Inhofe Declares Victory Over The U.N.-MoveOn-Soros Global Warming Conspiracy: I’ve Prevailed
Inhofe Declares Victory Over The U.N.-MoveOn-Soros Global Warming Conspiracy: I’ve Prevailed
On his radio show this morning, conservative talker Bill Bennett hosted the most prominent global warming denier in Congress, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Opening up the conversation on the subject, Bennett declared, “I think you’ve prevailed on this.”
“I really believe it,” replied Inhofe, claiming that his opponents “won’t say global warming any more, they’re trying to say climate change.” He added that he thinks former Vice President Al Gore is “getting nervous” because, he claimed, “the science is totally changed.” Inhofe then claimed that more scientists are skeptical of climate change than those who believe in it:
INHOFE: So the science, the science is totally changed. It was the IPCC, those Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with the United Nations. But keep in mind, the only report you get from them is their summary for policy docs. And those are not scientists. There’s only 52 scientists that signed on to those, to that, as opposed to what? Some 650 who now have rebuked that.
Listen here:
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that Inhofe’s comments are loose with the facts. The 52 scientists he refers to prepared the 2007 IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers,” but the report itself was “a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers” and was built on the work of “2500 scientists over six years.” As for Inhofe’s discredited 650 skeptical “experts,” some of them actually support the theory of manmade global warming.
Further proving the fallacy of Inhofe’s claims, a survey of 3,146 earth scientists released earlier this week found that 90 percent believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels and 82 percent believe that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Ninety-seven percent of climatologists said humans play a role.
Transcript:
INHOFE: You know, you and I are going to be talking about global warming, but one of the things you might want to keep in mind, is if you’re looking at, if our listeners out there throughout America are concerned about this $700 billion, well, at least that was a one shot deal. If you pass any of these cap and trades or any of the global warmings.BENNETT: Yeah.
INHOFE: That’s gonna be about $300 billion every year, not just a one shot deal.
BENNETT: Right. Let’s talk about that. I have just one question as we’re sitting here, huddling together in the freezing winter of America.
INHOFE: hahaha
BENNETT: What happened to this issue? I think you’ve prevailed on this. It’s awfully quiet.
INHOFE: I really believe it. Because right now, first of all, they won’t say global warming any more, they’re trying to say climate change. I have a thing, and I’d like to ask any of you, the skeptics out there listening to us who really would like to know more about this issue. I’ve given thirteen speeches on the Senate floor, averaging about an hour a piece. The last one was a week ago Monday. If they go to my website, if you don’t mind, I’d like to give it.
BENNETT: Sure.
INHOFE: It’s Inhofe, spelled I N H O F E. Inhofe.senate.gov. Then you check on, “welcome Bill Bennett listeners.” And you’re going to see all the, you’ll see the speech I made, which is just the current science. I have in front of me just what’s happened this month in terms of the scientists that are coming over that used to be on the other side and have now become skeptics. And it’s overwhelming. The 650 scientists, and I quoted many of them, in fact, most of those are on my website. But I really think it’s important, first of all, for people to understand where the science is on this. Then understand where the money is. I mean, this whole thing started, like a lot of bad things in my narrow view, with the United Nations. And then of course Hollywood got ahold of it, and MoveOn.org and Barbara Streisand and George Soros and the rest of them. So, it became a huge money thing. You remember Congressman Richard Pombo, who was defeated in 06, by that group. They put between $4 and 7 million in a House race in the last month. They defeated him. And actually, they tried to do that with me too. But none the less, that’s one reason they have so much power is that’s where all the money is. You want huge contributions, that’s where you’re going to get it.
BENNETT: Well well, what is, give us an outline of the science. What we’ve learned, what we know can’t be defended any more.
INHOFE: Well, first of all, I’d like to go, and I’ve noticed the first time I made, I thought that Al Gore was getting nervous, was when I started mentioning to people that were his strongest supporters, Carl Alegra (sp?) in France. He walked through fire with Al Gore. He’s now a skeptic. He’s on our side. Aneer Samid (sp?) from Israel, David Bellamy from the UK, Reed Bryson and I started naming all these people that were leaders on the other side. They’re now clearly on our side. The one quote I’d like to use is Richard Lind’s in these MIT, I’ve done this on the floor because he brings Al Gore into it. This is a quote now, he said, “An extraordinary characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assidiously ignore the fact that the Earth and its climate are dynamic, they’re always changing, even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is simply bad enough, but to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” And you notice right now, that one of the latest things that Bill Clinton’s involved in is this big Climate initiative that he has. Well, I kind of wonder if that has something to do with the report that come out on Al Gore, there are a lot of people listening to us now maybe feeling sorry for Al Gore, but don’t because his net worth went up from, the range of $1-2 million seven years ago to $100 million, according to the reports that came out that are very good. Well, I think that now you’ve got Bill Clinton wanting to get in on that.
BENNETT: Alright.
INHOFE: So the science, the science is totally changed. It was the IPCC, those intergovernmental panel on climate change with the United Nations. But keep in mind, the only report you get from them is their summary for policy docs. And those are not scientists. There’s only 52 scientists that signed on to those, to that, as opposed to what? Some 650 who now have rebuked that. And one last thing on my check list that has to be said is on Gore’s science fiction film, every assertion that he’s made has been refuted. I’m talking about hurricanes, sea level rises, ice caps, polar bears, you know. So, the science has turned around, but the economics has not turned around. And that’s what we need to remind people. THat if you are offended by the Clinton/Gore tax increase of 1993, this would be a tax increase ten times that tax increase. So, we’re talking about big stuff here Bill.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Inhofe is like a little child who thinks if he closes his eyes, he disappears.
Power fantasies are all they have left.
PEACE
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pmImmediate reaction is: What a freaking a==hole!
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pmWhat is that thing? It isn’t a flag pin?
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pmI thought it was only a “conspiracy” when a small number of people got together to try to do something that most people didn’t want done. When the vast majority support it, it’s not a “conspiracy”, it’s a “movement”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:52 pmdbadass,
It’s his US Senate ID pin that lets him get on the Senate elevators and such. It’s not a flag pin. The election’s over.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pmSO THERE!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pmWhen confronted with certain defeat and public humiliation, Imhofe reacts like all good Republicans…
He declares victory and goes home.
Textbook.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pmRepublicans don’t have a problem with lying…corruption…torture….war….cheating …stealing…bribes…bathroom stalls….diapers….underage boys….and girls…. you get the picture.
What is really sad is that all those are true.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 pmThere’s a report that someone in the Senate is blocking consideration of Obama’s Nominees for the EPA posts. I wonder who that might be?
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 pmIt’s his US Senate ID pin that lets him get on the Senate elevators and such. It’s not a flag pin. The election’s over.
—-
SO that is all I need? What no retinal scans…
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:56 pmUm…is there something in the water??
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 pmThis is exactly why the republican party is doomed to failure. They have become so fixated on lost causes they have become totally irrelevant. Plus the dumbass thinks that if he says it enough times it will come true. He is rather entertaining with his stupid self though.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 pmIn general I think botox is so so lame. Still this dude needs to do something about all that damage to his face that those UV rays have done what with all that ozone depletion and atmospheric f ucking up.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 pmAnyone doubt that, had Inhofe been around in the sixteenth century (or even the seventeenth, or eighteenth) he would have insisted that the Copernican heliocentric universe was a crock?
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 pmSorry Inhofe, Science is IN
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 pmI hope the good people of Oklahoma come to their senses before the next election of Mr. Inhofe.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pmthis guy needs to be flushed down the same series of tubes stevens was. how anyone can pretend this guy ISNT getting bribed to deny that companies pollute the environment is beyond me. its like how stevens just happened to be consantly pushing for alaskan drilling simply to help the good people of alaska..
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pmCome to think of it, is there any evidence available that Inhofe buys that whole “earth rotating around the sun” theory even today?
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pmInhofe is all over the map in this interview, it’s difficult to understand what, if anything, he is actually trying to say.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pmIt’s like watching a chained dog with a parade of cats going by.
I am so sick of idiots like Inhofe who lie & twist honesty to promote their dishonest partisan garbage. He is now a thing of the past. A relic.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pmAh yes… another stirring imaginary victory for the Wingnutters…
The War On Christmas…
Gay Marriage…
Flag Burning…
And now… the War on Global Warming.
Too bad Botch is gone. He could have given Imhofe a medal… of some sort…
Perhaps milk chocolate, wrapped in gold foil…
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 pmMmmmm…chocolate.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 pmonce again, my local daily keeping the folks “informed”…
an abbreviated version of this article was in monday’s edition…
but i was surprised to see even that much… this:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year was the eighth warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The world’s temperature in 2008 tied that of 2001 according to the center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Preliminary calculations show the world’s average temperature for 2008 was 0.88 degree Fahrenheit above the 20th Century average of 57.0 degrees F.
The ranking means that all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.
of course, the REST of the story is even more damning…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRlyPqtO9N4jswg9LJYsBxcVmwzwD95OEUSG1
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 pmSure this is unfair, but what they hey…
I look at that picture of Inhofe, and I’m reminded of the exchange in “Young Doctors In Love” between Harry Dean Stanton and Michael McKean.
HDS: Look into these eyes. What do you see?
MM: I see alcohol poisoning, tertiary stages…
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:49 pmIt was a nice ‘wintery’ 70 here in Oklahoma today.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 pmThanks for that info, katy.
You know what wingnuts will do with it?
They will say that since the warmest year on record was 1998, that means that earth is actually cooling.
Seriously. That’s what they’ll say.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 pmralph,
It would not surprise me. Just like Bush’s “reasoning” that the response to Katrina wasn’t slow because they rescued 30,000 people off the roofs of houses. Of course, had the federal response been better, there would probably have been a lot fewer than 30,000 people stuck on their roof tops to be rescued. But he doesn’t see it that way.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 pmAnother state added to the no-fly list.
Cast your economic vote for “data and statistics.”
UT,OK, WY, KS, SD. It’s gonna suck to you be you guys after awhile.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 pmStill delusional after all these years… Another whining nut case…
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 pmA century earlier, and this schmuck would’ve been espousing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It seems every far-right, viscious conspiracy theory is the same. Just with “gays” or “liberals” or, in this case, “scientists” replacing Jews. Far-right conspiracy theories may change, the fools that believe them don’t.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pmspencers mom Says:
Inhofe is like a little child who thinks if he closes his eyes, he disappears.
=============================================================
HAHAHAHAHAHAH Genius!!!!1 Sums that moron up quite nicely. Thanks!
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pmIt’s no coincidence that Imhofe’s last name rhymes with dumkopf.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pmIs prevail something like a dress, if so, then maybe I could agree.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 pmEnvironment Blamed in Western Tree Deaths
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pmNew York Times – 47 minutes ago
By MIREYA NAVARRO Rising temperatures and the resulting drought are causing trees in the West to die at more than twice the pace they did a few decades ago, a new study has found.
Climate shift ‘killing US trees’ BBC News
Out on a Limb: Global Warming May Be Killing Old-Growth Forests Scientific American
Washington Post – Reuters – MSNBC – Wired News
all 117 news articles »
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1296033180&hl=en&topic=t
Is this his “Mission Accomplished” moment?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 pmImhofe: I’ve prevailed!
Yup just like your republikkkan party has in 2006 & 2008
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 pmHere’s some REAL inconvenient truths for you folks who have bought into the scam of man-made global warming:
There is no such thing as “consensus” in true science. Consensus is for politicians.
Many so-called politically liberal scientists do not buy the global warming myth, but are not about to speak out.
Scientists who otherwise would speak out do not do so because they would lose the funding for ANY of their projects because it is politically incorrect to challenge the “conventional wisdom” of the proponents of man-made, catastrophic climate change.
The so-called “evidence” of global warming and the ability to predict what temperatures will do in the coming decades is based almost entirely on flawed mathmatical models. The proof is clear and unambiguous – when historical data is fed into the models they are UNABLE to reproduce the temperatures we have today!!!
There is plenty of evidence that refutes the assertions of global warming proponents, both historical and current.
The list just goes on and on and on and on, folks! There is a vast amount ofsolid information out there – READ IT!
Not only this, there are plenty of highly respected climatologists who make excellent cases for why it is highly DOUBTFUL natural cycles of global temperatures are being affected to any significant degree by mankind’s activities.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pmHere’s a few questions:
What are Mr. Gore’s scientific credentials?
If he’s so smart, why has his movie been BANNED from classrooms unless accompanied by disclaimers for it’s multitude of egregious errors of fact?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 pmI think Inhofe should be exiled to one of the Alaskan villages that are sinking, thanks to global warming. Let him live there for a year or two and then see what he thinks then. And when the village gets moved, leave him there. The man is an idiot, and a stubborn one at that. And so are you, Tim V.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pmI don’t get it?? Just what is it that Inhofe and Bennett think that they have won here? What is the color of the sky in this imaginary conservative world in which they live?
9 of 10 scientist agree that climate change and global warming is partially manmade. The current admin believes it and will work to limit it.
This is a victory? Similar to Hamas declaring victory in Gaza, I’d say …
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pmTV
Please provide me with this evidence of which you speak and I will gladly check it out.
I would also be curious to know which scientists refuse to speak out for fear of retribution in the form of pulled funding. How have you discovered these scientists if they refuse to speak out? Have you interviewed them?
I also can make a case for why it is highly doubtful that natural cycles are being affected by mankind. However, without evidence, that case is baseless. So, again, please point me to the evidence.
It seems to me that man has frequently thought they could never have any effect on nature only to discover they had a tremendous effect. e.g. buffalo herds on the prairie, forests, ocean pollution, passenger pigeons, tuna, the abundance of oil, etc.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 pmHere’s the REAL story on the people behind the hoax and unfortunately, the hoax is on you because they stand to make BILLIONS by transferring wealth.
Here’s how it is planned to work – carbon trading; Cap & Trade; intrusive, iron-fisted government control of EVERY aspect of our lives. Why? Because you literally can’t do anything in a modern society like ours without creating a “carbon footprint.” Once the politicians and their moneyed backers are successful in passing the kind of legislation they want – IT’S ALL OVER.
Folks, you ought to be looking where the money REALLY is on this issue! Who has it, who is behind it, who stands to benefit from it! I have news for you – it isn’t us and it isn’t big business and it isn’t the thousands of small businesses.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pmSo, how are the scientists involved in this conspiracy? Are they getting kick backs? Who came up with this concept of climate change? The politicians? How is a cap and trade going to create iron-fisted control? I thought you were a fan of companies making billions? Why should we be concerned if companies make money off of wind energy instead of oil, coal and gas? Aren’t companies like Toyota already making billions? What about the sheiks in Dubai that are not heavily investing in green energy? Are they part of the conspiracy?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pmoops, should be sheiks in Dubai that are NOW heavily investing in green energy.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 pmTo Inhofe and all his apologists:
Contempt prior or without investigation is insanity. The fact these weirdos are so obstinate is their lack of the ability to reason.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 pmtbone,
Now your question is a perfect example of why we are in so much trouble on this issue. You need to start doing your homework!
I was listening to a great morning talk show, Quinn & Rose on XM this morning and Jim Quinn read an article from one of our country’s leading climatologists (a lady whose name escapes me at the moment.) She is finally speaking out and her direct quote was that she simpply could not speak out until now because of the threat of loss of funding! All I remember other than this was that this lady is quite famous for being the first person (or woman possibly) to receive a PhD in Climate Science!
Something else to keep in mind. Don’t fall for the specious argument that the SOURCE of funding or affiliations always affects what scientists say. The golbal warming crowd always trys to undercut their opponents by claiming that scientists who doubt the conventional wisdom are somehow “tainted.” Well, if that’s true, then the scientists THEY quote are tainted as well by GOVERNMENT money. Why is there any difference, hmmmm?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 pmtbone,
It isn’t the companies making money on alternative energy that I’m talking about.
It is politicians and unscrupulous people like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and George Soros to name a few. These are the people who stand to gain through the institution of government mandated taxes and controls on carbon emissions!
Do you not know of MAurice Stron’s company and Al Gore’s involvement in it? We’re talking about trading in carbon offsets here. There are HUGE amounts of money to be made.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pmtbone,
You don’t think Al Gore’s net worth has risen nearly tenfold from speaking engagements do you?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pmtbone,
Lastly, I’m not here to provide evidence – only reasoned commentary. I have come to realize that no amount of facts can persuade those who are true believers anyway.
Those such as yourself who are open minded are perfectly capable of doing the research like I have.
It’s interesting and fun so give it a try!
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 pmSo there is one climate scientist that you know of. DId she lose her funding? Does she then indicate that she lied about her results or falsified data to keep up the facade? That would seem to be the implication if she were actively publishing but not getting results that supported the “conventional wisdom”. Or perhaps, she did not work on issues of great relevance to the influence of human activity on climate change, and therefore was not really at risk of losing funding. Either way, it seems a bit odd to me.
If scientists are tainted by government money, wouldn’t it stand to reason that scientists like your radio interviewee would’ve been rolling in the dough during the Bush administration? After all, he was in charge of the EPA, NOAA, etc. and was quite reluctant to admit any possible human role in climate change. SO just exactly who in the government is pulling the strings?
The difference between government studies and those funded by non-government studies is that often the non-government studies are not peer-reviewed by others in the field, and the data are often considered proprietary. As such, they are not available for scrutiny.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:04 pmmk3872,
Allow me to clue you in.
The battle to which he refers is being fought in the court of public opinion. Even the public in general, who have not paid much attention to the raging debate over the climate can see that the assertions of the “global warming” crowd just don’t make sense!
Why? Because of the cooling! Ordinary folks can see that the dire predictions of the global warming crowd aren’t coming to pass as they said they would.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 pmtbone,
Here you go:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pmWarming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pmSo, I take it you have a problem with government mandated auto insurance? Government mandated regulations on mercury? Wastewater treatment? Other issues of interest to Public health? What about catch limits on fisheries? Are they a big concern to you? A hoax perhaps?
I don’t care what Al Gore’s worth is now or prior. His net worth does not influence the data upon which the scientists are basing their conclusions. So are you proposing that all the data that has been presented is fabricated?
I do just fine with the research. As a scientist, I look at the data itself to inform my opinion-not the pocketbooks of people only tangentially related to the actual scientific issue of global climate change.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pmDo courtrooms think the opinions of ordinary folks somehow trumpt those of qualified witnesses?
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm“New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.”
(first paragraph of the paper)
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 pmWEll, folks. Seems like the good Senator is on SOLID GROUND with his analyses, huh?
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 pmIt seems Tim V. took over this thread…hmmm. Hey Tim, just how much does Exxon pay you these days? Tbone – you seem well educated in the appropriate sciences and thank you for taking on Tim. And Tim, try a little travel into those areas that are under threat. As is said, travel is broadening…the mind, you know.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 pmI could literally post ALL NIGHT on this subject if I had the time.
In fact, I’ll just say here and now that there is NO ARGUMENT that can be put forth by the “global warming” crowd that can’t be countered or actually REFUTED outright.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 pmit pisses me off to have to share air with some people…
the idjits really have me on my last nerve lately…
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pmYOu mean this Joanne Simpson that advocates a healthy scientific skepticism and rues the current political culture surrounding climate science?
You know, the one that said in the part that you omitted from your quote (right before “But as a scientist I remain skeptical.),
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.”
There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism.
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pmTim Vaculik Says:
I could literally post ALL NIGHT on this subject if I had the time.
In fact, I’ll just say here and now that there is NO ARGUMENT that can be put forth by the “global warming” crowd that can’t be countered or actually REFUTED outright.
*
tim vakacockalic
you are such a quitter.
^
don’t you care?
*
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 pmMr. Vaculik,
I put some of the names from your quotes into The Google machine, and it appears that all of your quotes are coming from this website:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=83323
Are you using WorldNetDaily as your source material? If not, from where do the quotes come?
It helps your cause more to have links that verify the counter-claims you wish to make. (Note the term ‘counter-claims’. You are trying to claim that we are wrong, so the burden of proof falls on you to say why, not us to prove you wrong. Our evidence is, usually, within the article at the top.)
When you first show up and make all kinds of claims that we are wrong, you don’t help yourself if you can’t prove what you’re claiming, or least admitting that you can’t find a source. Instead, you insist that we do the work of verifying what you say is “really” going on.
WorldNetDaily is not an unbiased news source.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pmIn fact, I’ll just say here and now that there is NO ARGUMENT that can be put forth by the “global warming” crowd that can’t be countered or actually REFUTED outright.
—
Maybe you should announce this to the numerous congressional committees, the UN, the insurance industry, the US military, the peoples of many island nations, the vast majority of climate scientists, the indigenous peoples of the high latitudes, and so on and so forth.
I am particularly taken by the proven evidence of the US miltary and ther climate change contingency planning.
Still why should we not think Tim trumps all of these learned folk?
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 pmWayne A. Schneider,
tim vacolonalick,
said he could cut ‘n paste
here all night!
*
i guess facts upset him.
:)
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Here’s a few questions:
What are Mr. Gore’s scientific credentials?
Thanks for asking.
More…
And some more.
There are probably very few people anywhere with knowledge quite as broad about most of the scientific issues facing humankind.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
If he’s so smart, why has his movie been BANNED from classrooms unless accompanied by disclaimers for it’s multitude of egregious errors of fact?
What classrooms, where? And who’s on the school board that voted to ban it?
I understand that there are some classrooms who also ban teaching evolution as anything other than a “controversy.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 pmdbadass,
we’re talking about
tim vakascrotumlic…
he’s usually not afraid
of anything.
*8*
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 pmPosted By Marc Morano – 6:05 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression
NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims
(The Blog of Record for the International Climate Conference)
Weblink to Part Two of Climate Conference Reports:
Unethical Behavior
New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 pmTV
Maybe while doing some of the research you claim to be so good at, you can read the actual papers you are citing. One of your peer-reviewed papers that will “chill” the GW argument isn’t remotely close to definitive, and the author himself goes to great length to indicate that. In fact, he even says that
The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 pmpreindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for
“dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” which is considered to be in the range 1 to
2 K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002; Hansen, 2004].
From:
HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH’S
CLIMATE SYSTEM
Stephen E. Schwartz
June 2007
Accepted for publication in
Journal of Geophysical Research
Environmental Sciences Department/Atmospheric Sciences Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
P.O. Box 5000
Upton, NY 11973-5000
http://www.bnl.gov
Wayne,
The quotes were reproduced on the good senator’s web site FYI.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 pmHi Tim:
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pmBlue Ribbon….
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417092232.htm
ElBruce,
Thanks for posting, but you haven’t provided any credentials for Al Gore. He’s a politician, not a scientist so my question was obviously rhetorical.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Wayne,
The quotes were reproduced on the good senator’s web site FYI.
*
so was this.
:)
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 pmTim Vaculik Says:
ElBruce,
Thanks for posting, but you haven’t provided any credentials for Al Gore. He’s a politician, not a scientist so my question was obviously rhetorical.
*
senator is a politician,
not a scientist,
eh?
* & *
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 pmTV
Oh boy. The climate conference. Do you think this NYC climate conference has an agenda? They admit it overtly. From your own selected quote: … international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC.
In science you don’t counter reports by holding a politically charged conference. You do experiments, develop models, collect data, etc. to DEMONSTRATE that the current view is incorrect. If/when that happens, I guarantee that scientists will pay attention. You don’t think that a scientist that disproves GCC will be famous and funded for life?
Perhaps the editors suppressed their manuscripts because the data is crap. Did they present their data? Can we look at their data? There are MANY journals in which to publish. Do they all have unscrupulous editors that are “suppressing” their data?
Sorry, but I am done fact-checking you for the night. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, but ultimately, conclusions must be based on evidence. I can tell you one thing TV. I certainly hope you are right, but at this point, the evidence says otherwise.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 pmSo, Mr. Vaculik, you’re saying that Sen Inhofe copied all those quotes off the WorldNetDaily article? Because that does not increase their validity any more.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pmThe following excerpts are from an article entitled “Is climate sensitive to solar variability?
by Nicola Scafetta, a research associate in the Duke University physics department and Bruce West, who is chief scientist in the mathematical and information science directorate, US Army Research Office, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
“The causes of global warming—the increase of approximately 0.8±0.1 ?C in the average global temperature near Earth’s surface since 1900—are not as apparent as some recent scientific publications and the popular media indicate. We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.”
“…The nonequilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is influencing climate significantly more than
the IPCC report claims. If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest,
the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly overestimated. We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature”
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pmtim vakabaloonknot,
“god is cooling the earth”
:)
yes?
no?
*
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pmWayne,
C’mon guy. Read the quotes! If that doesn’t satisfy your thirst for knowledge, just go look up and read the source documents themselves.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Here’s the REAL story on the people behind the hoax and unfortunately, the hoax is on you because they stand to make BILLIONS by transferring wealth.
Where’s the real story? Did you intend to post one of those freeper links?
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Folks, you ought to be looking where the money REALLY is on this issue! Who has it, who is behind it, who stands to benefit from it!
I find it interesting that when it’s an issue you agree with, the leaders of all the vested corporate interests involved in it are the experts, and when it’s something you disagree with they’ve got a personal agenda and are lying. Perhaps you should examine the evidence given by both sides, like the 90% of scientists do who agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is a major factor.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
You need to start doing your homework!
I was listening to a great morning talk show, Quinn & Rose on XM this morning…
Oh God, not talk radio. Please don’t tell me you “do your homework” by listening to talk radio.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
…an article from one of our country’s leading climatologists (a lady whose name escapes me at the moment.) … All I remember other than this was that this lady is quite famous for being the first person (or woman possibly) to receive a PhD in Climate Science!
So we can’t check her credentials. Who issued this PhD?
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Don’t fall for the specious argument that the SOURCE of funding or affiliations always affects what scientists say… Why is there any difference, hmmmm?
Because when 10% of credentialed scientists express doubts and 100% of those happen to be funded by energy companies and wingnut think tanks, that’s a statistical improbability that indicates a correlation between energy/wingnut funding and saying that climate change is false. I’m not saying that proves they were bribed to change their opinions – it’s just as reasonable that the funders merely scoured the scientific community for the few people who already agreed with them and then offered them grants to publish something saying so. But the outcome is the same.
It’s also worth noting that of the 10% who “express doubts,” very few of those are actually certain it is false; many of them just aren’t personally certain it’s true. In most cases that’s because they haven’t done a full evaluation of the data involved themselves. So the total of actual deniers is actually a relatively small subset of that 10%.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
It isn’t the companies making money on alternative energy that I’m talking about.
It is politicians and unscrupulous people like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and George Soros to name a few. These are the people who stand to gain through the institution of government mandated taxes and controls on carbon emissions!
Do you not know of MAurice Stron’s company and Al Gore’s involvement in it? We’re talking about trading in carbon offsets here. There are HUGE amounts of money to be made.
Absolutely. If you knew that there was an industry that humankind would inevitably have to invest heavily in or die, wouldn’t you get in on the ground floor?
Again, when the “captains of industry” say something you like, they’re the smart guys and we should listen to them and invest as they do; after all, they’re the experts in the subject. When they say something you don’t like, they’re just trying to make money off of a conspiracy.
Please, please please stop forming your opinions based on your opinion of the main proponents of either side, or what you think their ulterior motives may be. Instead, look at the evidence and reasoning that they’re presenting and make your decision based on that. It’s not that hard to actually figure this stuff out for yourself.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 pmFolks, if the article I just quoted from the March 2008 issue of Physics Today isn’t enough to start you thinking, then I can’t help!
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Wayne,
C’mon guy. Read the quotes! If that doesn’t satisfy your thirst for knowledge, just go look up and read the source documents themselves.
***
timeh,
god or duke university?
*
you decide.
*
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Folks, if the article I just quoted from the March 2008 issue of Physics Today isn’t enough to start you thinking, then I can’t help!
*
tim go back to the sperm forum,
they’ll help you out.
$$$
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 pmtimeh,
keep a pastin’ boy,
keep a pastin’!
;)
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 pmdbadass,
I addressed this issue some time back. I read the report or article that was referred to at the time and commented thusly:
The U.S. Army contingency planning was based upon possible future scenarious DEVELOPED BY OTHERS. The planners in the Army were NOT making any sort of determination of the validity of the scenarios themselves!
You might want to read the article co-authored by Bruce West, who is chief scientist in the mathematical and information science directorate, US Army Research Office, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (referenced at #84 above)
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 pmI often wonder where Tim Vaculik gets his science knowledge. Me I am no climate expert but I do hold multiple degrees in the sciences and I sort of think that the stuff I have seen and been exposed to in my professional experience sort of blows his cut and paste stuff out of the water. Still whereas I get the impression that Tim sees himself as the Sam Joe the wannabe plumber/war correspondent/dude who only owns T-shirts/climate expert, I say good for you Tim…
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 pmjoe,
You are always good for a chuckle.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 pmTV,
I have been reading the sources, and they have been decidedly less skeptical than you claim.
Also, from your most recent citation (the Scafetta OPINION article) shows some interesting curves. Why do the cyclical temperature increases in the temperature anomalies PRECEDE the increases in solar energy effects on climate? As a skeptic, surely you have heard that argument before, huh?
Also, why is there a large gap between the solar energy models and the actual temperature differences? Why is the rate of actual cooling in temperature much slower than predicted by the two solar energy models?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 pmTim Vaculik Says:
dbadass,
I am particularly taken by the proven evidence of the US miltary and ther climate change contingency planning.
I addressed this issue some time back. I read the report or article that was referred to at the time and commented thusly:
The U.S. Army contingency planning was based upon possible future scenarious DEVELOPED BY OTHERS. The planners in the Army were NOT making any sort of determination of the validity of the scenarios themselves!
You might want to read the article co-authored by Bruce West, who is chief scientist in the mathematical and information science directorate, US Army Research Office, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (referenced at #84 above)
*
your tax dollars spent
by the military
on something you say
is a fraud.
but you don’t mind.
* * *
common sense.
conservatives just don’t
have it.
*
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 pmElBruce,
Ya missed it again!
What if you could figure out a way to CREATE an industry based upon psuedo-scientific claptrap and sell it to your fellow politicians to codify into LAW?
Imagine the possibilities! Ground floor indeed!
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 pmAnd Tim’s direct expertise in the area of climate science is?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 pmIt was cool when I had the chance to collect weather data ayop MT Washington in NH for a little while and look at those data relative to prior data. I enjoyed that. What about you Tim? You must hva edone some interesting stuff which reinforced your null hypothesis…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png“>Here’s a neat thing I found.
I’d post more, but I don’t want this to become a thread of “who can find and post more scientific articles than the other guy.” Mine would win anyways.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
ElBruce,
Thanks for posting, but you haven’t provided any credentials for Al Gore. He’s a politician, not a scientist so my question was obviously rhetorical.
If someone had been head of the Senate Armed Services committee for twenty years and was otherwise constantly working on military legislation, I’d say he knew a thing or three about the military. Same here.
Do you have any idea how many briefings the guy’s studied? How many presentations he’s been to and interviews he’s conducted? He’s been the “science politician” for pretty much his whole career. His knowledge might not be as deep in any one field as a scientist credentialed for that field, but he knows a whole lot more in each than anybody else.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 pmTim Vaculik Says:
joe,
You are always good for a chuckle.
*
with a straight man like you?
it’s like stealin’ candy from a baby.
^
keep setting me up.
this is really fun.
*
btw, god cooling the earth…
yes? no?
<
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 pmTim Vaculik Says:
ElBruce,
Ya missed it again!
What if you could figure out a way to CREATE an industry based upon psuedo-scientific claptrap and sell it to your fellow politicians to codify into LAW?
Imagine the possibilities! Ground floor indeed!
***
you never finish your thought
do you timeh?
“what if…”
what possibilities?
clean air?
healthier americans?
you’re against this?
why?
***
no copying and pasting this time,
your own words.
(if you have any.)
*
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 pmActually, check out this chart, since it includes both solar and CO2 influences.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
What if you could figure out a way to CREATE an industry based upon psuedo-scientific claptrap and sell it to your fellow politicians to codify into LAW?
You mean like the military-industrial complex? That’s certainly a possibility. If only there were people whose job it was to just check the science, do the math and come to a nonpoliticized conclusion. We could call them “scientists” or something… Of course, a minority of them would give politicized answers, probably about 10% or so.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 pmElBruce at 87
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 pmFor the record, Joanne Simpson (the woman discussed on the talk show) is a legitimate scientist (retired I believe). I posted the link to her comments on post 68. Note however, that the radio show simply read some of her comments. She was not interviewed on the show. Since the right has seized her comments (from about 1 year ago) she has stated that the quotes the right highlights are not an accurate depiction of her original statement.
Come on Tim, I am getting sleepy. Can we get that curriculum vitae which might help us to see your expertise in climate science?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 pmdbadass Says:
Come on Tim, I am getting sleepy. Can we get that curriculum vitae which might help us to see your expertise in climate science?
*
ouch!
*)
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmI don’t make a cent for saying Inhofe is correct, the IPCC analysis is useless, the entire idea of “man-made” global warming has been a complete farce from the beginning, and it won’t expire until enough people are sick of being lied to about it.
Then we’ll move along to some genuine issues.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 pmtbone Says:
For the record, Joanne Simpson (the woman discussed on the talk show) is a legitimate scientist (retired I believe). I posted the link to her comments on post 68.
I seem to have missed that one. Thanks for pointing me back to it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 pmWell, there you go. The matter is settled by Cheryl Crowe’s personal opinion that the IPCC analysis is useless. Will Cheryl now proceed to copy and past all Tim Vac’s quotes to support that conclusion?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 pmThen we’ll move along to some genuine issues.
—-
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 pmPlease provide a list….
EB
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 pmI can see how you missed it, there is nonsense flying left and right.
Regarding schools banning “An Inconvenient Truth,” there seem to be a total of two worldwide:
Here’s the first:
OK.
The only other one is from the UK:
Yeah. They required a warning before showing it because a truck driver complained that it was too “political.”
I’m trying to find how many schools had no problem with showing it, but it’s all over the place; 6,000 in Germany, an unknown amount in Spain, etc. Suffice to say, it’s a huge chunk of schools worldwide didn’t have a problem with it. Versus two who did.
Marketplace of ideas, anyone?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 pmI shall:
- put people back to work, on infrastructure projects that will make a lasting difference for the betterment of people (the TVA and Bonneville post-war projects are a good example)- to make a long story short, “renewable energy” projects in wind and solar simply do not last nor have any significant payback;
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 pm- a genuine overhaul of privatized health care (cuttin’ off people’s electricty won’t make people healthier by the way);
- stop paying dictators for the material under the dirt they stand upon by becoming energy independednt (coal is a method to get a short distance toward a nuclear/hydrogen economy);
- Overhaul science education in the public schools, and take out all the “global warming” and “creationitism” quasi-religious nonsense despite the objections by those with interest in promulgating the nonsense (both ideas are are on the same logical firmament);
- Put the Fed Reserve under transparency guidelines now established for intl corporations; and broaden its present scope of international currency trade
I was wondering what was taking the Troll Patrol so long to jump on this fresh troll bait.
Nice to see Tim Vacuous woke up from his afternoon nap.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 pmI probably shouldn’t ask this, but how is global climate change akin to creationism?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 pmCheryl Crowe Says:
I don’t make a cent for saying Inhofe is correct, the IPCC analysis is useless, the entire idea of “man-made” global warming has been a complete farce from the beginning, and it won’t expire until enough people are sick of being lied to about it.
I don’t make a cent for saying that you are a 13th Century Ming Dynasty vase. But I haven’t backed that up either, so $0 is about what that statement is worth. Same with all of yours.
.
Cheryl Crowe Says:
I shall:
I ain’t voting for ya.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 pmBoth ideas, as it is, have approximately the same degree of logical basis to stand on, and be identified as “science”
I think Voodoo has a more rigourous logical basis than either, though I haven’t examined this cloely enough to form a definite conclusion
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 pmCheryl:
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 amApparently logic is not one of your strong points.
Cheryl presents a weird amalgamation of vaguely progressive ideas, but couched in the subtle vocabulary of wingnut talking points.
It’s fascinating.
Do continue, Cheryl.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 amThanks, T-bone.
I’ll put that on my CV: “Someone called ‘T-Bone’ says ‘apparently logic isn’t one of my strong points’ “
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 amMaybe they can go through some old episodes of 24 and see if Jack Bauer single handedly disproves climate change by torturing it. Then Inhofe can use the clip to justify his policy decisions
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 amYa gotta admit Ralph, going into the New Year, the prospects of a good Whack-A-Troll™ season are excellent!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 amCheryl Crowe Says:
Both ideas, as it is, have approximately the same degree of logical basis to stand on, and be identified as “science”
How do you come by this conclusion? How do you get that the vast amount of peer-reviewed data and data verification produced and checked by (90% of) credentialed scientists worldwide compare equally to the adherence of some extremely devout fundamentalists to an ancient creation myth?
Are you sure you didn’t get that backwards? I would think that the peer-reviewed overwhelming majority of scientific data regarding global warming would “have approximately the same degree of logical basis” as the peer-reviewed overwhelming majority of scientific data regarding evolution. And that the minority of adherents to global warming skepticism due to their political dogma would “have approximately the same degree of logical basis” as the minority of adherents to creationism due to their religious dogma.
See what I did there? Explained specifically how the logical bases compare to one another, rather than just saying they’re the same.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 amJust because I’m looking for leads on random stuff to read on Wikipedia, I went and looked at Cheryl Crow. Saw this:
So Cheryl Crow is doing stuff for global warming. It seems that Cheryl Crowe (no relation) registered to be a single-issue troll, if not a sock puppet.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 amNo, no, no, Cheryl!
That’s not the kind of thing you put on a CV. That’s exactly the thing you try to HIDE on a CV.
I had high hopes for you, Cheryl.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 amTRoS, make sure you stretch out good before you start takin’ your full cuts. Don’t want to pull a muscle.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 amThe Senator also congratulated the Oklahoma Sooners for winning the National Championship.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 amralph the wonder llama Says:
TRoS, make sure you stretch out good before you start takin’ your full cuts. Don’t want to pull a muscle.
___________
Yer right about that, Ralph. Put on a few pounds over the holidays. Heh… too many egg nogs. Or mebbe it was the brandy I put IN the egg nogs.
Anyhooooo… if the last few days are any indication of this year’s “new and improved” trolls… good times… good times…
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 amelBruce, I will be glad to respond to your remarks, but I will do so on one condition: please study ch. 6 of the IPCC TAR closely.
Essentially the same is presented in AR/4, but the writing there is a bit more opaque (possibly intentionally).
Then we can get to your discussion points.
Enough for now, good night.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 amShorter trolls: If god didn’t do it, it ain’t done.
Der…
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 amDo you mean Question 6 of the Synthesis Report? I’m not sure. Say what you’re gonna say and provide the links you’re gonna provide. I ain’t going on no wild goose chases to do your research for you.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 amI see that some pathetic deniers are fouling the thread. Listen up, freaks: we are returning to a science-based reality. You’ve already been left behind.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 amReichwingers sure like arguing that the world is flat. And I bet that the scientific consensus that our planet is actually is a sphere don’t mean no thing for them either, ’cause consensus don’t exist, dontcha know?
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 amI’m positive that now that Sen Inhofe from the planet Zeno is now in the minority party and in the minority of Americans on this issue. He is sure to accertain the support of Rush, Hannity and Oriely et al.
As Rush can return to his blathering that, “Socialist and communists have organized and are taking over the United States via their organization of Global Warming”.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 amSomehow Rush will connect them with the evil doers of “Get Smart” KAOS…!
Tim Vaculik Says:
ElBruce,
Ya missed it again!
What if you could figure out a way to CREATE an industry based upon psuedo-scientific claptrap and sell it to your fellow politicians to codify into LAW?
Imagine the possibilities! Ground floor indeed!
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
That’s some conspiracy theory you got hold of there, Mr. Vaculik. On the other hand, what if it isn’t all “pseudo-scientific claptrap” (like the insoles you put on your feet and they remove “toxins” from your body)? What if they’re right, and we really do have to worry?
What would be wrong with trying to reduce our carbon footprints? I don’t mean eliminate them completely, as that won’t happen. But what if we did pour fewer carbon emissions into the atmosphere? At the very least, don’t you think the air would be cleaner to breathe? Wouldn’t it be worth it just for that benefit? Cleaner air?
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 amTimmie Vacuuous is back for visit boys and girls. You remember Timmie, don’t you? He’s the guy that spews illogical and ill-convceived rationalizations in defense of the indefenseable. His voice is that of a lost little soul, now that his hyper-mensch GWB is kaput. Let’s all welcome little Timmie into our place of reason. Welcome Timmie. Don’t forget to leave your manure-laden shoes at the door.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 amJanuary 23rd, 2009 at 8:46 am
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
inhofe sounds credible in okla where the most ignorant people on the planet live…….I know.
But when he speaks outside the borders he just sounds like any old jim jones pushing kool aid.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 amWasn’t most of Al Gore’s inherited wealth in coal and oil? I would think he’d be more likely to make money by having denied global warming, than by transitioning his holdings into a variety of unproven technologies, then trying to convince the public they need to invest in those industries because the sky is falling. First of all (assuming he made the whole thing up) that’s the riskiest venture I can imagine; nobody of means would even contemplate it, and Gore doesn’t strike me as a huge risk-taker anyways. Second of all, this entire conspiracy hinges on Al Gore’s charisma and persuasive abilities, which I think Republicans will agree ain’t worth betting that much on.
Finally, here’s something worth considering: those who believe that global warming is happening and that human activity is a major factor influencing global warming don’t want to believe those things. Trust me, I’d much prefer to be able to believe that it wasn’t happening at all. That would be great! I believe it because my reasoning faculties tell me it’s the truth, regardless of what I would prefer to be able to believe. The same is true for everybody else on this side of the issue, Al Gore included.
On the other hand, people who deny global warming do so because that reality sounds a lot better. It doesn’t have any hard choices. It’s a lot easier for a lot more people to make a lot more money that way, and they don’t have to restrict what they do at all. They can just keep on doing what they’ve done in the past, and there’s nothing to worry about. That’s very nice and comforting, but unfortunately it’s got nothing at all to do with science.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 amTim Vaculik Says:
ElBruce,
Ya missed it again!
What if you could figure out a way to CREATE an industry based upon psuedo-scientific claptrap and sell it to your fellow politicians to codify into LAW?
You mean like the Free Market Capitalism that created grade A investments from dingle berries hanging of their butt?
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 amHey Bill,
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 amYa wanna bet on that? I’m sure the broadcast was relished by both delusional listeners who tuned in.
In London, where I grew up, we spell “rigor” as “rigour”, “color” as “colour,” “jewelry” as “jewellery;”
turkey isn’t a common fowl in London, but American web logs are easy to identify by the surprising numbers of them to be found there.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 amCheryl Crowe Says:
In London, where I grew up, we spell “rigor” as “rigour”, “color” as “colour,” “jewelry” as “jewellery;”
turkey isn’t a common fowl in London…
I like candy. Particularly, I like actual chocolate bars to anything else that’s chocolate-flavored. I find it odd that the American Northwest has more of a “transatlantic” accent than most places East of it.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmummm. Such as Boston, for example.
Whatever do they make “synthetic” chocolate of, I wonder.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:07 pmMy Timmeh you just lap up the brainwashing like a cat after cream dont ya. You hiveminders just believe whatever you aer told to believe no matter how stupid and ludicrous it is. You braindead cretins just prove Pavlov was right. You get programmed then repeat the hivemind mantra like a chatty Cathy doll with her string pulled. How does it NOT embarass you to repeat such abject stupidity as if it made sense.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pmBe careful with that axe, Eugene.
For the same might easily be said of YOU, and the “soyance” that Al Gore communicates to innumerable dupes such as
…
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:42 pmThe English find it quaint when Americans resort to profanity when they have nothing to say.
(Having been in America for a few years now, I have no opinion of it whatever.)
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pmROTFLMAO!!! huh huh HUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
duhhh
January 24th, 2009 at 11:32 amUnfortunately by debating the facts of “Global Warming” we are being misdirected away from the truth behind the “Global Green Agenda”. Global warming is just a convenient vehicle that is being used by a core group of very influential leaders that appear to be working in unison to implement a far-reaching global agenda. Disguised as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” are a disturbing, and not very well concealed group of current and former Heads of State, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe that have some very specific plans for controlling the future quality of life for you, your family, your nation, and all the citizens of the coming New World Order.
There are a whole lot of different people who have some very scary ideas about the future of the world and are working diligently to see that this vision comes true.
Nobel Prize winner Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth” is just a small part of this group of “Elites” that are planning your future.
Well, I will leave you with some quotes and a link to a website that has this information complete with references. Please at least take a look at a little of the information for yourself. Check out the list of members of the Club of Rome triad (I know, sounds like wacko conspiracy stuff, and I am not near as good looking as the crazed conspiracy nut in the Mel Gibson movie who won Julia Roberts heart but man, there sure are a lot of dots that connect) on the Global Revolution page, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton…, and there is a long list of further direct quotes on the home page of this site.
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
The first quote below has an interesting phrase “Global Consciousness” and if you Google that phrase combined with Barbara Marx Hubbard and the “Planetary Birth Experience” you will find out what Al Gore is referring to when he speaks of the “spiritual challenge to all of humanity”. Barbara Marx Hubbard is a noted author, statesperson, philosopher, and mystic and is a founding director of the World Future Society. Al invited her to the Whitehouse and while there she expressed her wish to establish a “Peace Room” in the White House to compliment the Pentagon. This movement is cleverly disguised in cries for World Peace, Love and Unity and saving the planet. Well, who could be against World Peace, Love and Unity and saving the planet? Only a bunch of hateful bigots right? And who wants to be a hateful bigot?
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
Quotes:
“We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.” – Al Gore, statement following his acceptnace of the Nobel Peace Prize
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller
“But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”
David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994.
Stanford environmentalist Stephen Schneider said: “We’d like to see the world a better place . . . to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
The crisis of environmentalism has been developed as a means to bring about a one-world government: “Through a skillful wedding of socialism, New Age Pantheism and a manufactured climate of despair over a ‘dying planet’, these powerful individuals (David Rockefeller and Edmund de Rothschild) are creating a climate of fear which will see mankind not only accept, but demand, a one-world government to deliver us from environmental apocalypse. This one-world government will, of course, be the capstone of their planned New World Order. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,” declared members of the Club of Rome in a sweeping 1991 report on global governance. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Brock Chisolm, director of the UN World Health Organization in SCP Journal: “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary.”- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
I don’t know about you, but a “wrenching transformation of society” is not what I have in mind for my future. I don’t want to be wrenched. May God (or the higher power of your choice, or no higher power at all as you please, have to be politically correct in order not to offend) protect us from those that are trying to save us. You know, that politically correct stuff sure ruins a closing benediction.
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
Keep marching progressively little progressives for you are heading in just the direction they want you to. To be little mindless slaves of the New World Order.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm