Shuster Pushes Inhofe On Global Warming Skepticism: ‘If There Is A Hoax, Isn’t It This Report Of Yours?’
Shuster Pushes Inhofe On Global Warming Skepticism: ‘If There Is A Hoax, Isn’t It This Report Of Yours?’
Earlier this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a report citing “more than 650 international scientists” who back up his claims that manmade global warming is a hoax. This list was a revision of his original compilation of 400 names earlier in the year. That list fell apart, however, when experts pointed out that many of those people 1) had no background in climate science, or 2) “demanded to be taken off, since they didn’t disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.”
Inhofe’s new report with 650 “experts” doesn’t seem to be much better. Anja Eichler, one of the scientists cited by Inhofe as believing that half of the earth’s warming is caused by the sun, said that her work was “misinterpreted”; in fact, she believes that “Earth’s temperature does not change randomly — it changes when it is driven to do so by an external forcing.” TNR’s Bradford Plumer also found others on this list new who appear to support the theory of manmade global warming.
Yesterday on MSNBC, David Shuster grilled Inhofe on his report, bringing up the case of Eichler. After pointing out all the problems with the report, Shuster asked, “Senator, if there is a hoax, isn’t it this report of yours?” Inhofe continued to dig in his heels, insisting that the “majority” still agreed with him:
INHOFE: Let’s assume that you believe that CO2 caused, as you obviously do, causes…
(CROSSTALK)
SHUSTER: Well, and as those scientists that you cited, they believe it. But go ahead.
INHOFE: No, the scientists do not believe it. The majority of them do not believe it. [...]
SHUSTER: Go ahead. You get the last word.
INHOFE: If you could only come out with four names out of 650, I would say I’m probably right.
SHUSTER: Well, I can go through a whole — I can go through a lot more. We just don’t have time.
Watch it:
In 2003, Inhofe said that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Despite all the facts piled against him, Inhofe stood behind his statement in October, and yesterday, again called global warming “ludicrous” and a “hoax.”
Transcript:
SHUSTER: All right. Let’s talk about global warming.
You’ve issued a report that cites 650 experts to back up the claim that global warming is either a hoax or that it’s not created by human activity. I’ve looked at the list and it includes engineers, geographers, economists, TV weathermen, none of whom have hardly any scientific expertise on climate change.
Furthermore, one of the theoretical physicists that you cite, a man by the name of Freeman Dyson (ph), he has suggested powering rocket ships by detonating nuclear bombs. So clearly Mr. Dyson (ph) doesn’t know anything about rocket science either.
Senator if there is a hoax, isn’t it this report of yours?
INHOFE: No, it’s not. As a matter of fact, let’s look at what the issue really is, David.
It’s not, is there global warming? It’s our manmade gases, CO2, methane, anthropogenic gases the cause of global warming. And I believe that is a huge hoax, because now the scientific community has turned around and said it’s not.
And I’m not — all right, what about Claude Allegra (ph) in France, David Bellamy (ph) in the U.K., Nira Shaviv (ph) in Israel?
SHUSTER: Well, in one of those reports…
INHOFE: Those are top, respected…
SHUSTER: Sure. One of those reports you suggested looked at how much the sun is contributing to global warming. And it found that yes, while the sun was contributing to global warming, that in the industrial age, over the last 150 years, it has been CO2 that contributes the most to global warming, not the sun. And CO2, as you know, is a byproduct of industrial activity.
INHOFE: Well, see, I disagree with you. And when they come forward with something — and they’re going to try to do it again.
The last bill was the Warner/Lieberman bill. That would have been about a $350 billion tax increase for America. Now, here’s the problem. Let’s assume that you believe that CO2 caused, as you obviously do, causes…
(CROSSTALK)
SHUSTER: Well, and as those scientists that you cited, they believe it. But go ahead.
INHOFE: No, the scientists do not believe it. The majority of them do not believe it.
But let’s assume that that is true. If we unilaterally in America decide we’re going to have a cap in trade where we’re putting a heavy tax on Americans, all that would do is take our manufacturing base, send it over to places where they have no emission restraints, such as Mexico or China or India, and it’s going to have a net effect of increasing, not decreasing, CO2.
That’s how ludicrous this thing is. I was a believer at one time. Eight years ago…
(CROSSTALK)
SHUSTER: Look, Senator, you make a great point. And I think it’s a great policy debate about, do we want to put a cap in trade? But the fact of the matter is, when we talked to the scientists that you named, some of those scientists say that CO2 is the cause and that you’re misrepresenting their report. And a couple of them have said, hey, I don’t want to be part of Senator Inhofe’s list, and they’ve asked you to remove it and you haven’t.
But in any case, Senator…
INHOFE: Well, no. If you could only come…
SHUSTER: Go ahead. You get the last word.
INHOFE: If you could only come out with four names out of 650, I would say I’m probably right.
SHUSTER: Well, I can go through a whole — I can go through a lot more. We just don’t have time.
But Senator, you’re a good support to come on. I always appreciate having you on. Thanks for coming on tonight. And happy holidays.
INHOFE: Thank you, David.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hehe… this’ll prolly bring out the trolls in number…
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 amReality and facts have a distinctly liberal bias. This guy is a troglodyte.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 amEven if it is a hoax (it’s not) it would not be anywhere close to religion in the rankings of all time hoaxes.
Holy rollers are anti-science because science disproves their myths
———————————————
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 am‘ere – Atlanta’s Progressive Jazz
(yes that’s me on the piano)
Find us at ReverbNation.com/ere
———————————————
IF THERE’S A NEW YEARS WISH I COULD HAVE THAT I KNEW WOULD BE FULFILLED….IT WOULD BE….
INHOFE CAUGHT IN A HOMOSEXUAL AFFAIR.
IF THERE IS A GOD….PLEASE…LET IT BE
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 amAnd this low intelligence Senator is involved with the running of our country? Heck with Kansas, what the hell is wrong with Oklahoma that they keep voting this moron into office?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 amSomeone really needs to talk to Oklahoma voters. I understand that they don’t want this yokel hanging around their state but sending him off to Washington just isn’t fair to the rest of us.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 amrastaman Says:
IF THERE’S A NEW YEARS WISH I COULD HAVE THAT I KNEW WOULD BE FULFILLED….IT WOULD BE….
INHOFE CAUGHT IN A HOMOSEXUAL AFFAIR.
IF THERE IS A GOD….PLEASE…LET IT BE
How about Rick Warren?!?!?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 amAny chance Inhofe may be reminded of the Oklahoma Dust Bowl and how devastating that was to his state\ ?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 amThis freak sure is pathetic. Dumber than a rock.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 amWell it’s really cold at my house. /stupid troll imitation
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 amWingers back away from global warming denial in four distinct stages:
1. Global warming is not real.
2. Global warming is real, but is not caused by humans. (Various crackpot theories are advanced to support this meme.)
3. Global warming is real…but it’s not a problem. (Even weirder pseudo-science is evinced to support this one.)
4. Global warming is Bill Clinton’s fault.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 amIt’s like a return to the dark ages, literally.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 amJebus. Can we nominate Inhofe for the “Moron of the Year” award…?
Oh, never mind; there are waaaaaaaay too many GOP contenders – we’d never be able to pick just one.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 amIt has occurred to me lately that senators especially and representatives should be looking out for the entire country and not just people in their disticts. If they want to work just for their state they should hold a state office and not a national office. It’s probably time we all worked harder to get rid of these dim bulb guys that are holding this country back. We could probably start by working against everybody who doesn’t believe in evolution and/or climate change.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 amThis has the same constituency and the same methodology as creationism and gay-by-choice. Science and the scientific method are irrelevant. The wacky 9-11 conspiracy theorists make more sense.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 amYeesh Perry, everybody know it’s Al Gore’s fault!
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 amJebus. Can we nominate Inhofe for the “Moron of the Year” award…?
Or we could just award the GOOPers the “Moron-Party of the Year/Decade/Millenium”.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 amActually it’s gays. We pissed off god so he is roasting our chestnuts.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 amI was flipping through channels yesterday and some tv preacher was talking about how creative God was creating dinosaurs blah, blah, blah. Are there other countries that so proudly display their ignorance, Christian or otherwise, or are we alone.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 amIt is pretty cold here today, so i guess that global warming stuff is a myth.
The temperature is supposed to go up a little later on, though, so i guess when that happens global warming will be back on.
Whew! What a global warming roller coaster this local weather sure is.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 amShayne:
We need to get rid of all of the “party first” types of politicians in our entire political system. (which would mean the complete destruction of the GOP)
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am650 international scientists who are probably no more scientist than Joe the Plumber is a real plumber. Republican turd polishers like Inhofe deserve a raging case of melanoma straight from that big hole in the ozone.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 amSHUSTER: …[snip]… So clearly Mr. Dyson (ph) doesn’t know anything about rocket science either.
So clearly Mr. Shuster doesn’t know anything about the Orion Project, which has been around since the late 50’s. With that comment, Shuster (at least to me) sounded like a smart-ass.
For the record, check out some of Dyson’s views on Global Warming: he believes it exists and that it’s man-made, but thinks there are some more urgent problems to be solved first.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 amAn entire economy and society fueled solely by “infinite” access to cheap oil was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the Earth.
The bill is coming due and these people (and their bought and paid for representatives) are still trying to make a quick buck by prolonging the denial of the truth of our dire situation. Sure, it would feel so much better to just not believe how big of a wrong turn our species has made as a whole, but make no mistake, the blood and misery of billions will be on their hands if we let them get away with keeping us from doing what needs to be done.
Stop giving Inhofe and all of the other small-minded rabble air-time. We should not be considering “the other side” of a debate that is over. They’re like small-time thugs holding a gun to all of our heads and should be treated as such. It’s that serious.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 amJust like Bush and Cheney and the rest of the ridiculous Repignofascist cabal, why does anyone anywhere other than Oklahoma give this fool any media coverage? The important thing is that we have a new administration arriving in less than a month that uses the phrase “climate change” in almost every paragraph no matter what the topic. Let Inhofe keep making a fool of himself. The new kids on the block are going to make a difference; let Inhofe sit and stew.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 amWhen Al Gore invented the internet(s), global warming was an unfortunate side effect.
Exactly. Those giant tubes suck the warm air from one place and shoot it to another – thus producing the huge differences in temperature from place to place as well as time to time. And the nuts don’t think man caused global warming phenomenon!!
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 amGoon on Shuster for pushing back like that.
Although he should have had four names at the ready. I woulda had a list of at least 20 on my desk that should have been removed just in case he asked that.
On these sound-bite shows, a lot of idiots manage to get away with their idiocy by demanding contrary information that the host or opposition doesn’t have instantly in front of them. They should start anticipating those demands and be prepared to meet them in real time. That’d be fun.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 amWhat is “ludicrous” is that Inhofe has been elected 3 times and chairs the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Shouldn’t there be a test to see if these people are qualified to even be on a committee?
He has got to be one of dumbest people in the Senate but what does that say about the people that elected him?
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 amKinda like Alaskans reelecting Ted Stevens after he is found guilty of corruption. Yes another one of those(”the internet is a series of tubes…”), too stupid to sit on a committee.
I guess I’ve got some good news for you then, elemental jim: Ted Stevens lost!
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 amElBruce,
How about having four live people waiting to go on camera to debunk what is said? Imagine Inhofe’s face when suddenly there are four people coming on camera in real time to say they don’t want to be on his list and why.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 amWhy in the world does Inhofe claim that his 650 “international scientists” constitute a majority? Even if we pretend for a moment that all 650 of these people actually stand behind the absurd claims in the report (and there is apparently some evidence they don’t), they don’t come close to making up a “majority” — especially if we are using the Inhofe criterion for “international scientists” (anyone who has any degree in any form of science).
But the bigger issue here is that the scientific community doesn’t operate on “let’s take a vote — whatever the majority believes will be assumed to be true”. Therefore, Inhofe’s claim that he’s somehow right because he has more people agree with him doesn’t hold water (although in his political world, that’s probably all he understands). No — scientists operate more on the system of “let’s do research and let’s do studies — let’s find out what’s going on here”.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 amDon’t get me wrong, I’m all for environmentalism. I bike to work, eat organic, conserve water…you know “Environmental Stuff” but anthropomorphic warming seems a bit deceptive. Especially when world has been producing more CO2 emissions in the past year then in the year before (and so on) but the Earth’s temperature has drop dramatically in 2008. How can there be more CO2 in the atmosphere and colder global temperatures? Is Global Cooling now a part of Global Warming?
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 amSo now, after eight years of this, Shuster had grown a set? What he has been taking hormone therapy?
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 amInhoffing is another name for parading publicly with your head up your ass.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 amOh gosh, golly, if only we could get the interweb to run on something other than those tubes. If only science was real maybe we could come up with something.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 amlefthandedrightbrain,
2008 was still one of the 10 warmest years on record. Of course there are other factors that go into global temperatures, but we as humans can and should focus on the factors that we are responsible for which compound the effects that other (”natural”) factors have on the environment.
Also, it’s called climate change for a reason. Some places may even get colder while others get warmer. Dumping nearly countless billions of tons in our relatively thin atmosphere is going to have a negative effect. (period)
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 amlefthandedrightbrain Says:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for environmentalism. I bike to work, eat organic, conserve water…you know “Environmental Stuff”
Looks like we got us a bonafide goddamn lying sack of shit folks.
Move on.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 amAnd exactly how does Inhofe suggest this “hoaxter” was able to melt so much polar ice over the last 25 years.
And what the hell would be the “hoaxter’s” motivation?
Does this nitshitwit still believe in the stories in his comic books, or what?
Fcuking troglodyte.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 amHere Einstein, I mean leftandrightbrain, “2007 Was Tied As Earth’s Second Warmest Year.” Maybe that would explain why your graph, that ended in January 2008 dips down immediately from 2007. Well that and because it ends in January. Here’s a link to Science Daily. If you look around yourself you’ll find that 2008 will go down as one of the ten hottest in recorded history.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am666lattes
2008 was not one of the warmest years on record. The warmest years on record are the Holocene climatic optimum, during the height of the Bronze Age. Climate Scientist claimed in the 1970’s there was going to be an Ice Age. It’s called Climate Change now because the Earth’s temperature started falling, in direct contradiction to people who believed CO2 caused warming, so the movement adjusted it’s name to fit the new findings, how (in)convenient. Damages are being done to the Earth but creating a cap-n-trade carbon tax that is regulated by the IMF is not the answer.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 amDNFP
“Looks like we got us a bonafide goddamn lying sack of shit folks”
Not really. Thanks for taking the time to think about what I said and respect each individual as a person. Good Job being OPEN Minded.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 amnotice how inhofe doesn’t dispute that C02 levels are a byproduct of industrial activity, but instead retorts, “americans would be levied with a $300 billion tax.”
just fall back on taxes, and the wingnuts all nod in agreement.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 amI don’t see what everyone’s problem is with Global Warming. First of all, we deserve it. You “progressives” are just as hypocritical as your republican nemeses, jabbering about a problem all day that you have no intention of commiting direct action to, and the few of you who actually DO something about it make such a small footprint that your efforts are futile in the long run. Repeat visitors to this website would most likely be offended if addressed as “socialist” or “liberal”: “progressive” acting as a crafty intellectual descripton, but thats exactly what you are. There are countless reasons to be fed up with the Republican machine, but your hate speech and rhetoric is just as offensive and detrimental (though more subtle) as the dirty tactics that they have resorted to over the last eight years. Congratulations on perpetuating a stereotype of “liberal stupidity” that your opponents can feed off of.
So, all this being said, the human race deserves the consequences of Global Warming, as our heads are so far up our own asses that we will never be able to get them out without something drastic occuring.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 amAnd people votes for these types of A$sholes…stupid is as stupid votes.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 amShayne:
The story you linked me states “Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.”
‘In a century’ would be the key term there. Life has been around longer then a century and ice core data shows a greater temperature during the Holocene climatic optimum.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 amwow cornstarch, thats a steaming pile of fecal matter you just dumped in here
o well, we can’t all be intellectuals, the world needs ditch diggers too
———————————————
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am‘ere – Atlanta’s Progressive Jazz
(yes that’s me on the piano)
Find us at ReverbNation.com/ere
———————————————
2008 was not one of the warmest years on record. The warmest years on record are the Holocene climatic optimum, during the height of the Bronze Age
yeah, the bronze age. not sure how relevant that is…….seeing that we have a shitload of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere these days.
2008 WAS one of the hottest on record. october 2008 was the hottest october on record. 11 of the last 15 years were the hottest EVER.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 amLuis M Says:
“For the record, check out some of Dyson’s views on Global Warming: he believes it exists and that it’s man-made, but thinks there are some more urgent problems to be solved first.”
Urgent Problem Numero Uno – Overpopulation.
There are 6.6 billion of us sonsab!tches on the planet! That’s far too many!
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 amPopulation control would go a long way in solving the majority of the environmental woes. Conservation, clean energy sources, etc are all good things and to be encouraged, but amount to putting a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging wound.
I don’t see what everyone’s problem is with Global Warming
yeah, seriously, why don’t we just all commit suicide, like they do over the internet in japan?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pmThere are 6.6 billion of us sonsab!tches on the planet! That’s far too many!
Population control would go a long way in solving the majority of the environmental woes. Conservation, clean energy sources, etc are all good things and to be encouraged, but amount to putting a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging wound.
true, but that will take at least 2 generations, possibly more. right now, governments must take action.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm“2008 WAS one of the hottest on record. october 2008 was the hottest october on record. 11 of the last 15 years were the hottest EVER.”
No, not ever.
“Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later.”
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
“2008 WAS one of the hottest on record. october 2008 was the hottest october on record. 11 of the last 15 years were the hottest EVER.”
No, not ever.
yes it was. check the links.
the bronze age is IRRELEVANT. we are talking about industrialized civilizations, bro. there’s a little thing called CO2.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pmSpeak for yourself. And we don’t need your “concern”.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pmEvery single one of the “doctors” and “scientists” on the payroll at the Tobacco Institute insisted for many years that there was no scientific evidence linking tobacco smoking with cancer.
Just a reminder…
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm“the bronze age is IRRELEVANT. we are talking about industrialized civilizations, bro. there’s a little thing called CO2.”
It’s not irrelevant because it shows a clear and distinct contradiction to the claim 2007 was the warmest year ever. It shows the ever expansive fluctuation of Global Temperatures and it gives an example of hotter times where the World Population Thrived (and the ice caps did not melt). So it’s extremely relevant.
The Oceans produce more CO2 then humans, so we as a movement against CO2 should destroy the oceans, that will stop the CO2 once and for all. Also Human exhale CO2, so if people really believe CO2 (not just Carbon Monoxide from Cars but all forms of CO2) cause warming then the only logical answer would be ethical suicide. There is no way one person would negate the amount of carbon they exhale through Green Products and Carbon Friendly Vehicles. So ethical suicide is the answer for the core members of CO2=Evil Club.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pmFine Dr.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
Global Cooling.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pmlefthandedrightbrain,
from the link: “By 6,000 years ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in the Northern Hemisphere, these regions had reached temperatures similar to those existing in the modern era.”
2 Questions: Was this period also experiencing increases in CO2 by humans? Would that have compounded the issue if it had?
“so the movement adjusted it’s name to fit the new findings, how (in)convenient.”
And?
“Damages are being done to the Earth but
creating a cap-n-trade carbon tax that is regulated by the IMF is not the answer.”
What damages? I thought you were here to disprove it? If we can agree that damage is being done (we can) and that humans are (a) cause (can we?). Then what exactly is your phucking point?
Is it that you are against Cap and trade? Fine, let’s stick to debating the possible solutions. That truly is a bizzare way of going about an argument. Show some decency and respect and just come right out and say it next time, okay?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pmIt’s not irrelevant because it shows a clear and distinct contradiction to the claim 2007 was the warmest year ever.
it is irrelevant when you take into consideration how climate patterns within the industrialized era compare with those of the non-industrialized eras. since 1850, global temperature has gone up, up and UP and UP. the last 15 years saw a spike in temperature unprecedented.
The Oceans produce more CO2 then humans, so we as a movement against CO2 should destroy the oceans, that will stop the CO2 once and for all. Also Human exhale CO2, so if people really believe CO2 (not just Carbon Monoxide from Cars but all forms of CO2) cause warming then the only logical answer would be ethical suicide. There is no way one person would negate the amount of carbon they exhale through Green Products and Carbon Friendly Vehicles. So ethical suicide is the answer for the core members of CO2=Evil Club.
the above statement is so absurd, so laughable, that i don’t even have the energy to respond. nevermind that the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere from 2 million cross country flights a day, around the globe. or the 2 billion cross-city drives from cars, every day, around the globe. from trucks, factories, homes, schools, buildings, etc, etc, etc. i love how you just conveniently ignore these, and yet conveniently focus on the absurd argument of BREATHING. what a crock!
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pmWhat do they know at NASA, you have your graphs. /sarc
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pmlefthandedrightbrain Says:
NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
From the same report:
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C).
Call it “Global Less-warming”.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pmlefthandedrightbrain,
I’ll just pretend that you really are as stupid as you’re pretending to be for whatever reason and respond:
“NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe”
>>>Since 2001<<<
Fluctuations within a warming trend…
“The Oceans produce more CO2 then humans, so we as a movement against CO2 should destroy the oceans”
The oceans also absorb C02 and emits Oxygen as one of earth’s natural CO2 distillation processes that we have overloaded… It does not appear to be meant to handle our input in addition to the other natural emitters.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pmlefthandedrightbrain Says:
“The Oceans produce more CO2 then humans…”
And then humans what? What happens then?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm/doesn’t get it.
It’s all about peer reviewing. None of those 650 have their name on a peer-reviewed paper that disputes manmande global warming, because it would be rejected, and every peer-reviewed paper that does say global warming is manmade is agreed to.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pmLuis M,
And then on the seventh day Oceans rested.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pmSome call it “Oceansday” instead of “Sunday”.
Well you convinced me lefty. I’m going out to burn some garbage just for kicks. Anyhoo why worry. Sooner or later it will all balance out. We’ll get hit by an asteroid or something that creates a nuclear winter or perhaps we’ll explode an actual nuclear weapon and create it ourselves. Or maybe a bunch of volcanoes can erupt at the same time after warming increases earthquake activity and shift all the plates around like crazy. Any of those incidents will cool us down. Or population will just go down eventually. After all, how many of us will actually grow gills. And it’s hard to grow food both under the sea or in the dessert. And all those tropical diseases will help control the population.
Why do anything when it’s so much better for the corporations if we just do nothing.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pmEffing idiots – arguing the causes of climate change is like having a big old fist fight inside a burning house.
Simple logic dictates that the vast changes man has made over the last 300 years and the corresponding exponential increase in air pollution (including CO2) will have a direct effect on the environment. Period.
It’s quite obvious that we have been shitting in our food dish for the past umpteen years – and the end result of that is inevitable if we do nothing.
Ergo, we must do SOMETHING. Cutting down on CO2 emissions and other forms of air and water pollution is a very good start – and we need to do it NOW, before it’s too late.
So, wingnuts…dispute that.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pmleftrightlunatic
I see the concern troll angle got dropped pretty quick, eh?
Bronze age, eh? I am concerned, slightly, about the quality of the bronze age meteorologists, as well as the integrity of the global climate tracking data they kept back then.
Oh, wait… you are relying on information from the scientific community… the same one where the consensus is that man’s burning of fossil fuels as well as other wonderful chemical adventures we engage in have direct and indirect impacts upon our environment, including the climate.
And even then, actual year-to-year temperature estimates from the bronze age are a littel bit of a guess, as well (an educated guess, but guess nonetheless).
Unless you have actual data FROM the bronze age…. I, for one, would be mightily impressed.
And it always comes down to cap and trade or regulations or some other argument whose SOLE purpose is to defend businesses and their money.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pmIs this that same OISM petition that claims 31,000 signatures from real live scientists, including those named “Mack Hunt,” “Anne Frank,” “Perry Mason” and “Geri Halliwell”?
Turns out they just sent bazillions of petitions to people nationwide and there was no way to verify the identity of the signees.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pmL-R “Brain”:
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pmSo it’s colder this winter. Annual fluctuations do not indicate a trend. The average temperature of the planet has been rising since the industrial revolution. No dispute there. Since then there was the Blizzard of 1888, the winters of 1976-77 and many other cold winter variations. The average annual planetary temperature has still risen despite a few cold winters.
I saw an article in which the writer said that rising temperatures aren’t a problem but declining fresh water and ocean acidification are the biggest future problems. Unmentioned was that fresh water supplies are shrinking because glaciers are melting due to rising global temperatures. Oceans are acidifying because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere to be absorbed by the oceans.
lefthandedrightbrain Says:
but anthropomorphic warming seems a bit deceptive.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Well, duh! Of course it’s deceptive.
I mean, if any abstract concept such as “warming” or “cooling” or “intransigence” or “Kafkaesque” suddenly took on human characteristics and human form, we’d most certainly be confused and deceived by it.
However, that has nothing to do with actual climate science, which you obviously don’t understand on account of you’re a complete moron.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pmLividLib Says:
There are 6.6 billion of us sonsab!tches on the planet! That’s far too many!
Population control would go a long way in solving the majority of the environmental woes.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
_________________
And yet nobody ever wants to talk about this. It’s the third rail of environmental politics. I wonder why…
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pmIf you people keep talking about science and logic you’re going to make lefty’s brain a$$plode.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pmBecause you can’t make enough new christians proselytizing?
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 pmThe only way we are going to combat climate change is to work together to obliterate conservatism: no matter what the cost. Polar bear populations are down 32.6% and the arctic ice shelf has already been reduced by 5% of its original prominence. Penguins are migrating south at an alarming rate and parts of Northern Canada are now completely covered with water. THE GOVERNMENT IS COVERING IT UP!!! THE PROBLEM IS MUCH WORSE RIGHT NOW THAN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY AWARE OF!!! WE NEED TO WORK QUICKLY TO COMBAT CONSERVATISM AND SAVE THE HUMAN RACE!
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pmlefthandedrightbrain Says:
It’s called Climate Change now because the Earth’s temperature started falling, in direct contradiction to people who believed CO2 caused warming, so the movement adjusted it’s name to fit the new findings, how (in)convenient.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
___________
This is perhaps my favorite science denier talking point. It shows that they no longer have anything remotely substantive to say, so they’re just going to fight the facts with willful ignorance.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
And yet nobody ever wants to talk about this. It’s the third rail of environmental politics. I wonder why…
Because the fundamentalists don’t want someone else telling them what they can do with their reproductive organs.
…
…
…
…of course, …. THEY have no problem at all telling other people what they can and cannot do with their reproductive organs.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pmHey yall!
Conservative commentator Jimmy-Bob-Williams here! Y’all need to calm down, global warming aint THAT BAD! I personally think it’d be more fun than a combine harvester full of orange gelatin to go swimmin with the polar bears on the New York City skyline, swim up to the 80th floor window like it aint no thing, and say hi to the corpes that were trapped in there from the onset of the “problem”! Try to find the POSITIVE, PEOPLE!
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm–funny thing about this “list”…MY name seems to be on it, and I SURE as SHIT never “signed” it!
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pmINHOFE: But let’s assume that that is true. If we unilaterally in America decide we’re going to have a cap in trade where we’re putting a heavy tax on Americans, all that would do is take our manufacturing base, send it over to places where they have no emission restraints, such as Mexico or China or India, and it’s going to have a net effect of increasing, not decreasing, CO2.
See, here Inhofe makes a rare good point among his usual idiocy. He’s absolutely right. A unilateral cap and trade system in the U.S. without any international agreement would unarguably be completely idiotic policy. Any policy intended to combat GLOBAL climate change has to be GLOBAL in scope, or it’s completely pointless. This is a pathetic straw man argument. These agreements have to include not just China and India, but Indonesia and Bolivia and Guinea and every other country in the world, rich or poor, large or small.
But we get absolutely nowhere when we try and wrap this argument in pathetic science denial, as Inhofe does.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm“And yet nobody ever wants to talk about this. It’s the third rail of environmental politics. I wonder why…”
Because the answers start to sound like justification for mass genocide.
It is estimated that the Earth can sustain about 2 bil. people, so which 4 bil. have to go? The neocons seem to think the one’s on top of “our” oil are a good start.
-Since our topsoils are eroding, one helpful “use” for all of us while we are here would be to manage our waste into compost to help rebuild the top soil, but that’s like 11th or 12th rail talk, if that ;)
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pmAh the good old days of silliness. So everyone who is actually qualified to comment scientifically please raise your hands….
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pmWell, it looks like y’all scared away our ‘bike to work, eat organic, conserve water…you know “Environmental Stuff”’ liar by using facts on him. Shame on y’all for using facts. You know how much that upsets these types.
And by the way, it’s anthropogenic not anthropomorphic. No wonder you are so confused. Too bad you left so soon. You forgot to trot out the meme about consensus about the earth being flat and the center of the universe. Too bad as I always get a chuckle out those. Kind of like your types’ last hurrah before your mental meltdown.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm666lattes Says:
Because the answers start to sound like justification for mass genocide.
Yes, they do.
Of course, one could also seek to reduce the population by vigorous campaigning about, and free or inexpensive resources for, birth control, as well as inexpensive abortions for those seeking them.
And the compost thought is great.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 pmdbadass Says:
Ah the good old days of silliness. So everyone who is actually qualified to comment scientifically please raise your hands….
I… well… uh…. I….. I….. ummmm…..
…oh, poo……
…
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm…
… but I DO have a science experiment in my fridge (seeing how long it takes leftovers to decompose)…. does that count?….
666lattes Says:
but that’s like 11th or 12th rail talk, if that ;)
How many rails does this thing have? it’s like a queue at an amusement park.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pmWow you liberals are so open minded and willing to listen to others objectively. Not a mean, disrespectful, or hateful one amongst you. If someone says something you don’t agree with you just call them names and give no value to anything they say. How many of you are climatologist, geologist or for that matter any kind of authority on the subject? But yet you are all experts on this subject. Or do you just believe what you are told by others? Bunch of close minded little people.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pmDavid,
What are you talking about?
Sincerely,
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm666lattes
David, my friend do you not see the inherent contridiction in your comment. I myself am no climate scientist although I am very well versed in the sciences primarily the life sciences. As such I am witness to the changes in species distribution and abundance which are currently at work. Does it not bother you that the consensus amongst the integreted data of mainstream climate scientists, geologists, ecologists, physicists, etc suggests someting is up?
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pmDavid Shuster’s come a long way from Fox News.
-AF
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
Well, my understanding of the story is that Senator Inhofe, living in Oklahoma, was caught up in a tornado and had his brains rattled so much that he has had trouble understanding much of anything since then. Any Congressional page can tell you that Mr. Inhofe frequently needs help in finding the restroom.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmDavid Says:
Wow you liberals are so open minded and willing to listen to others objectively. Not a mean, disrespectful, or hateful one amongst you. If someone says something you don’t agree with you just call them names and give no value to anything they say.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
___________
We’re certainly open minded and willing to listen to others objectively. However, these “others” — like yourself — who visit every global warming thread have nothing of value in anything you say. Ever. You’re not presenting any new data or perspectives or theories that are worth listening to. You’re recycling the same garbage talking points that have been pushed by ExxonMobil and their science-denying allies for years.
Trust me, we’ve heard them all: “Global warming is a myth,” “It’s the sun,” “It’s real, but it’s not man-made,” “It’s warming on Jupiter/Mars/Pluto,” “It’s snowing in Des Moines today,” “The CO2 rise lags behind temperature rise in ice cores,” “We breathe CO2 therefore it’s not a bad thing,” “They said there was global cooling in the 70s,” “Al Gore has two dozen private planes,” “There’s global warming but it’s a good thing cause I’m cold,” etc. There’s not an original, open-minded, worthwhile thought in any of these comments – they’ve all been thoroughly debunked, yet you science deniers continue to use them.
So here’s the challenge – give me an original, objective argument against the broad consensus of the IPCC – not just the details, because even among the climatologists and other scientists who comprise the IPCC there are differences in findings and opinions and predictions — that’s how science works. Find me a plausible, scientifically-based argument that gives me a reason to doubt the IPCC’s conclusion, and I’ll consider it objectively.
If are unable to do this, I’ll just rest happy in my quite correct assumption that you’re another science-denying idiot troll with nothing of worth to say on the topic.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pmPoor David. Go to a happy place, David. Everything will be okay.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pmDavid,
Have you ever heard of the word shill? We get quite a few of them here. Global Warming is very serious and when the shills/trolls show up spewing already debunked memes we get a little tired of it. If you want to put forth a reasoned, factual, argument you will find a lot of good discussion here. We are very short of patience with those that are full of shit.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pmNow’s your chance, David! The gauntlet has been thrown down! You show us a thing or two!
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pmhussein toasterhead: Well said! You beat me to the submit button with an excellent reply with real examples. Cheers.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pmHey, anyone know what happened to Tim V? This is right up his alley, so to speak!
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pmDavid has split feeling no doubt that he has made some sort of profound point…
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 pmProfound point, yes. And if he combs his hair just right no one will notice it.
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pmhussein toasterhead,
bravo!
CageyCretin,
We’re going off the rails on the Crazy Train!
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pmLOL Try being a liberal on a conservative blog!
Here at TP, you can give scientific evidence and there will be value in it. Give scientific evidence in conservative blogs and you will be derided and expelled.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pmInhofe’s short list of global warming deniers reminds of the short list of Swift Boat Liars.
Just as Inhofe can only find a relatively few scientists to join his anti-global warming crusade, out of the tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, the Swift Boat Liars could only field about 250 fellow liars out of the over ten thousand members of the Swift Boat Association.
Similarly, Inhofe has included some “scientists” on his list who want their names removed as well as some “scientists” who aren’t even climatoligists, just as the Rocky Mountain News reported before the November 2004 presidential election, that several of the Swift Boat veterans demanded that their names be removed from the Swift Boat Liars smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry.
Inhofe is just as much a liar as all the Swift Boat Liars.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pmGlobal Warming, like technology and science does not have a liberal or conservative bias. It just is. The lack of “consensus” the skeptics talk about is simply Exxon Mobil and Coal industry propaganda. The only point of discussion should be whether high CO2 levels are actually preceding an Ice Age, since high CO2 was found in Glaciers. Either way, electric cars, fuel cells, windpower, solar, and geothermal could save the economy.
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 pmThe sun is contributing to solar warming? Another BS claim by Inhofe. Currently the sun is going through what’s called its “solar minimum,” a period where its output is lower than normal, not higher.
Not surprising on Inhofe’s part. He’s just making it up as he goes along, anyhoo.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 pmHasn’t this guy gotten the talking points? Never use “global warming”, it’s “climate change”. Everyone knows it’s not getting warmer so we need to stress how the climate is unpredictable. Thinking people will scoff but it defuses their valid points with the illiterate and groupthinkers among us.
December 24th, 2008 at 8:44 amdrew3rd Says:
WOW you really are an idiot arent you? More severity of storms is one of the aspect of this problem. It isnt as simple as Global Warming though NO ONE but the brainwashed rightwing industry shills deny it IS overall getting warmer. Only MORONS and those paid to disagree do. As for valid points. Where are they. Dont tell me what the industry shills told you to think THIS WEEK. Show me the peer reviewed studies. Those on the clear scientific consensus side have about a thousand. Where are the peer reviewed studies from you deniers? THAT is how science is done. NOT by fooling the rubes from a podium. THAT is how rightwing brainwashing is done. Congratulations being stupid enough to be brainwashed.
When this whole thing started I saw a quote from an oil industry shill saying their mission will be accomplished when there is DOUBT on the Climate change issue. I guess enough fools think Limbaugh and Hannity are as respectable a voice on this issue as ALL THE SCIENCE DONE BY REAL SCIENTISTS IN PEER REVIEWED STUDIES. That is world class gullible but then you wingnuts never were that bright
December 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm