Sen. Inhofe’s misleading climate denial “report.”
Sen. Inhofe’s misleading climate denial “report.”
Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a “report” claiming that “over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims in 2007.” The Washington Times described the report as “Scientists doubt climate change.” But, according to TAPPED’s Kate Sheppard, many of the scientists quoted in Inhofe’s report don’t actually doubt that “climate change is real and a problem“:
The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man-made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren’t all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem — many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming. Others simply cited phenomena that might be causing warming in addition to that caused by greenhouse gases.
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Al Gore, told the Times that “25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.” Adam Siegel has more debunking of Inhofe here.
UPDATE: Joe Romm takes a closer look at some of the members on Inhofe’s global warming deniers list.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Unsurprisingly, they took their quote-mining techniques and their ability to cherry pick “facts” straight out of the Creationists’ playbook -that other section of the Republican base…
December 21st, 2007 at 5:38 pm“Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Al Gore, told the Times that ‘25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.’ ”
What is the difference between being funded by exxon and being funded by the sierra club and the National Resources Defense Council?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pmScientists funded by Bobby Kennedy Jr. and the National Resources Defense Council are beholden to the enviromental lobby. They can’t be considered objective.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pmIt takes an incredibly simple-minded moron to believe anything this Jack Inhofe says.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pmScientists funded by Bobby Kennedy Jr. and the National Resources Defense Council are beholden to the enviromental lobby. They can’t be considered objective.
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Yeah, you’re right. Now if you can just discredit the other 99.9% of weather related scientists who back climate change theory you might really have an argument.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pmInhofe could be beheaded and not get any dumber.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm“Now if you can just discredit the other 99.9% of weather related scientists who back climate change theory you might really have an argument.
Here is a link to the 400 who discredit Global Warming
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Please provide me with a link to the 399,600(99.9%) scientists who think it is real.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pmNot a report – just a blog post lie
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
“Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine.”"
December 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm“What is the difference between being funded by exxon and being funded by the sierra club and the National Resources Defense Council?”
now that’s sarcasm – truly professional grade…
December 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pmhe has ZERO credibility.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pm’nuff said.
everyone knows how evil those non-profit enviro-groups are, what with their billions in quarterly profits, and entanglements in foreign policy and their crazy light bulbs and what-not
(puh-leeeze) couldn’t you find anyone dirtier and more powerful to stick up for, Mr. Mandolin? or anyone smaller or more disadvantaged to pick on?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pmI must admit, global warming supporters have been very accurate with their forecasts. Look at the hurricane season for example. Global warming scientists accurately predicted that we would have record numbers of hurricanes hitting land this year and…Oh wait, nevermind, I guess climate change supporters are a bunch of idiots.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pmnot real hip to the planet’s time-scale, there, huh Mr. Mandolin? have any more subtle points you’d like to make?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pmWhat is the difference between being funded by exxon and being funded by the sierra club and the National Resources Defense Council?
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Seriously? Oil companies have only one agenda, make more money by selling more oil. Sierra Club and other environmental orgs have only one agenda, improving the environment that we live in.
Of course, these two types of organizations have opposite goals. But the former doesn’t give two sh1ts about you or me, just our dollars, while the later does care about you, me, and everyone on the planet. The former are greedy corporations, and the later are humanist non-profits.
Shall I go on?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pmQ-Does anyone know how much the temperature of the ocean has risen over the past 6 years?
A- It hasn’t!
December 21st, 2007 at 5:59 pmtakes a long time for my hot tub to warm up, too – but i still know it will.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pmAl Gore states that the debate is over. I don’t remember him debating anyone and to my knowledge he refuses to debate leading scientist who have challenged him. If he wants to convince the world that global warming is real, he should be willing to debate those who claim otherwise. I have my doubts about global warming and would be open to seeing a real debate about it. I also notice that the get together in Bali refused to allow dissenters into the conference. What are they afraid of?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pm“Sierra Club and other environmental orgs have only one agenda, improving the environment that we live in. ”
Comment by Namtillaku — December 21, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
If their only goals are to protect the environment, then why are environmental groups ran by lefty political hacks like Bobby Kennedy Jr?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pmbecause they’re who cares most?
is that not a good enough reason, somehow?
what are you driving at, anyway, Mr. Mandolin? other than to support Mr. Inhofe’s report, and haphazardly insult some other people? If that’s your point just say so – no need to beat aroundthe bush like that.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pmBrain dead christians keep spouting legends of creationism as fact and breeding. Re-string the mandolin and learn a new tune.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pm“takes a long time for my hot tub to warm up, too – but i still know it will.”
Comment by tombaker — December 21, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Brilliant analogy Mr. Baker! I never looked at the ocean as a hot tub before. Maybe I should rethink this Global Warming thing. I have one question though, If you love the environment so much, why would you waste precious water and energy sources on a hot tub. That probably increases your carbon footprint by a couple hundred pounds a year!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pmI also notice that the get together in Bali refused to allow dissenters into the conference. What are they afraid of?
Comment by Beethoven Rules — December 21, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
If you were having a mathematics conference, would you allow math deniers in? Of course not. A ‘math-denier’ would be just as wrong/ignorant/insane as a global warming denier.
I wonder how many oil companies pay people to come to blogs like this to make statements like yours? You’re not going to convince anyone here of your lunacy.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pmYeah right, mandolin- the NRDC just makes up facts. The NRDC or the Sierra Club do not fund teams of scientists to alter scientific fact to their liking. Their finances are very limited and they let time prove them correct and truthful. Only the corrupt have the extra money and immoral character to manipulate facts. Those like Exxon/Mobil and their reich-wing friends like Jack Inhofe, Cheney, Bush, etc.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pmThe average annual number of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
According to a September 15 U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) press release, the change occurred as global sea-surface temperatures increased over the same period.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pmNot only do these wing nuts buy the oil co. propaganda they insist on advertising their ignorance.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pm“Brain dead christians keep spouting legends of creationism as fact and breeding. Re-string the mandolin and learn a new tune.”
Comment by jb — December 21, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
What a very poignant and germane topic to bring up in a discussion about global warming. Thank you for contributing what brain power you have to the discussion. Every little bit counts!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmmandolin your are only, apparently, viewing US hurricanes, not globally.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pmWhat is the difference between being funded by exxon and being funded by the sierra club and the National Resources Defense Council?
Comment by mandolin
Hmmmm, let’s take a look. One company wants to render the only planet we have uninhabitable to earn a profit. The other groups want to save what is left of our planet so our grandchildren will have a place to live.
Gee, that is a toughie.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pmWhom shall I believe, Al Gore or Infole…hmmmmm…dummy me picked Al Gore….and now it’s cold outside today. Some idiot on CNN said ‘It’s been so cold here in the east, that shoots down any global warming’….DUH…
December 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pmMandolin, did you read my post? Comments?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pmMore xistrian sponsored GOP war on science.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pmRead State of Fear by Michael Crichton.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pmAnd mandolin, even if the water temperatures were not warming dont you think alternative methods would be a good thing? Sitting on a highway during rush hour sucking fumes cant be good for us.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:14 pmmore debunking of Inhofe
– - Wow, I read that as dunking and thought Inhofe had been waterboarded. As if.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pmXisi,
December 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pmHow many hurricanes hit land 200 years ago?
Namtillubaka, If I were going to have a math conference, I most definetly want dissenters to attend so that I could expose them for their false beliefs. Those who are right and know they are right are not afraid to debate. What is Al and his fellow travelers afraid of?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pmRead State of Fear by Michael Crichton.
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Hes not a global scientist. You talk about state of fear bit isnt that what the current admin is doing with its fear mongering of WMD and nuclear weapons to abrogate your privacy and rights?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pmInhofe is inbred and clueless about what’s going on in the world; how can he when he’s clueless about things going on right within his personal space. Inhofe is the epitome of the problem that this country has with inept, tired, jaded old fools sitting in Congress much too long. Inhofe is the Poster Boy for Functional Obsolescense and Term Limits! Someone please help this braindead fool!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pmFact is that Inhofe wouldn’t recognize a scientist from a congressional page – except if he wanted to molest him, that is.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pmFear! Osama! Fear Saddam! Fear Kim Jong! Fear Syria! Fear Iran! Fear!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pm“And mandolin, even if the water temperatures were not warming dont you think alternative methods would be a good thing? Sitting on a highway during rush hour sucking fumes cant be good for us.”
Comment by Xisithrus — December 21, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Then come up with a serious alternative to oil. The world will not run on farts and gummy bears. Solar power will NEVER be able to power the world.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pmThe science is “IN” on man’s effect on global warming. This thread is about one moron sitting in Congress perpetually making a flaming jackass of himself. No point debating the science; it’s unanimously accepted in educated circles. Certainly no troll here knows a dribble about anything scientific.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pmI’m gonna build a car that is powered by my happy thoughts!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pmWhat is Al and his fellow travelers afraid of?
Comment by Beethoven Rules — December 21, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
It’s not fear, it’s the avoidance of lunatics like you. If 2+2=4, then I’m not going to admit someone to my conference who has a theory that it equals 5.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:19 pmHow many hurricanes hit land 200 years ago?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pmState of Fear- a FICTION novel. Yeah, let’s base opinion and policy on a fiction novel rather than the 1000’s of scientist’s that have been studying global warming for the past 2 decades or more. Mandolin, you’re a moronic lemming.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pmI’m gonna build a car that is powered by my happy thoughts!
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Cool, I know a cliff where you can go 150 mph.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pm40-Bill Gates once said no one would want a personal computer in their home, too.
Not that very long ago either, in the scheme of things.
What of that?
Progress is a remarkable thing, when enough of those frightened of change get out of its way.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:21 pmCool, I know a cliff where you can go 150 mph.
Comment by RUCerious — December 21, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Take Inhofe along for the ride.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:22 pmBill Gates once said no one would want a personal computer in their home, too.
Comment by tombaker — December 21, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Baker once again steps up with a remark that makes me question every thing I believe. If gates said no one would want a PC, then Global Warming must be real!!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:23 pmSolar power will NEVER be able to power the world.
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Why not?
A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity
December 21st, 2007 at 6:24 pmhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
I’m gonna build a car that is powered by my happy thoughts
- – I understand that works as umbrella too.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:25 pmCool, I know a cliff where you can go 150 mph.
Comment by RUCerious — December 21, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Thanks for the veiled treat on my life.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:25 pmthe cost to produce photovoltaic cells and modules has dropped significantly, opening the way for large-scale deployment. Various cell types exist, but the least expenÂsive modules today are thin films made of cadmium telluride.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pmAs Gore’s lies continue to unravel, global-warmists are looking more and more silly with their alarmist nonsense. Meanwhile, nervous Gore is out there using rediculous terms like “global warming denier”. Its so sad how the Godless left tries to fill the hole in their lives by embracing false prophet’s like Gore and blindly following his religion.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pmHow many hurricanes hit land 200 years ago?
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
I’m curious about something Mandolin. What do you have to lose, personally, by a reduction of CO2 and a general cleaning up of the environment? I don’t understand how anyone, other than various corporations, can be against a cleaner Earth to live in.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pmAw – c’mon Mr. Mandolin – don’t be so thin-skinned – it makes righties look weak.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pmInhof is up for reelection in 2008. Anybody know about the race so far?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pmComment by H8LiberalPussies — December 21, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 6:28 pmAnne? Is that u?
Solar is a no-brainer and has been since the Carter administration. Think how far we’d be along the road to clean renewable energy without Raygun, Bush 1, Clinton & especially Bush2.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:28 pm“I’m curious about something Mandolin. What do you have to lose, personally, by a reduction of CO2″
Comment by Namtillaku — December 21, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
The US economy.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pmX – stop talkin all that Marxist science mumbo-jumbo – you’ll spark a civil war right here and now!
(i’ve been keeping an eye on those developments too – lots of advances being made in those areas now, and lots of smart investment money headed that way)
December 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pmThe US economy.
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
I said YOU, personally. The U.S. economy is already being destroyed by the occupation of Iraq.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pmI’m gonna build a car that is powered by my happy thoughts!
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
I didn’t know you had any of those. I thought you’d want one one that runs on cynicism about humanity and reflexive disdain for progress.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pmI’m gonna build a car that is powered by my happy thoughts!
Comment by mandolin
Finally, someone to make sense of all this…
December 21st, 2007 at 6:31 pm21 Republican Seats up for election in 08, 12 Democratic.
Should be fun, we only need 21 of the 33 seats to get a filibuster proof, majority, 27 of 33 for a veto proof, but odds are we won’t need that…
December 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pmHey
December 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pmMandolin;
William Gray, the hurricane “specialist” doesn’
t believe in global warming.
Facts are dumb things
Comment by H8LiberalPussies — December 21, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Republican chickenhawks are quite liberal when it comes to themselves [Falafels and what not] and weiners. As for the rest of your projectionist diatribe I do think their is a higher power and I have not seen Gores movie but do follow technology and what science and our orbital cycles are about.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pmNamtilly,
December 21st, 2007 at 6:33 pmThe US economy affects me because I LIVE IN THE U.S.!!!
Can you discuss anything without throwing in Iraq?
comment 66 was in response to 12
December 21st, 2007 at 6:34 pmWhy can’t anyone tell me how many hurricanes hit land 200 years ago?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:34 pmX – stop talkin all that Marxist science mumbo-jumbo – you’ll spark a civil war right here and now! -tombaker
Lol, true, there is lots of money headed that way. As for Marx he hated science even though he was, in effect, a metaphysicist.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pmSo do you think Gray is a global warming scientist or not?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pmRight then Mr. Mandolin – economically speaking, why is so much investment capital flowing toward companies engaged in the development of alternative energy sources? Forget the global warming motive – what about the profit motive – or do you think we should lag behind the world in that category, too?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pm#54 Comment by H8LiberalPussies — December 21, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Its so sad how the Godless left tries to fill the hole in their lives by embracing false prophet’s like Gore and blindly following his religion.
BwaaaHaaaaaaHaaaaa
Funniest post on this thread! Your psychological “slip” is showing, oh ye of great faith. Lets hear some ‘o that old time religion! Gimmie some bible thumping like your loonyboy inhof likes to spout. C’mon now you have it you!
Oh and BTW, your name fits you. You are a hater!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pmThe US economy affects me because I LIVE IN THE U.S.!!!
Can you discuss anything without throwing in Iraq?
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Simple thoughts from a simple mind. No sense arguing with a troll.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pmQ-Does anyone know how much the temperature of the ocean has risen over the past 6 years?
A- It hasn’t!
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Chunks of ice floating away from the melting now occurring will absorb heat as it melts, keeping ocean temperatures normal for a while. Meanwhile, rising water levels will probably change weather patterns around the world.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pmJust like a Snickers bar, no matter how you slice’em, they come up peanuts. Or wingnuts, as the case may be.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pmHard to discuss the economy without mentioning Iraq. Think how bad things would be without all the billions of tax dollars pouring into the Military industrial complex. Tax cut for wealthiest, tax breaks for oil companies as they set record profits. How about a little effort to improve all our lives and the economy in the process.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pmHere’s some questions for the lemmings- If there’s nothing to global warming, why does the Bush administration secretly alter scientific reports? Altered by individuals in the administration with no scientific background. Why have so many highly qualified scientists resigned from doing work with the gov’t in frustration? While others have been fired or forced out because they would not alter their findings to fit in with BushCo’s reich-wing agenda. If global warming is BS, these things would not be happening.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:38 pm“economically speaking, why is so much investment capital flowing toward companies engaged in the development of alternative energy sources?”
Comment by tombaker — December 21, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Investors realize that a misinformed congress will soon start mandating such energy sources, much to the detriment of the United States.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pmHow is reducing carbon emissions bad for the economy? It isn’t. It IS bad for oil and coal companies, but not for the economy. Reducing dependency on coal and oil is good for rest of the economy.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pmRepukelickins running for Senate in 08
Lamar – TN
Allard -CO
Chambliss – GA
Cochran – MS
Coleman – MN
Collins – ME
Cornyn – TX
Craig – ID
Dole – NC
Domenici – NM
Enzi – WY
Graham – SC
Hagel – NE (retiring)
Inhofe – OK
McConnell – KY (bye Mitch)
Roberts – KS
Sessions – AL
Smith – OR (or anybody else)
Stevens – AK (if not in jail)
Sununu – NH
Warner – VA
How’s that for a who’s who of corruption and slime?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pmIf global warming is BS, these things would not be happening.
Comment by WaltinTexas — December 21, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
How else to protect the narrow interests of the oil lobby that bought the presidency?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pmRUStupid,
Warner is not running next year.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pmwhat are you driving at, anyway, Mr. Mandolin?
Head up a$$, 90mph, straight toward a brick wall, with the 24%ers ridin’ shotgun.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pm80 – you’re seriously underestimating the wisdom of venture capitalists.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pmThose are a list of the seats that are up for election, broken string.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pmInvestors realize that a misinformed congress will soon start mandating such energy sources, much to the detriment of the United States. Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
The value of the dollar has been halved during the Bush admin and inflation is quite high and our dollar is being dropped as a reserve currency at this time while borrowing from China. The sub-prime mess has also caused the insolvency of some 200 lending institutions [IE Job losses]
December 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pmWhere do you get your economical data from Mandolin?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pmTell us Man/JMH,
How a fictional author, profiting off idiots like yourself, is better suited for guiding National Policy????
I can’t wait for your poingnent answer…
December 21st, 2007 at 6:46 pm80 – you’re seriously underestimating the wisdom of venture capitalists.
Comment by tombaker — December 21, 2007 @ 6:43
December 21st, 2007 at 6:46 pmThey are indeed wise to see that Democrats will destroy the country.
Where do you get your economical data from Mandolin?
Comment by Xisithrus — December 21, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
From the tank of his Happy Thought Mobile.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pmSince a large majority of Americans — 85% — say global warming is probably happening, for the Republic Party to continually screech about how dumb they are is is like watching a zombie walk into a buzz saw. Knock yerselves out, idiots.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pmMandolin: “What is the difference between being funded by exxon and being funded by the sierra club and the National Resources Defense Council?”
Exxon has a lot more money to spend and is a profit-driven corporation. The Sierra Club and Defense council are non-profit public interest groups with a lot less money to spend.
Mandolin: “Q-Does anyone know how much the temperature of the ocean has risen over the past 6 years?
A- It hasn’t!”
This is a great example of how Exxon-funded corporate tools manipulate statistics. WHICH OCEAN? There are quite a few of them you moron. Surface temperature in the mid-Atlantic and Central Pacific have risen by 3 or 4 degrees. In the Atlantic, this tends to make weather systems more severe and in the Pacific this creates what we call El Nino.
And only an Exxon-paid corporate stooge would be whining about the U.S. economy. The German economy has flourished developing and manufacturing solar cells. There is all kinds of technology which our economy could begin developing and manufacturing other than fossil-fuel based.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pmyou’re just plain off your rocker Mr. Mandolin, and you’re going to end up having someone other than myself say a lot of mean things to you.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pmMandolin: “They are indeed wise to see that Democrats will destroy the country.”
Are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet destroying the country you Exxon stooge?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pmThose are a list of the seats that are up for election, broken string.
Comment by RUCerious — December 21, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
That may be, but Warner is not running for senate again.
Broken string-How clever!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pmcomment by jb — December 21, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Heh.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pmCapt. Spastic,
Wiki is a nice source “for me to poop on!”
December 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pmthis al gore and global warming thing is the biggest shoulder-chip i’ve even seen anyone sporting – it has apparently replaced affirmative action as the right’s go-to shoulder-chip.
you begrudgers just knock youselves out, but keep in mind, that to disinterested parties, that shoulder-chip is the only thing visible on your side.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pmMandolin: “They are indeed wise to see that Democrats will destroy the country.â€
Bwah, from September 2006 through September 2007, commodity prices for corn went up ~43%, soybeans went up ~46%, wheat went up ~62%, milk went up ~64%, oats went up ~12%, and so on.
Seems inflation due to Bush and his unfiscal ways, is double digit, which cause debasement of the dollar and hurts the economy
December 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pmThey are indeed wise to see that Democrats will destroy the country.
Comment by mandolin — December 21, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Too late, neocons beat them to that task. It will be up to whoever is in office to salvage whats left of our economy and our middle and working classes. Seems like this country could use some new ideas and new direction. To not pursue solar power is truly head in sand stupidity.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pmAnd as soon as our hole ridden evidence is shot down over and over again until enough people grow tired of the debate…
…we’ll make up more! It’s what we do! We have the money!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pmerrr… we have your money! We’re the GOP!
Thanks for all of your ill informed wisdom. You think regress rejects sure are a swell bunch! Now I’m off to watch Walk Hard. Shall I take the motorcycle that is powered by kitten paws and puppy dog tails or the prop plane that is fueled by my own sense of self satisfaction? The motor bike it is! But where to find some kittens?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Warming or not we still NEED to find alternative sources of energy. As I recall Bush promised to do that, but hasn’t pulled thru.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:56 pm105 – call bill frist – he’s got a mess of’em in his basement for “medical research” purposes
December 21st, 2007 at 6:56 pm#95 Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
…the sooner the debate may come to some productive conclusions.
There can never be any “debate” with the likes of you. You are totally insincere. A valuable debate occurs between two people who are good of heart but see the issue differently. You do not have the “good of the country” or the world for that matter, in mind. Your heart is black. You are not here to discuss or debate. You are a troll, hell bent on using an intellectual approach to disrupting all the threads you taint with your crap.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:57 pmcaptain – when you’re trying to succeed at something, it’s usually a good idea to have some way of telling whether you are or not, don’t you think?
spelunking without a flashlight doesn’t seem like the most efficient way to proceed.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:58 pmI am against using emissions targets (and the fear of environmental calamity) as a way to transfer the wealth of developed countries to developing countries. -Mantastic.
What? Some 300 million, the population of the United States, Chinese have been raised out of poverty because of American companies transfering wealth to these countries because of cheap, if not slave, labor.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:59 pmWhy do the trolls fear/hate environmentalists so? Is it because they live off oil company profits? Is it because their religious beliefs demand that God, and God alone, has the power to influence life on Earth? Or, perhaps, it’s because they practice what they call “love” in airport bathrooms and don’t need to worry about how their, nonexistent, progeny will live?
BTW, if you don’t know the differences between heat and temperature, climate and weather, you have nothing to add to the discussion.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pmI am against handing the sovereign decisions of our environmental policy over to a global governing body.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
that only proves the fear that you are invested in. only a pussy little coward could be afraid of getting the world together to solve “gloabal” climate change. you grow stupider by the post, and youen’t much room left before you’re the same IQ as a turd.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pmMaybe if we all firmly shoved our heads up our a$$es, we’d stand a better chance of seeing the trolls point of view…
December 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pmCaptain: “I think reducing emissions is a great idea. (I hope the next administration can do what the Bush administration has not; commit the U.S. to oil independence)”
Jimmy Carter argued for this way back in 1978 and guys like you have been ridiculing him for decades, so let’s just say you and your friends have a bit of a credibility deficit on this matter. The first thing your demigod, Ronald Reagan, did upon taking the Whitehouse was to have Carter’s solar panels ripped off the roof.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:02 pmMemo to rightwing noise machine: knock yourselves out, idiots. It only emphasizes how out of step with America the GOP is, and exposes the rightwing noise machine as ignorant anti-science flat-earthers.
Oh, and say good-bye to electoral victories in 2008, dumbasses. A vast majority of Americans believe global warming is occurring.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pmWhy do the trolls fear/hate environmentalists so?
Comment by pete
It’s in their blood to hate anyone else who profits more than them with an idea they never had.
Period.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pmCaptain: “I am against using emissions targets…”
Right, you have the novel idea that if we ask fossil-fuel industry corporations nicely, they’ll play along.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:04 pmAny source that contradicts your opinions; you simply deny.
That’s a lie. The point is that a vast preponderance of evidence suggests that CO2 emissions are a very large contributor to global warming.
Knock it off with the straw dogs, doughbrain.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:05 pmComment by CaptainMantastic
Bliovate on, turd lover.
The debate is over.
Cavemen, like you, are extinct, as it should be.
Actaully, I like the Wiki. And Conan O’brien. Sorry to ALWAYS “send one right over” your microcephalic head.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pmCaptain: “This is the solipsism.
Any source that contradicts your opinions; you simply deny. It’s a simple tactic. I’m just saying, it’s not getting you anywhere.”
There’s something else going on here. It’s called “projection.”
December 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pmTheoretically speaking, if Masturbastic’s uncle sent him a $2000 check every month for the windmills on his land, SUDENNLY, he’d be blowing Gore’s skin flute.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pmam against handing the sovereign decisions of our environmental policy over to a global governing body.–mantastic
Kyoto is a protocol not a governing body. It is an agreement.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pmOops! I forgot the driving force of evil. Hate for those who are of superior intellect and character.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:09 pmCaptain: “If you continue to imperically state that the debate is over when many still are skeptical, the deniers will become emboldened and more numerous.”
As was the case with deniers of the linkage between tobacco and lung cancer, it would help if the deniers were not being funded by those making the most profit off of the central issue. We’ve been through this before. The “Tobacco Insitute” spent years issuing papers written by doctors and scientists claiming there were no links between cigarette smoking and cancer. When anyone would point out that these doctors and scientists were on the Reynolds & Reynolds payroll, they were shouted down and accused of “solipsism.” You might be too young to remember, but trust me, it happened.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pmThese global warming threads are about the most fun you can have on TP. The troll-spinning alone is worth the price of admission.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:11 pmLet me also point out that when the evidence became overwhelming that there was a linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer, the stooges paid by the tobacco industry started talking about how regulations would hurt the economy and farmers would lose their livelihood. Everything old is new again.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
I concur.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pmThe REAL reason rightwingers hate Al Gore so much? It’s because in the run-up to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Al Gore said that a pre-emptive war on Iraq would increase the number of terrorists, undercut US influence in the region, and diminish US legitimacy in the world affairs, while George Bush and his sock-puppets said that the war on Iraq would last “weeks, not months,” Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war, and a tide of Democracy would sweep through the Middle East.
Al Gore was 100% right.
George Bush was 100% wrong.
Rightwingers can’t deal with environmental issues for the same reason they can’t win a war: they lack regular contact with reality. They live in Fantasyland.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pmthe stooges paid by the tobacco industry started talking about how regulations would hurt the economy and farmers would lose their livelihood. Everything old is new again.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
I think it’s becoming the Right wings favorite dance, “THE BACK-PEDAL”.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pmI think Bush’s (and Cheney’s) ties to oil has prohibited him from doing what should have been done after 9/11.
But that hasn’t stopped a dolt like you from thinking that what they ACTUALLY did was a mistake?
I didn’t know Neocon’s could use straw men from either side of the isle?!
December 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pmAgain, Captain, Carter made these points you claim to think someone should make a long time ago and he’s has never ceased to be an object of ridicule for people like you. Maybe it would help if you acknowledged that point and agreed that you were wrong about Carter at least from that standpoint.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:18 pmCaptain, as someone who has a great interest in human nature, I can’t help but notice that you seem unable to acknowledge that Jimmy Carter was a visionary in this area. He gave major policy speeches to the nation saying we needed to become energy independent. He asked industry to do what was necessary to never again be dependent on middle-eastern oil. He asked congress to give tax incentives to companies developing alternative energy and had solar panels installed on the Whitehouse roof.
I would like to hear just one conservative give Carter credit for at least that.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:32 pmShorter CaptainMantastic: “I am paranoid about scientists lying to me, and paranoid that an international agreement on air quality would run the Congress, ther White House, the Courts, and hornswoggle the entire US populace.
Get therapy.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:36 pmThanks.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:37 pmHere’s a dirty little secret; Bush isn’t all good or all bad, either.
Hmm, there WAS Bush’s implementing the national “do-not-call list.” I’d say that was his triumph.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pmI’ve never been a huge fan of Carter, but, mentioning him in the same sentence as Bush (Pah!) makes me throw up.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pmMandolin unfortunately represents the state of the art for conservative thinkers. It is indeed a very sorry picture.
1. Michael Crichton seems to be sited as a serious scientist with serious knowledge on global warming. I know that poor old Mandolin will be more than willing to cite each peer reviewed article that has appeared in a scientific journal written by Crichton. I am sure that Mandolin will be more than willing to provide the curriculum vitae of Crichton with respect to his qualifications as a climatologist. OH, wait, Crichton really has not published any studies or conducted any research in this area. Oh, wait, his background is in biology. However, he has been know to write good science fiction.
2. In comment #12, Mandolin just lies by asserting that global warming scientists said that there would be a record number of hurricanes this year. Mandolin, I am calling you out as a vile liar. I want to see your quote to a reputable source. You and I both know that no scientist had made such a prediction. The prediction has been for a general trend. That trend has held when viewing hurricane action over a several year period. Now that we know that you will resort to any unethical, dishonest tactic, Mandolin, we know you for the piece of defecation that you are. By the way, we had 90 degree weather in my state this year during October. Does this prove global warming? No. However, the average temperatures in our state have been rising over the last two decades consistent with increased green house gas emissions. Not absolute proof, but very persuasive.
‘3. Mandolin then wants to know how many hurricanes hit land 200 years ago. Failed to explain the point of the argument. The usual stance of a unethical and dishonest advocate. Bring up something only marginally relevant that most people would not know. Then, argue that anyone who cannot argue this irrelevant point has no right to speak., We know you are scum, so, lets follow real debating rules. Since reputable scientific study has indicated an increase in hurricane activity over the last thirty five years, since peer reviewed studies and the overwhelming scientific opinion (IPCC, US government global change committee and others) tie the increase in the average number and increase in severity of hurricanes to man made global warming; I would say that the burden of going forward with the argument falls on Mandolin to come forward with the numbers and set forth a SCIENTIFIC basis as to why this questions global warming in the current time frame.
4. At comment #15 Mandolin wants to know how much the average temperature of the sea has changed in six years – its answer – 0. Mandolin, which average temperature are you speaking about? Are you speaking about a weighted average temperature across all of the oceans on this planet? Are you speaking about surface temperatures or the weighted average of temperatures across the various strata of the seas? Again, Mandolin fails to state how this impacts the theory of global warming. However, consider this:
a. Surface temperatures in localized areas have been increasing. This has correlated to an increase in the average number and severity of hurricanes and other severe weather conditions such as storms and droughts,.
b. Now, I am not a scientist, but I will posit the following argument. Ice melt has occurred because of global warming. The ice melt has extremely low salinity. This impacts the density of water and tends to change the speed of the major ocean currents. Monitoring activity indicates that the Gulf Stream Current has slowed even faster than predicted by most global warming models. (You have to realize that the North Atlantic Drift has received a lot of the run off from the arctic region.) Indeed, ice melt has been a lot faster than most predicted. Thus, warm surface water stays longer in the southern Atlantic. Indeed, this has been consistent with global warming theory and the observed increase over time of the number and severity of hurricanes.
5. Comment 18, Mandolin attacks those supporting environmental groups as lefty hacks. First, Mandolin, this is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. I call you a liar because factually you have lied with respect to any global warming scientist to have specifically predicted an increase in the number of hurricanes in the past year. I call stupid because your belief that Michael Crichton who has neither a background in climates studies and has never conducted any scientific research in the area summed up every thing in a work of science fiction. EXXON AND OTHER ENERGY COMPANIES HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. THEY STAND TO LOSE BILLIONS TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES. THUS THERE IS A VERY OBVIOUS PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE DEBATE. NOW, I DO NOT SEE THE PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF LEFTY HACKS. THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST AND YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO OTHER MOTIVE TO LIE AND ALLEGEDLY PUT US ON A COURSE TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY.
5. Comment 19, Mandolin wants to argue that there are no alternative energy sources to what we have now., We know that is not true. The President just approved measures to increase gas efficiency standards by 2012 – to the same level that they had been during the 1980″s. We could actually invest in a real public transit system. Look at Europe – excellent subway, light rail and rail transport systems. It would take government subsidies, but the heavy use of automobiles already depends on massive public subsidies. We could actually conduct a Manhattan type research into alternative energy sources. Wind power, solar power and geothermal can already start making an impact and should really be supported. It certainly would be contrary to providing massive tax relief and other goodies to carbon based fuel companies when they are making historic profits. I would like to see your support for the assertion that solar power will never power the world. We know that it can play a valuable part of the energy grid. No one asks for it to do it all.
6. Mandolin’s biggest argument is one of economics. First, the United Nations has already done a study indicating that it would be a moderate cost to move away from a carbon based energy system. Indeed, should the environmental consequences predicted come to pass (and the observed trends support the validity, if not underestimation of these trends) the cost will be much greater.
Mandolin – you are an idiot. You show the same intellectual depth that I would expect out of Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton. You think anyone who is on the left is simply dishonest while ignoring the very real financial incentives of those supporting a lot of the attacks on global warming. You out and out lie – and I can have absolutely no respect for scum like you. I have argued these points with some who really have integrity and honesty. It is a stimulating experience. Some points I have conceded. In other instances they concede points. We both come out better informed. However, an argument with you is like an evening drunk with a cheap whore. You get very little and feel real dirty.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pmComment by JMOHR — December 21, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Bravo!
However, I would like to add one short (even short enough for trolls) comment.
All that Mankind can do, to protect the environment, can be summed up in two words: “Conservation” and “innovation”.
And, when all is said and done, all that separates us from the lower beasts is conservation and innovation. I guess that’s why trolls can’t quite make the jump to “human”.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pmJMohr: Kudos, friend! Nicely done!! Wow!
December 21st, 2007 at 8:32 pmTo a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down†of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality?
Just asking.
Comment by Gin — December 21, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Are you talking about the free marketeers?
December 21st, 2007 at 8:38 pmHey jb: if there’s been “a gradual ‘ramping down’ of the dire predictions,” as you say, prove it. Because I say that’s a lie, based solely on a handful of hysterical presentations in the popular press.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:42 pmIf you believe man is responsible for “global warming” then you’d have to support getting rid of natural gas and coal-fired power plants, and constructing nuclear power plants.
Those coal plants create much more CO2 and air pollution than your cars.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:46 pmComment by Gin — December 21, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
You do raise one interesting point. I think it’s regrettable that the most noted names in environmental issues are “activists”, particularly celebrities. There is, however, a very good reason for this. No one recognizes scientists any more.
Way back, when I was a kid, the great scientists were household names. I wonder, how many young victims of society know who Werner von Braun was? Or, how about the work of Darwin aside from his work on evolution?
And I can dang well guarantee that the contributions, to aeronautics, of Clarence (Kelly) Johnson are no longer common schoolroom material.
The problem is that society demands a “face”, regardless of the brain behind it, for any issue to receive notice. And, as we well know, many of those “faces” are subject to ridicule. Therein lies the tragedy of our times.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:50 pmComment by muckdog — December 21, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
And if that’s not a perfect demonstration of narrow-minded ignorance; what is?
Here, I’ll repeat this for you.
All that Mankind can do, to protect the environment, can be summed up in two words: “Conservation†and “innovationâ€.
The continued protection of the short-term profits, of the energy industry, is the only explanation for “anti-environmentalism”. But hey! Look on the bright side. All those nasty, newly synthesized, man-made chemicals will probably “thin the herd” before much beach property is actually lost.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pmThose coal plants create much more CO2 and air pollution than your cars.
Unless you get yer facts straight, goober, you oughtta keep yer trap shut:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg96rpt/chap2.html
December 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pmGin:
December 21st, 2007 at 9:44 pm1) Perfect for what?
If you’re asking ‘for the way we live now,” the answer is ‘about two or three degrees from what we have now.’
We shift 5 degrees Celsius to either direction, we’ll have to change the way we live considerably. Growing seasons change, crop yields change, moisture patterns change. And you know what that means? People die. Wars get fought over shifting power from changing resources.
And the point ignored here is the derivative: if the climate changes over 300 years, adaptations can occur: migration, adaptation of agriculture. If it occurs in 50, we get disaster. Oxidation is one chemical process–but depending on the time frame,you csn get rust–or a candle flame–or a handgrenate. The difference is speed of change.
2. What a weird question.
It’s about 15ËšC, or 59ËšF.
It’s going up.
Averasges are useful when they change. They aren’t that great for static decriptions, but they point out underlying processes when they shift, for precisely the reasons they’re bad forstatic descriptions.
3. This has been dealt with in detail by the climate scientists. There’s been no increase in the sun’s output; we are not in a period of massive volcanic activity; And no asteroids the size of Manhattan have slammed into the Earth. The Greenhouse Effect is the winner.
4. What, you mean by the Federal Government? You mean by people getting on cable TV and calling scientists eugenicist Nazis?
You guys are getting science mixed up with politics. Science is a dialectic process, where data are scrutinized and hypotheses are tested. ‘Dissent’ is not a scientific process. You can differ, but ou’ve got to play by the rules. You csn dispute the data, but you have to have grounds. You can differ with a theory, but only by criticizing the methodology, the math, or the reasoning. Scientists always listen to other points of view–that’s what science is all about–but hey have criteria for listening. The dissenter has to take it as well as dish it out.
The climate scientists have dealt with these alternate theories. They’ve analyzed them, criticized them, and refuted them.
You feel justified, though, in issuing criticisms to their theories without listening to their criticisms of yours.
5. A disingenuus question, but here’s the answers: a)the warnings have contingencies that you ignore. “If the Greenland ice cap melts” is one such qualifier in the case of 20 feet as opposed to a few inches. and b) they were issued at different times and at different changes in the process of research.
6. See my first point: global warming might have some beneficial effects–if it happened leisurely. Two inches of rainfall is a good thing that helps plants grow–if it occurs over a month. If it occurs in one day it will kill. And it will change the patterns of the way we live. What happens if the American midwest becomes the American Sahara, andCana`da `becomes the` `bre`adba`sket o“f the` wo“`rld? Do we just move to Canada? Or does a
THE RESIDENTS OF POMPEII ALSO THOUGH THEY WERE QUITE OK TO SETTLE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE VEZUVIUS…
December 21st, 2007 at 9:52 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
Yup, no droughts recently. You refuted the hell out of that argument.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:59 pmGin, Pat Sajak,
Let me answer your questions with a question:
What do we stand to lose by shifting away from our fossil fuel dependency and cutting our greenhouse emissions?
Let’s take this from a game theory standpoint shall we:
1. Anthropogenic Global warming is a fact
True:
Defect: Billions die.
Cooperate: Fossil fuel based companies lose some money and we shed our dependence on ME oil
False:
Defect: We shed our dependence on ME oil and some fossil fuel based companies lose some money unneccesarily
Cooperate: Nothing changes
Now, if it were up to me, the penalty associated with defecting from the anthropogenic global warming scenario is enough to make me consider it strongly. But that’s just me.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:14 pm…America become Mexico–a land of scrabbling subsistence farmers and corrupt petty officials arguing over pennies, while the Canadians shout on their TVs about building a wall to keep the Yanks out?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:27 pm7. What if Britain falls to the Nazis? What if Stalin takes over Europe? What if terrorists get nuclear weapons?
It’s a matter of threat assessment and probability. And also the cost of the measures to deal with it.
Communism aking over the free world was a what if? situation. Catastrophic over-the-pole nuclear war was a what if? situation. And it required throwing a vast part of our economy into the military and probably weakened and shortened the postwar boom. A huge price, and there was no proof that the Soviets wanted to occupy the US–just a bunch of data that suggested it. Andas it turned out, the Soviet Union was far poorer and far less powerful than we thought–and they collapsed without us firing a shot.
By this objectio, we should sit there and go ‘yeah, right. Global terrorism. The same old defense analysts crying the same old song about a big boogeyman! Oh! Oh! Soooo Scary! The last big shape on the horizon blew up like the Hindenburg! Why are you asking us to believe you?
8. It’s worth considering. However, the longer we wait, the larger the changes. If you take your car into the shop the first time the brakes make a funny noise, you may be annoyed at the bill. But if you ignore it, think i’s probably nothing, and not go in (as I did) until the brskes make sound like a junkyard compacter, the bill is much, much higher. In the case of global warming, i’s even better: the mechanic has aready told you it needs new pads and new calipers on two wheels, but you’re outraged at the price and drive out of the shop.
9/ Good point. Successes can be hard to measure.
Failures are more obvious.
Like the millennium bombing that was foiled, verus 9/11 that wasn’t.
But let’s take the probem of the ozone layer and chlorofluorocarbons. The same processes that alerted us to the problem are also measuribg its victory.
If you stop smoking and start exercising, are you winning the battle against heart disease? You won’t know that until you go to the doctor again–and probably a number of times.
10) Thousands upon thousands of scientists working diligently for decades, amassing petabytes of climate data and testing it to confirm that hypothesis?
Gin: You ask good questions. However, do not expect simple questions.
1. There is not a perfect temperature for humanity. There is a temperature range that is suitable to human life. Current goals are not to lower the temperature of the earth. It is to either stop or slow the warming trend that we have seen. The temperature on earth can warm more without destroying human life. However, it could well destroy our current economic system. Higher temperatures do cause changes in weather patterns. We are seeing increased droughts in a number of areas such as our southwest, Australia and other areas. Sajaks question tries to simplify the real issue. We do not want man made climate changes that create significant weather pattern changes. Shifts in global climate are gradual and thus give plenty of warning if one looks at the system and predict the impact of human activity. Would we ever have cooling? Yes, just think of a large meteor or series of volcanoes or a nuclear war (remember the concept of a nuclear winter.) You try to make it sound like resetting temperature is easy. It is not. The real goal is to avoid a change in the climate ranges of the world. We are seeing the creep tropical zone north words. Plants and species that were in the south have headed North. The Northwest Passage is becoming a reality. Wide spread drought, the failure of current crop distribution patterns and increase catastrophic weather conditions would cause a lot of problems. Put it this way, the Department of Defense is already planning for potential wars over natural resources (water) and agricultural production due to global warming.
2. You better take a course in climatology. My understanding is that temperatures are weighted averaged over time and geographic location using a combination of ground recording equipment and thermal imaging from satellites. How does slowing the change fit in? We want to limit extreme weather changes. Any system undergoing change is a system in disequilibrium. It will show greater disparity and more extreme changes than a stable system. The changes that are occurring in the Gulf Stream due to dilution of sea water from low salinity ice pack melt is a prime example. We see higher surface temperatures and more extreme hurricane activity in the south Atlantic. Indeed, (in partial response to another of your questions) there will be areas that actually become colder in North America and Europe as was the case in the 18th century (I believe) Mini Ice Age that occurred when the stream last slowed.
3. Actually, we do have a good idea through geologic evidence of the factors that were responsible for both warming and cooling phases in the past. Layers of earth provide excellent indications of green house gas content and even volcanic ash that were responsible for some of the most significant climates changes millions of years ago. The climate scientists have been able to look for similar factors in the current environment and they simply do not contribute enough to account for current temperature increases.
4. I have to turn your question around. What evidence do you have of scientific dissent being stifled? Science is advanced by theory, observation and published results with peer review. We really do not see very many articles in peer reviewed journals that show different theories based upon scientifically tested results. Please cite them to me. What I do see are a lot of op ed pieces drafted by scientists working for industry groups or climatology amateurs such as Crichton who writes a book based upon his personal opinions with general science thrown in. I have seen the Union of Concerned Scientists attack the Bush administration for doctoring science. We have seen NASA scientists place their careers on the line by calling out the administration for attempting to suppress scientific conclusions and studies supporting the theory of global climate warming. We did see CDC protest that its report on global warming had been changed to eliminate reference to the increased disease and starvation that would arise from global warming. The administration only left in the positive advantages of global warming even though CDC’s research indicated that the negatives far outweighed the positives. It was also the Bush administration that had a presidential aid go over all global warming studies and papers to be released by the government. This aid (who had no scientific training but had done a lot of PR for energy companies) systematically deleted and changed language to down play the threat of global warming.
5. Where do you get your facts? Your reference is actually to a demonstration by Gore of what would happen if all ice pack melted. This would take to the end of the century. You refer to what is likely to happen in our time. Scare tactics? Well there are some people out there who are very resistant to understanding things. It is sort of like the scientific row over smoking. You could go for years and not develop cancer, there were so many other potential causes, there was a legitimate scientific controversy over the link between cancer and smoking, there were even health benefits to smoking – sound kind of familiar? However, the ultimate impacts to global warming could destroy society as we know it. It will take many generations to slow and then stop global warming. The immediate impacts are small and this seems to confuse you.
6. The government already studied this issue. CDC says that it will cause a dramatic rise in disease that would far offset any health benefits from warmer temperatures. Bush tried to suppress the information as merely a stylistic edit. Look, growing seasons will be longer in some areas and deserts will expand in other areas, Look at the drought out west and in the south. We cannot definitively say that these were caused by global warming any more than we can say a certain person got lung cancer from smoking. However, it is consistent with what we would see from climate change. Changing the climate in large areas will displace population, create water shortages (air carries more water when warm), change rain patterns and cause many other problems that will far outweigh the benefit of getting a sun tan in Ohio in December.
7. You see, your question could well be the doom of mankind. Those who believe that global warming is wrong also tend to be those who invaded Iraq because they thought Saddam had WMD, threaten Iran because it has the scientific knowledge to start work on nuclear weapons. I guess you have to weigh the potential loss to our society. I guess this is why I really do get rankled by those who allege that dissent is suppressed. There are very few scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring, that it is not good for the human race and that something should be done about it. This is not a what if situation. How many millions died smoking because a small minority of scientific opinion said that the case had not been established. I am sorry, but there is still a flat earth society as well. We are getting close to that range with global warming.
8. I am really trying to be civil. However, the more I read of your questions, the more I realize that you are not as well read as you have said. I am sorry. We are not talking about getting rid of foreign oil in the next several decades. You seem to think this is like a light switch, turn it on or off. We are talking about a lot of different initiatives that will take time to implement. You just seem to have read the first level of arguments. I see the same with some of my friends on the left. You have a very simplistic and “sound bite” knowledge of the issue. You should question what will happen to the US economy when the middle east demands ten times more the cost of oil because they have lost what little supply of rain that they did have because of the advance of desertification. You should ask what will happen when Southern California needs to be cut off from Colorado’s and Northern California’s water due to drought. (Not to unlikely since this is already happening to farmers in the San Diego area.) I hope that responsible scientists and government officials can work out the details. However, I have a feeling that we will never have enough details and discussions for you to make a decision.
9. Please, the goal right now is just to slow down and stop the warming trend. The other items you measure are actually incidental results of global warming. Again, despite saying that you are well read in the area, you just don’t seem to get it.
10. May be this issue has taken on such importance to so many because there has been such a great degree of scientific consensus that this is indeed a problem. Perhaps this has become such an issue because we are beginning to see the warning signs of very serious potential problems in the future. Increases in drought, the loss of ice pack, more extreme weather conditions are already appearing. They show a substantial shift in historical trends. There has not been a damping down of doomsday predictions. There are short term and there are long term effects. The long term really are more dire. The short term are like canaries in the mine.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:32 pmnice, JMOHR, but wasted on the likes of capt manhandler and the rest of the neoturd wingnuts, who think that threatening a billionaire’s next couple million is more dangerous and unAmerican than destroying the viability of the planet for our grandchildren.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:35 pmWell, here’s the problem with Gin’s other “interesting points”. They are based on fallacies such as “fundamental changes in how we live”, or, “how can we know we’re doing any good”. And I won’t even dignify “maybe global warming is a good thing” with a response. They are straight out of the “Big Book of Irrational Fears”.
While greenhouse emissions currently enjoy too much press, the issue is, and always has been, pollution. So long as we keep, indiscriminately, pumping out toxins, the environment degrades. I’m old enough to remember the “love canal” and a sterile, chemical laden, Lake Erie. We can mitigate the damage to the environment without making fundamental changes in how we live. And, success is measured by how much damage we can avoid or repair.
Oh sure, we may have to adjust what we want (oversize, unnecessary, 4X4’s idling away in, stop and go, city traffic leap to mind) but we don’t need to sacrifice what we need. Existing technologies and common sense, if pursued, can greatly reduce the damage.
Even if “global warming is a hoax” we can also reduce emissions of other, and possibly more dangerous, pollutants. Remember, there are thousands of compounds released from the burning of fossil fuels alone. Anything that reduces those compounds is a net gain, even if we don’t live long enough to see it.
Once again, I really don’t see the downside in increasing efficiency and utilizing technology.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:42 pmNow, if it were up to me, the penalty associated with defecting from the anthropogenic global warming scenario is enough to make me consider it strongly. But that’s just me.
Comment by erock — December 21, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
You do realize that using one’s brain is not in the rightard playbook, don’t you? Thinkers are not highly prized on the right, they make waves. Followers, sheeplike drones, are what we’re dealing with here.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:46 pmSorry CaptainMantastic you are a day late and a dollar short as usual.
I love it when someone cites a study to be published in 2006. I will go with the Group I study by the IPCC:
What the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says (from Working Group I Report, Summary for Policy Makers [PDF] (2007):
*
About the past: “There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.”
More recent data by the IPCC group contradicts what you have said. Additionally, we have seen increased droughts in the South and SouthWest of the US. We have also seen record droughts in Australia. Note that the group is more than willing to concede where there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion. I know that we will never agree. Again, these are consistent with the prediction of global climate change models.
NOAA also had a study out in the same time period linking hurricanes to increased water temperatures but saying that as of that point, human activity was a suspected but not proven cause.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pmRecord warmth in any one year is not in itself highly significant.
What is noteworthy, however, is that global average temperatures experienced a net rise over the twentieth century, and the average rate of this rise has been increasing.
When scientists attempt to reproduce these twentieth century trends in their climate models, they are only able to do so when INCLUDING human-produced heat-trapping emissions in addition to natural causes.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:48 pmComment by JMOHR — December 21, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
I’m copying and pasting that in all future climate change arguments with your permission.
Are you a climatologist or some related field by trade?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:51 pmComment by JMOHR — December 21, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
You’re on fire! (And not in the excessive heat leading to combustion sense.) Alas, I fear the Lefty Patriot is correct. I think that we can include most of our trolls in the “still smoking despite the science” crowd. Sigh. We can’t legislate common sense.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pmErock: Actually, I am a retired litigator. My specialty was aerospace defense. I had to learn a lot about engineering. A lot of the stuff involved real leading edge technology. I also did aviation liability. I got to work a lot with engineers and scientists.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pmHere’s a dirty little secret; Bush isn’t all good or all bad, either.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
here’s a dirty little fact; you’re as stupid as anyone who’s ever showed up here. there is noithing good about Bush, not a single, solitary molecule. nothing, zero, nada, since the day he was born. anything that appears good that he’s been involved in is a political calculation at best, or a mistake.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:05 pmI got to work a lot with engineers and scientists.
Comment by JMOHR — December 21, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Well your knack for the written word is apparent. Always nice to see a well-formed argument put to action. Keep up the good work.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:09 pmMandolin unfortunately represents the state of the art for conservative thinkers.
Comment by JMOHR — December 21, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
With all due respect, I do believe this statement is a text book example of an oxymoron.
“Conservative thinkers“? C’mon now….
If they actually thought they’d have better things to do than troll 24×7 at ThinkProgress….
December 21st, 2007 at 11:20 pmOther than that, JMOHR, your posts were very informative. While they were probably lost on the people they were addressed to (they are not here to exchange opinions but to obfuscate and insult), the rest of us can definitely benefit.
That was nicely put. In a civil manner too.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:28 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Sounds more to me like there is evidence of a trend, but substandard and/or non-existent record keeping prevents any concrete conclusions from being drawn. So the correlation must be made through anecdotal evidence rather than solid scientific data. Just my interpretation.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:56 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Actually, the “dust bowl” was the result of poor land management as much as drought. Also, it was pretty well isolated. Remember all the “Okies” going to California?
Now? 3,000 year old Bristle cone pines (not to mention younger ones) are dying for lack of moisture, on the West Coast, while Atalanta may soon run out of water altogether. Personally, I find the sudden death of organisms, which have survived everything nature has thrown at them over the millenniums, alarming. And, I have no idea where the citizens of Atalanta are supposed to go. Not here. The water table in my lake filled state is at an all time low as well.
The current number of droughts, worldwide, is pretty alarming. Though, to be fair, they are exacerbated by the unprecedented scale of modern agriculture. All that plowing, even with modern methods, reduces the ability of soil to hold whatever rain may fall.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pmSuspected but not proven: aren’t you making the cause that the debate on the issue isn’t over?
We suspect something, but we can’t prove it. So, the debate is over? And we should make policy based on our suspicion? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
You should never get anything more than suspicion or theory of a trend in the empirical sciences. Such is the nature of science. After all, gravity can’t really be proven. We just have a strong suspicion that everything on Earth that comes up will eventually come back down.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pmCaptain Mantastic: There were two studies cited. The first (which is the most recent and best researched) by IPCC does draw the link. You cited a study that was several years earlier. The study stated that hurricanes could not be linked to warmer Atlantic waters. I cited the NOAA study to indicate that NOAA had already noted the LINK between warmer waters and increased hurricane activity and severity. Your study asserted that there was no LINK.
Now, we can continue the conversation with respect to your second argument that NOAA suspected but could not prove that global warming was due to man made factors. So what? NOAA’s lead scientists have since conceded that the major cause of global warming is caused by man’s activities. Hell, even President Bush now concedes that global warming is a problem and due in large part to man’s activities.
Yes, I am sure that your misunderstanding of my argument caused confusion to you. However, NOAA actually addressed the issue in two separate sections of its public report. One section tied increased activity to the warmer waters. The second section noted that NOAA suspected but had not yet determined that global warming and that the resulting increase in surface temperature was caused by man.
I just wanted to note that even at the time of the 2006 study, NOAA had disagreed with its principle finding. I am glad that NOAA and President Bush have since recognized man’s involvement in global warming in a speech the week prior to the German G-8 meeting (where he groped Merkel). Indeed, Professor John Maiburger, one of the President’s science advisers, stated that it was 90% likely that mankind has been responsible for the current climate change. Look, its late and I am tired or I would have linked the sites. But do not suggest that I believe that man’s complicity in climate change is merely a suspicion. I would not do that. However, if I cite something, I will put in the full context even though it may say somethings I disagree with or (as in this case) provided their preliminary but not final conclusion as to causality.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 amComment by CaptainMantastic — December 21, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Not “proof versus theory” again! Let me make this really simple.
If the physicists of the early 20th century had waited, for Einstein to “prove” his theories, the atom would never have been split.
I might add that the term “global warming” is a media invention, and, like most media inventions it’s not quite accurate. If one reads through the very boring work on “greenhouse effect” one becomes aware that increased greenhouse gases lead to heat being trapped. (Like a big thick blanket.)
Though it’s, a bit, counterintuitive the possible effects include temporary local, regional, or even global cooling. (Like the chill one gets from sweating under too thick a blanket.) Predicting the actual effects, at a given moment, is impossible. Predicting the longterm average effect, is comparatively simple, and, supported by voluminous data.
And, contrary to Reich-wing projection, ALL the “opposition” is politically/economically motivated. Plus an unhealthy fear of any change. This too is supported by voluminous data.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 amI have to wonder about the Bush loyalists and assorted global warming deniers who demand absolute, ultimate, 100% “proof” that global warming is a reality and man-made, but are more than willing to support a military strike against Iran because that country just might have the intentions of developing a nuclear weapon. Perhaps. Maybe. Let’s bomb ‘em, you know, just in case. Let’s not let the threat materialize….
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 amthis is a reasonable post, but you have to admit that anecdotal evidence and interpretation is not consistent with the mantra that progressives use when they insist we should ‘rely on the scientists’, in regards to global warming theory.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 22, 2007 @ 12:18 am
true, it’s not ideal to rely on something other than strictly scientific data. However, given that that is not always possible, especially in particularly impoverished portions of the globe, we must defer to the next best thing. If data gathered through available methods reinforces what current suspicions are, there is no reason to reject said data. Again, this is just my interpretation of the snippet you put in your post. I urge you to refer to the article in question for further details.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 amJust have patience with those of us who want a thorough debate before we commit to regulation.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 22, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Sorry, but strictly speaking, the “law” of gravity is nothing more than a statistical observation. I could reinforce this “law” based on the natural tendencies of bodies in Minkowski space, but then you’d have to agree with my assertion that the theory of relativity is law…which is again, nothing more than statistical observation.
It is not unreasonable to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a theory before allowing it to dictate our policy. In general, it would be foolish not to exhaust all possible scenarios and theories. However, there is strong evidence that man-made emissions are at least partly responsible for global climate change. Further, fossil fuels will eventually be exhausted, soon by current projections in fact. Coupled with the already known negative effects of greenhouse emissions, the imminent expiration of fuels would make us foolish not to move towards environment-friendly policies which will ween us off of fossil fuels AND foster cleaner energy sources. I am not a climatologist, as such, I realize that I know little enough to defer to the experts, who, by and large, forecast grave changes for mankind should we progress with the status quo. To me, the debate is over.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 amJust have patience with those of us who want a thorough debate before we commit to regulation.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 22, 2007 @ 12:29 am
So far the only debate I’ve seen is between the scientists & politicians, or scientists & big Oil. I haven’t seen any debate amongst the scientists over the basic facts that man is having an effect on the warming that is being seen worldwide or that this warming could be very dangerous in the future. The article that this thread discusses is a good example. They take the words of scientists that are debating the degree & consequences of warming, cherrypick through the text and find statements that support the political viewpoint & call that a debate. Add to that some quotes from hacks paid for by companies that will benefit by ignoring GW and you’ve got your so-called debate.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 amComment by erock — December 22, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Just to follow on the point “fossil fuels will eventually be exhausted”.
One thing that’s seldom mentioned is the other uses for petroleum. Living without gas burning cars would be inconvenient, in the short term, but, what will happen when we run out of cheap plastic?
It sounds like a trivial question, but, it’s not. Much of the modern world, way beyond energy, depends on petroleum products besides gasoline. Personally, I’d like to devote much of the remaining petroleum reserves for those other uses. There are so many alternative fuel sources that it just makes good sense.
I recently read an article (I’ll be danged if I can find a link.) which compared burning gas/oil to setting one’s house on fire for heat. It further stated that a shift away from burning oil would enable us to use those dwindling reserves indefinitely for other uses. The reasoning was that we can still make plastics, and countless other useful things, long after oil production becomes untenable for fuel.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 amWell, if we shut down the coal and natural gas plants that produce electricity, constructed more nuclear power plants, and used the natural gas for our transportation, wouldn’t that be better?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 amAt the end of the day, we need an open honest dialogue in this country. We need to allow for divergent opinions and we need to respect a person’s right to that opinion. We need to put an end to assigning blame, and polarizing rhetoric.
We either come together as a people, or we face a certain future devoid of civility and our common humanity. We either lead the planet to genuine freedom or we denigrate into the abyss of an unstoppable nightmare; which will rob future generations of the grand dream of our Founding Fathers.
We are now at a crossroad in our history; regardless whether we recognize it or not, we must ask, where do we go from here, the choice is ours.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:05 amComment by muckdog — December 22, 2007 @ 1:55 am
Better? Probably. However, internal combustion reciprocating engines are not terribly efficient. Even a turbine driven “hybrid” (where the mechanical drive-train is replaced with cables and drive motors), or pure electric, would be a better choice. Also, much can still be done to improve the efficiency of, and emissions from, conventional power plants. I don’t think that total elimination of fuel burning plants is a realistic goal but much can be done with existing and developing technologies.
Don’t forget wind, wave, solar, and even geo-thermal.
So, we are left with nuclear. Even though I grew up with “Atomic Mutant” movies, I don’t fear nuclear energy production. I think that America’s rejection of nuclear energy boarders on criminal and will continue to haunt us for the foreseeable future. I’m not even greatly worried about spent fuel storage.
What does worry me is: “Who’s going to be in charge of safety”? I don’t consider glory driven politicians, or profit driven “suits”, to be terribly qualified. That, of course, is the problem with any potentially dangerous technology. All too often the engineers and technologists lose control. That being said, I’m convinced that safe nuclear power is possible and necessary.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 amComment by Citizen_of_Earth — December 22, 2007 @ 2:05 am
Very true, but, there’s a fly in the ointment. What’s that?
There are lots of greedy people. Historically, the greedy people in this country have fought, mostly, amongst themselves and things moved along relatively unchanged. Today, however, The greedy people have ticked off the non greedy.
At the risk of sounding like a “leftist”, this “class warfare” is part of the evolution of any society. We are definitely in a class war and there is some indication that we will choose the right path while avoiding armed insurrection.
My guess is that we will know within 3-5 years. Either the neocons will be in prison, or we’ll have fighting in our streets. There are countless other issues, but, that’s the big one. I don’t think it’s ever been more obvious that we need to make sweeping changes in our government. Mostly these changes are in personnel rather than procedure. However, I think term limits would go a long way towards preventing another hostile takeover of our government.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 amHeh, Inhofe. He is so precious. Oklahoma is such a great state.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 amComment by pete — December 22, 2007 @ 2:26 am
I believe you lost muckdog at “reciprocating engines”.
The poor chap can barely spell “nuclear”. And he still thinks it’s the latest and greatest technology available.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 amAgreed. And the more I re-read those last few posts by him, the funnier they are. And I’m most definately NOT high. I’ve got to be careful not to laugh out loud, or blow coffee out of my nose….everyone else is still alseep in our house.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 22, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Too bad 70% of the American people think that you;re a traitor, bigfoot, but enjoy your treason while it lasts. you and mantastic can blow each other in prison.
Hey LP, were talking about George W. Bush, or Hillary Clinton?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 22, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Not surprising that you can’t read clear English, only your stupidity explains your treason and proud ignorance of the shambles George Bush has made of America. Hillary Clinton even has the support of her Republican constituents, so, once again, your misogyny rears its ugly head. But, as you are a died-in-the-wool coward, we can understand why Hillary scares you so much.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 amO. Frank Bigmouth Bin Ladens,
I believe the word that best describes your viewpoints is:
IRRELEVANT.
As in, the minority whining cheerleaders of the dumb and dumber.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 amThe U.S. is having some success at reducing emissions:
http://www.americanthinker.com/ blog/ 2007/ 12/ kyoto_schmyoto.html
Just have patience with those of us who want a thorough debate before we commit to regulation.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 22, 2007 @ 12:29 am
This is true – and we did it by exporting our manufacturing industry to China.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmAfter proper atonement, anyone who has been Anti-American can become Pro-American.
I presume, O Bigmouth, that you are smearing as Anti-American the 70% of your fellow citizens who oppose the war in Iraq? Are you also smearing as unpatriotic the 60% of military families who now oppose the war?
No wonder you rightwing idiots can’t govern: you live in Fantasyland.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pmOnce again everyone….these trolls are here to distract and keep the the conversation going in a circle. It keeps us from building on the conversation. From reading these comments one might almost think they are trained to do this work, probably paid to do it. It’s sad to see them hijack the energy here even for a moment. Choose wisely!!
December 24th, 2007 at 9:41 amI’m gonna build a car that is powered by my happy thoughts!
Comment by mandolin
A car powered by your brain power Mandolin? I think you’re better off with your plan of farts and gummy bears.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThe problem with people loke Mandolin is that they only come on to sites likes this to stir up crap. They have no economic data to support their claim that fighting climate change will destroy our economy. When I say no economic data, I mean not one shred of evidence. There is not one single defensible position from these jerks that can’t be refuted and layed to rest. There aim is to continue the confusion game without providing a single economic fact to support their unsupportable economic fiction game foisted onto us by big oil and coal. I empower you to bring on one single economic fact to support your position. Rest assured, I will provide all of the necessary holes in your case, but I don’t have to worry because you have zero facts to argue your case.
December 25th, 2007 at 1:06 pmYeah, when Al Gore’s henchwoman played the ad hominem Exxonicus card, she was called on it, and she had no…ahem…further comment.
Aw, darn.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pmI just invented a solar-powered tractor.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:23 am