need to look at the people supporting a position in Global Warming. Scientists at universities, governemnt and private facilities around the world agree that we are probably doing serious damage… there is debate as to the extent sure…. but the underlying facts are there. WHAT IS THERE POSSIBLE BIAS? WHAT DO THEY HOPE TO ACHIEVE BY MAKING THESE CLAIMS?
When you look closely at a large number of the people and instutitions opposing Global Warming what do you find? Oil Companies, major producers of greenhouse gases. You might have to dig a bit to find the source of money because they disguise it through “think tanks”. THEIR BIAS? Go ahead and think for youself.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:30 am#103 ArmandG…..
WTF!!! Greenland was named Greenland to entice early settlers. Who did your research the team of Rush and Coultergeist?
And we actually do breed in numbers, just not with our siblings.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:57 amupside00 said: Greenland was named to enticve early settlers
Your right Eric the Red named it around the ninth century. Also an Icelandic trader has been given credit for naming it also but both more than a millenium ago. Icelandic settlers found the land uninhabited when they arrived c.982. They established three settlements near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after over 450 years of habitation.
The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period.
I having to match wits with an idiot. Which is the usual when dealing with a tree hugging, worlds gonna end, tax the rich to pay the lazy lib.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:16 amIt seems to me that the Senator should be congratulated for his stance as it seems clear that it provides a solution to the global warming/air pollution problem.
World citizens should contribute to creating a giant plastic tent over the state of Oklahoma and pumping in all the excess CO2 and atmospheric polutants into the tent. Since the Senator doesn’t think this would cause a problem and since his contituents, who keep voting for him obviously don’t think this would cause a problem, we could all solve this problem once and for all using this technological solution.
Thank you Senator. Where do I send my contribution?
December 8th, 2006 at 10:38 amDecrying a media that has a unified view of global warming seems pout of place for a guy who, for the past six years, has participated in an Administration that has sought to ditite to the same media and control its message.
Suppose concentration camps were known to American journalists during World War Two. Would Inhofe be decrying the media’s lack of a balancing opinion?
Twilly
December 8th, 2006 at 11:29 amGreenland was once lush and green? OMG! And he calls US ignorant? Whew!
December 8th, 2006 at 11:34 amInhofe is the guy who held up a copy of Michael Crichton’s NOVEL “State of Fear” on the floor of the Senate as proof global warming was a hoax. Thank God this guy isn’t going to be the chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, though I’m assuming he’ll remain on that committee. This idiot will be running again in 2008. He needs to go.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:41 amSen. Inhofe does raise a good question about science: (No, not about global warming), can anyone look at the past 6 years of American government and, with a straight face, support Darwin’s theory that man has evolved from lower life forms?
December 8th, 2006 at 11:58 amGo figure, this creature is from Oklabraska, or some other
December 8th, 2006 at 12:01 pmFlyover sewer. If Adolf Inhofe is the best Okalatucky can
muster from within its ranks, it speaks volumes regarding
their cultural level, As in “ain’t got none”. If Global Warming
is indeed a fact, most of the warming is being produced,
from the hot air proceeding out of both ends of Mr Messianic
Complex. I actually equate him a few levels lower than Frau
Sanctimonious Santorum, which takes great effort to achieve.
His understanding of Global Warming was no doubt attained by
listening to Flush Limbaugh, and Der Faux Propagandaministerium.
Oklabraska should be ashamed.
The douchebag has left the building!
December 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#108
I’ve heard that Greenland was called Greenland to fool the vikings into going there to invade instead of Iceland which IS lush and green. Yet, I’m not sure where I heard that…probably from a friend in a stream-of-conscious-moment…as he’s a writer and very creative.
I’d also dare to say that the wikipedia probably not the best source for facts?
For real information about the “medieval warm period.”
December 8th, 2006 at 1:33 pmhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ paleo/ globalwarming/ medieval.html
You wanna know what causes “global warmingâ€? The globe. Ever heard of the Vikings? What set them free to rape & pillage was a great “Global Warming†that melt hundreds of miles of ice in a very short time. Ever heard of Greenland? That now ice covered island was once lush & green hence the name when discovered. No, you’re wrong, it was ice-covered when it was discovered this was some ‘marketing’ that presaged the Republican reporting of the state of our country by several hundred years. And the evidence isn’t that the Greenlanders thrived it is that they hung on by the skin of their teeth. Where do you get this revisionistic crap?
December 8th, 2006 at 1:42 pmJames Inhofe is nothing more than a lackey of Big Oil. This has been (and always will be) an industry that would destoy an entire ecosystem, just in the hopes of earning an extra percentage!
December 8th, 2006 at 2:03 pmOnce you understand how the earth’s atmosphere regulates temperature and the correlation between levels of CO2 and temperature, there really is nothing controversial about it. Higher levels of CO2 result in higher temperatures. So measure the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, make some projections and voila, you have incontrovertable evidence that global warming will be catastrophic unless the pattern is reversed. Everyone has the right to believe, but don’t think that belief alone makes you right. Better to check the facts.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:49 pmWhat next?….Is he going to deny that evolution is a rational scientific explanation of life on earth….Oh yeah, nevermind….
December 8th, 2006 at 8:29 pmI agree with Senator Inhofe, that the media is overhyping the issue. To say otherwise is simple stupidity. I just read his Skeptics Guide and love it - check it out….http://epw.senate.gov/ fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711
December 8th, 2006 at 9:41 pmGood, fun read of Inhofe new book on Global Warming:
December 8th, 2006 at 9:43 pm“Remember, in the 70’s all you ever heard about was “Global Cooling†we were, without a doubt, headed for an ice age.
Comment by Raoul Duke — December 7, 2006 ”
No that’s not all we ever heard about. That may be all you heard about but that only proves you ignorance.
However projections in the 1970s that global mean tempreture would go up in the coming decades since then have turned out to be true and assholes like Inhofe turned out to be wrong.
He is fustrated because the data shows warming. But because he cannot refute that he goes after the media and Gore. How original. There is zero substance in his argument just a bunch of whining.
He cannot produce any scientist who support his insanity, except the well known Exxon-funded sceptics who have been discredited over and over again, not the least for changing their stories over the years from “there is no warming trend” to “ok there is a warming trend but humans have nothing to do with it”. They are really funny people.
CO2 is a GHG. That is indisputable. And CO2 concentration in the atmosphere went up from 280 ppm to 380 ppm over the last 150 years. That is also indisputable. This increase was caused by humans. That is also indisputable.
See why:
What a coincidence that with CO2 tempreture also went up.
But you cannot connect the dots. (No it’s not the Sun’s fault. 2005 was very close to solar minimum year and also the warmest year on record. http://www.nasa.gov/ vision/ universe/ solarsystem/ 06mar_solarminimum.html)
You also don’t seem to understand what theory means in scientific terminology.
It doesn’t mean speculation as you believe.
from Webster
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Which means unless you have an alternative plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle which explains why
December 9th, 2006 at 7:48 amover the last 150 years both CO2 concentration and global mean tempreture have gone up you don’t have a case.
Hey, if the UN says it then it must be true
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=/ news/ 2006/ 12/ 10/ nclimate10.xml
http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/ article2062484.ece
ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL
December 11th, 2006 at 8:46 am[…] Today, prominent climate skeptics Pat Michaels and Dan Gainor appeared on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto to argue that the recent snowstorms in Denver prove there is a “Northeast bias†on global warming. Both agreed with Cavuto’s claim that if “more of those who support global warming did not live in the East Coast, or more specifically in New York, and were stationed in Denver,†they might be more skeptical of global warming. […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 pmNigella Lawson
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 20th, 2008 at 4:38 amSopyia
This was one time where I have to agree to disagree
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 amaids consumer guide hearing
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:15 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 10:58 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 2:55 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pmTrains Clip
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:43 amCare Skin Tip Winter
%KEYWORD% and more about skin care
April 9th, 2008 at 10:43 amRorie
Do you really believe what you write?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pmWild Bill
I think God approves of you.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:06 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 2:15 am