Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency “formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.” Though President Obama has said that he would “prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the EPA tackle it through administrative action,” the EPA’s finding allows the agency to move forward with regulations to limit greenhouse gas pollution to build a clean-energy economy.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have attacked the EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. But the Senate’s top global warming denier does not not appear worried.
In a speech for the Heartland Institute yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that the Senate could just “stall” any EPA regulation:
INHOFE: Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there. The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.
Watch it:
Make no mistake, Inhofe is an avowed opponent of EPA regulation. On the day that the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced the endangerment finding, Inhofe released a statement arguing that “Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks.”
Unsurprisingly, Inhofe is also against a cap-and-trade program, which he calls “another bad option.” In his Heartland Speech, Inhofe confidently predicted that he will be able to block any cap-and-trade legislation that passes the House, saying that “in the Senate it will not pass” thanks to obstructionists like him.
Transcript:
INHOFE: So, let me just tell you what I think. I’m right on schedule here. I want to wind this up and I want to tell you what’s going to happen from this point forward in my opinion. First of all, the House will pass anything. Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass anything. Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there. The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem. But while While the House will pass the bill — a lot of times there are questions here because some of you might not agree with me — in the Senate, they’re not going to be able to pass it. You guys – it’s just not going to happen.Now we have a history of what’s happened in the Senate. We had the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Remember that’s where we passed by a 94-1, I think it was, saying we don’t want to ratify any treaty – the Senate doesn’t – that doesn’t include developing nations with developed nations. Well, that stuck with us. And yet, with very popular people, like McCain and Liebermann coming up in ’03 and then again in ’05 – the reason I’m going to tell you that they don’t have the votes, it’s not going to pass is that in ’05, that’s when I was on the floor for eight hours a day, five days, or about 10 hours a days, 50 hours – is that only two senators would come to the floor that would help me with this because I was taking on McCain and Liebermann on this silly issue. And you fast forward to one year ago today, 2008 – Warner-Liebermann. It didn’t take five days, it took two days – 23 senators came down to help me out on this issue, because I told Barbara Boxer to you know, get over it, get a life. You lost, we won. It will pass in the House, in the Senate it will not pass. And her latest vote and she won’t admit this, but it’s 34 votes and it takes 60 votes in the Senate. Maybe the people who wrote our constitution knew what they were talking about after all.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Inhofe seems to be blissfully unaware of how long it’s going to be before we ever see another Republican President.Inhofe seems to be blissfully unaware of how long it’s going to be before we ever see another Republican President. Even if we ever do in my lifetime, that President would have to basically violate the law to interfere with the EPA’s findings – oh wait, Bush did that routinely.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 pmThey keep saying they’re NOT the Grand Obstructionist Party, but they sure don’t act like it.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:52 pmRiiiiight … he and his imaginary 60 vote majority or his imaginary 40 votes to keep an endless filibuster?
Ya know, loons like Inhofe that live in the world of Malkin, Limbaugh & Beck may be surprised to know that the world does not actually LIVE by their rules!
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 pmInhofe is willing to roll the dice with the future of the planet and his children and grandchildren’s futures on it. That should tell you all you need to know about Inhofe’s character or lack thereof.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pmThe Heartland Institute: believers in “common-sense environmentalism“. In other words, we’re already “environmental enough” in their eyes, and the best way to help the environment is to debunk the extreme angles and stay at a status quo.
It just boggles the mind.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pmImagine how many laws they will break if the republicans wormed their way to power again sometime in the future! I believe that must never happen!
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pmThis has all the charm of being hit in the face with a brick. I want these people gone. What all can we do, as progressives to shrink the Republican party? I feel like sending money to the campaigns of congressmen in other states.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 pmmk3872 Says:
Riiiiight … he and his imaginary 60 vote majority or his imaginary 40 votes to keep an endless filibuster?
I think Inhofe may have forgotten that the American people have the capability to make him take up a vote for this in 2010. Of course, all of the Democrats would have to be in the same boat here.
I wonder, has this always been the norm for politics? Talk smack about the other party when in the safe conservative-only or liberals-only zones? I had always had the idea in the back of my head about running for a government office, but now I don’t think I want to anymore.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pmoh my gawd… this idiot just got re-elected… 6 more years…
there HAS to be a rule or two against this crap…
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 pmwiley Says:
I feel like sending money to the campaigns of congressmen in other states.
Do it, you’ll love yourself. During campaign seasons, DailyKos routinely highlights districts in which a Dems has a shot at stealing a seat, complete with links to a site where you can donate a few bucks to them. But those “few bucks” from a lot of netizens add up, especially in low-population Congressional districts. In at least a half-dozen of the districts that swung this year, the incoming Congresspersons can attribute a large part of their victory to netroots donations pouring in out of the “blue.”
Next year, I’m going to give myself a budget – say $20 a week, and keep an eye out for worthy races. That’s dinner for two at a middle-of-the-road restaurant. I’m not wealthy, but I think I can forego at least that much to help make the country a better place.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm… I told Barbara Boxer to you know, get over it, get a life. You lost, we won.
oh my… you hear that b.box…?
yes, i’m sure you did…
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 pmThe EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.
HAHA! Good luck with that Inhofe! Unless the GOP has a complete 360 degree turnaround – your party may go the way of the Whigs!
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 pmHow exactly would Congress stall the EPA? Were they just endowed with new powers?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 pmElbruce – sounds like a good idea. So called centrist/blue dog Democratic Reps and Senators need to feel the fire too.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 pmWhat makes Inhofe think president Ventura will decide differantly.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pmThank GOD someone is standing up against this headlong rush to “cap and tax” that is totally UNSUPPORTED by the science.
The man-made global warming crowd is in a PANIC to get all their schemes in place before the public at large comes to the realization that it is simply the BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:36 pmpuppax,
Did you take government 101 in High School? The EPA like all other government agencies follow the law, they don’t make it.
Thant’s the function of the LEGISLATIVE branch.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 pmh.b. chavez, I know you meant 180 degrees.
360 is what they’re doing now, spinning in circles, going
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 pmnowhere.
NEWSFLASH!
It is not “obstructionists” in Congress that have grave doubts about this rush to legislate a “cap and tax” bill.
Many DEMOCRATS are opposed as well.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pmAll of you global warming kool-aid drinkers should do a little research into the science you are always so fond of trotting out whenever anyone like me takes up the argument.
There is an ABUNDANCE of information just waiting for your eager little minds to discover!
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pmApparently Troll Central has had a cash infusion. Maybe they got a grant from the Stimulus Bill. Even Tim Vacuous is getting some hours.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Apparently Troll Central has had a cash infusion. Maybe they got a grant from the Stimulus Bill. Even Tim Vacuous is getting some hours.
It’s either that or they’re competing for job openings.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pmTim Vaculik,
I understand, but the Legislative branch has already given the EPA the right to regulate pollutants. There is no mechanism by which they can just “stall” the EPA.
They can refuse to pass a cap-and-trade bill, but there is no mechanism whereby Congress can stall or otherwise influence the EPA’s regulation of pollutants short of new legislation.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 pmHi Tim Vaculik…
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 pmHere’s a nice summary of a paper that can be found at: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
dbadass,
Greetings…
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pmpuppax,
O.K.. I thought that this was what Inhofe was talking about, sorry.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 pmInhofe is a nutjob and his tactics won’t work here. A more telling point might be the article in the California Business Journal reporting LNP will be cheap, plentiful and coming from Pennsylvania, of all places. Is this why Arlen switched parties so he wouldn’t be punished by being aligned with the likes of Inhofe, Cornyn and Vetter. Me thinks me hears the sound of an oil patch shrinking.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pmralph,
I wish. I have to pay for this bandwidth!
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pmTim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pmMight you propose a hypothesis which might explain why it is that an absurd number of researchers, government agencies, learned thinktanks, and causal observers think differently? You have claimed this situation to be “BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment”. If you are correct who is behind this highly organized and successful “scam” and what are their goals?
Thanks….
scroooolllll past RHF
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pmbecause we can stall that until we get a new president….
Isn’t that the masterplan of the GOP in all matters ?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 pmTim Vacuous
middlebury.net is a Vermont community web site where and crank and crack pot can post anything they damn well please. Nothing whatsoever to do with Middlebury College, BTW
That’s what you are using as evidence? Short bus, we have a pick up at Troll Central.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pmsametli:
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 pmCool name…
Thanks for the tip, Bruce. Now that I think about, since I have an income again, I’ll renew my ACLU membership. I had forgotten how sad it was to have to let my membership lapse.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 pmI see someone would like to recommend the Turkish porn…
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 pmthis global warming stuff is a scam, junk science repeated by unscrupulous people to control the braindead masses
No evidence that CO2 causes global warming, Cap and Trade is just another way to raise taxes
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 pmWhatever I don’t believe in gods…
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 pmThis is from the NASA website:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html
Scientists Confirm Earth’s Energy Is Out of Balance04.28.05 Scientists have concluded more energy is being absorbed from the sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth’s energy “out of balance” and warming the globe.
Scientists from NASA, Columbia University, New York, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. used satellites, data from buoys and computer models to study the Earth’s oceans. They confirmed the energy imbalance by using precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pmblue state bob,
Haven’t seen you in a while. Hope the weather is good in NYC…
Just read the article. They are not making up the information they present.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pmwhy does god care about takes anyway? Still there is no evidence to support a belief in any god or gods so who cares what a god or gods thinks?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pmoops “taxes”
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pmdbadass Says:
I see someone would like to recommend the Turkish porn…
My bad. I mis-clicked. I still flag him every time I see his spam, I swear.
/hiding his Turkish porn.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pmSo Tim Vaculik can you do me a solid and address #38 please. Must be some powerful global network I suppose. Do you think it might be Spector?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 pmTim Vaculik Says:
NEWSFLASH!
It is not “obstructionists” in Congress that have grave doubts about this rush to legislate a “cap and tax” bill.
Many DEMOCRATS are opposed as well.
True dat. The problem with cap-and-trade schemes is that they essentially create a ghost currency, the value of which is only determined by the politics of the moment. Once you start to look at the economics of carbon credits, it becomes a tangled, obfuscated mess, allowing many polluters to create exceptions or to get away with murder by manipulating the value of the things. You end up with something being traded with the same level of complexity as stocks, except without any of the trading regulations that stocks have.
Carbon emissions should be taxed directly, per-unit, no trading.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
There is an ABUNDANCE of information just waiting for your eager little minds to discover!
There’s 1000x that abundance that you seem to be intentionally ignoring.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Here’s a nice summary of a paper…
… at “The Middlebury Community Network” op-ed section. Ooh, nice citation, Doctor Science! I agree with points 1 and 2, except for the bizarre claim that a “cooling trend” started in 1998. But after that it’s just a bunch of unsupportable conclusions, many of which merely repeat themselves.
.
dbadass Says:
Tim Vaculik:
Might you propose a hypothesis which might explain why it is that an absurd number of researchers, government agencies, learned thinktanks, and causal observers think differently? You have claimed this situation to be “BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment”. If you are correct who is behind this highly organized and successful “scam” and what are their goals?
Apparently 90% of the population is in on it. (rolleyes)
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 pmdbadass,
I don’t have a problem with arguments on either side of this issue, scientific or otherwise, but it seems a large number of global warming advocates do!
This has always been one of my central points. Let’s quit counting and start thinking! If we simply look at one side of an argument, any argument, then we will be unable to honestly evaluate the problem and thus be suceptable to being swayed by our emotions.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 pmTim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 pmYou didn’t answer my question. Who do you think is behind the BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment and what are their goals?
ElBruce,
Well, I don’t think a tax in any form is acceptable because carbon isn’t the problem.
Even if it was, taxing it would accomplish nothing while causing great harm to our economic freedom and way of life.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pmI am confused Tim Vaculik.
“I don’t have a problem with arguments on either side of this issue, scientific or otherwise, but”…. you will claim it to be BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment
What is it you really think? Is it safe to say that first shit was just intro BS that you didn’t really believe but just said or are you now backpedaling. Please clarify.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 pmThanks
Tim:
I read through part of it until my head started to hurt. It’s one guy’s opinion cobbleing together a bunch of cherry picked “facts” to prove his point. Still didn’t do a good job of it.
I think I will take the opinion of a group like the IPCC instead of some dude in Vermont whose job is web design.
“2 February 2007 – Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps now show unequivocally that the world is warming due to human activities, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in new report released today in Paris.”
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 pmblue state bob:
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 pmthe IPCC must be in on the scam…
Tim Valculnik,
The Greenhouse Effect is real! I believe NASA is a very reliable source.
This is a more recent post (05/27/09) on the NASA site titled “Satellite Measurements Help Reveal Ozone Damage to Important Crops”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/soybeans.html
Climate change scenarios present numerous global problems for agriculture in this century, with the probability of more severe and extended droughts. But there’s also the strong likelihood that as cars, factories and power plants both here and abroad continue to change the fundamental chemistry of the air, the altered atmosphere will negatively impact the biological processes of important crops.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 pmWhat the hell! Nasa is part of the scam as well? Shit this is really highly coordinated isn’t it?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Well, I don’t think a tax in any form is acceptable because carbon isn’t the problem.
It’s your opinion, and even if we… no, wait, I wont speak for the others. Even if I don’t agree with it, you’re free to have your opinion.
However, deciding that carbon isn’t the problem, goes against what many, many respected scientists are claiming. As it has been said before, I’ll give more wait to the scientific opinion of the scientists than to the scientific opinion of a regular, non-scientist person.
Even if it was, taxing it would accomplish nothing while causing great harm to our economic freedom and way of life.
If I may ask, why do you think it would accomplish nothing?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 pmTim Valculnik – is NASA part of the BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetuated in the name of the environment?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
As it has been said before, I’ll give more wait to the scientific opinion of the scientists…
Grr…. I meant, more weight.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm“dbadass Says:
What the hell! Nasa is part of the scam as well? Shit this is really highly coordinated isn’t it?”
Yes, it’s all part of a grand cabal. The Knights Templar are also involved.
They all meet at a Dairy Queen off the Jersey Turnpike, second Tuesday of the month, Blizzards will be served, to plan their next evil, malevolent move to increase Tim’s taxes.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 pmdbadass, you and blue state bob – got me cracking up laughing! Too hilarious!
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Well, I don’t think a tax in any form is acceptable because carbon isn’t the problem.
That’s because you’re denying the science. I’m aware of your “opinion.” It’s irrelevant because it’s contrary to established fact.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Even if it was, taxing it would accomplish nothing while causing great harm to our economic freedom and way of life.
Taxing something reduces its occurrence, unless the demand is inflexible. Crack an econ textbook sometime. But if I could make a buck by dumping cyanide in the aquifer, would preventing me from doing that constitute “causing harm to my economic freedom and way of life?” You don’t live in a vacuum. You don’t have the right to cook the planet I live on.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pmdbadass,
All I can tell you is to follow the money. You can start by asking Al Gore about his friend Maurice Strong and the company he has set up to make hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon trading.
More important is to study the history of the man-made global warming ideology. Upon careful examination you will find that the underpinnings of the entire scheme just do not hold up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 pmI agree with your straight-up tax proposal, Bruce. When W. was governor of Texas the pollution trading system went full-tilt. The rapidity with which the environment was degraded was visible to the naked eye. L.A. finally lost first place for U.S. city with worst air pollution, and Houston took it. It was really noticeable that each week the river looked to be dirtier than the last. It reminded me of the Silent Spring days. Toxic.
Huge wealthy lobbies have been arguing that poison isn’t poison since—what? World War II?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 pmTim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 pmWhere will this money trail lead and am I really supposed to belive that a bunch of financially motivated grifters have scammmed the global science community? Damn this is so far fetched as to be moronic. I suppose that shit about the lunar landing is a scam as well saddled upon us by that dude that made that movie The Right Stuff just so he could get rich. This scam thing is just f ucking retarded…
ElBruce,
I’m not denying the “science.” There is simply no “established fact” concerning the role of CO2 when it comes to the highly speculative projections of a catastrophic rise in global average temperatures in the future!
Sorry, but it simply is not true that climate science as it exists today can predict future global temperatures based upon ANY model. In fact the models have proven to be worse than useless.
You should be asking why certain groups of people have made carbon the culprit to the exclusion of all other possible explanations!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 pmI’m sure most you have seen images of the Artic Shelf disintegrating?! Amazing images. How Inhofe can attempt to block regulation of Greenhouse gases is beyond me?!
Tim,
For you – in case you haven’t seen them.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pmwiley,
You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about with respect to pollution in Texas.
The so-called pollution credit system actually WORKS wherever it is used.
Look elsewhere for your bogeyman!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 pmhormiga brava chavez,
You are aware that Antartic ice shelf levels are at their THICKEST levels in recent history, correct?
See, this is the problem. You and others get caught up in the “headline du jour” and don’t bother to look any deeper.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 pmdbadass,
Well, why don’t you do a little research yourself? Don’t take my word for it.
Start with Al Gore because he has done more to dupe people than anyone else in recent years. Check out the numerous FACTUAL errors in his book. Look into the carbon trading company he’s a partner in.
Do your homework, son!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pmdbadass,
The reason it is called a scam is simple. People want to separate YOU from your MONEY for reasons that, upon close examination are highly speculative AT BEST and downright fraudulent at worst.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 pmI wonder how these scammers have been so successful that House and Senate select committess exist. That the US military has contingency plans. That insurance companies are developing policy. That international agencies are scrambling. Al gore and his buddy must be some genius mother f uckers. What do you think Tim Vaculik? Shit didn’t even W acknowledge climate disruption? No I realize that dude isn’t too bright but still those NASA folks are…
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 pmTim Vaculik,
NASA is not a headline ‘du jour’ fool. Images are worth a thousand words. NASA is not showing images or releasing information about the affect of Global Warming for personal gain. You’re going to dispute the research of NASA – from environmental scientists?? WOW you’re either crazy or just willfully ignorant!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 pmThe reason it is called a scam is simple. People want to separate YOU from your MONEY for reasons that, upon close examination are highly speculative AT BEST and downright fraudulent at worst
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 pm—
Tim Vaculik my man, who are these “people”? This vague crap is dumber than the global scam premise which incidentally is really f ucking stupid. Does this global cabal of Al Gore’s friends atleast have a few sharks with freakin’ laser beams and maybe a hideout in a volcano or something?
Tim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 pmEarlier didn’t you say this?
“I don’t have a problem with arguments on either side of this issue, scientific or otherwise”
Can you explain to me the intellectual process you have employed when investigating all sides which has lead you to the one side you are trying to promote. You know the one about the global Al Gore conspiracy to take your scratch ticket money…
ElBruce,
You have to get past your blind acceptance that carbon is the problem before you can see the cap and tax scheme for what it truly is.
Try looking at BOTH sides of the argument in an open and honest fashion.
I can tell you one thing for certain. If anyone tells you climate science is a “done deal” and there is no denying a conclusion that has been reached by only one PART of the scientific community, then you would be a fool to believe them.
Another word that should set off alarm bells is “consensus.” Huh? Since when does a consensus mean ANYTHING in science?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 pmdbadass,
Stop. Rewind a little.
You need to look no further than the U.S. Congress for people that want to separate you from your money. They intend to TAX you and for what?
Upon what basis is theis “cap and tax” bill being put forth? Who is behind it and what rationale are they using to try and RAM it through?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 pmTry looking at BOTH sides of the argument in an open and honest fashion
—
Explain to us how you went about that process and then came to the conclusion that this is the “BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment”
With all respect Tim Vaculik, I sort of think it is time to cut the bs objective analysis premise and acknowledge an agenda or just lay you king on its side as I am not going anywhere…
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 pmdbadass,
I think it’s “check mate” for Tim Valcunik. T.V. has not produced one iota of evidence that Al Gore or anyone on earth (for that matter) is scamming people about Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 pmBoth sides of the argument have been looked at for over 30 years. The consensus is in. Global warming is real. Some of it’s effects, like ice melt, are progressing faster than the most dire predictions. And, here’s the big one, it’s being driven by CO2 emissions.
And here’s another big one. The ten hottest years in recorded history fell within the last twelve years. And this occurred during a period of decreasing solar activity leading up to the current level, which is the lowest in 50-100 years.
Gang. The sun isn’t to blame.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 pmOkay so now the US congress is in on the scam. Damn this does go high up…
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 pmHey Tim quess what? I am no tax whiner…. Never have been.. Tax whiners bum me out but than again so do people that make up stupid premises while claiming a need for objectivity…
A consensus means everything in science.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 pmdbadass,
I am simply saying that I can find no sound scientific basis for asserting that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary cause of temperature variations on our planet. In fact, there is ample evidence that other factors have a much greater effect. These include water vapor and the solar sunspot cycle.
I read a lot of material from many sources. What got me started was a need to understand why people were so focused on CO2 and why so many in the global warming camp vehemently castigate those who have a different view of the issue.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pmpete,
Well then, define consensus as it relates to the scientific community.
Use any issue you like.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Upon careful examination you will find that the underpinnings of the entire scheme…
I’ve heard the exact same words from some guy talking about orbital mind-control lasers.
“Go study! Do your homework! Dig deeper!” When I do, you just say “you aren’t seeing it yet, WAKE UP America!” The fact is, there aren’t enough psychedelic drugs in the world to make me “see” what you’re “seeing.” Perhaps a ball peen hammer to my skull might do it, though…
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
I’m not denying the “science.” There is simply no “established fact” concerning the role of CO2 when it comes to the highly speculative projections of a catastrophic rise in global average temperatures in the future!
Side one: Tim Vaculik.
Side two: 99% of the international scientific community.
I’m going to go with side two, thanks.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
The so-called pollution credit system actually WORKS wherever it is used.
Nope, classic obfuscation scheme. Kind of like the senior drug prescription plan. Remember that? Just paying for old folks to get medicine turned into a hyper-complicated puzzle just to sign up. If Republicans can’t win, then they start throwing monkey wrenches into the legislation. Carbon credits are just another big, fat monkey wrench.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
If anyone tells you climate science is a “done deal” and there is no denying a conclusion that has been reached by only one PART of the scientific community, then you would be a fool to believe them.
When one part is 99% of the scientific community, and the other 1% are all in the employ of energy companies, that’s generally good enough for me to make up my mind. If it wasn’t, I couldn’t ever believe anything.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Upon what basis is theis “cap and tax” bill being put forth? Who is behind it and what rationale are they using to try and RAM it through?
It’s being put forth on the basis that we’re in danger of destroying the habitable biosphere by adding unlimited quantities of carbon to the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases.
All rational people, including me, are behind it.
The rationale for “RAMming it through” is that it’s too great a risk to wait any further and twiddle our thumbs while things continue to get worse.
.
dbadass Says:
Explain to us how you went about that process and then came to the conclusion that this is the “BIGGEST SCAM ever perpetrated in the name of the environment”
An energy company shill told him to think that. That’s how wingnuts roll.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 pmI’ve never assaulted a person in my life but, if I were trapped in a room with Inhofe I would probably smack him for sheer idiocy and dishonesty.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 pmTim says
“Try looking at BOTH sides of the argument in an open and honest fashion.”
Holocaust deniers say the same thing. They can trot out experts, some may even have a PhD after their name. Doesn’t make them right or their argument have any merits. Climate change deniers are entering this territory.
Thousands upon thousands of scientists who write in peer reviewed journals, which climate deniers do not believe climate change is real, it is destructive and will only get worse and that it is man made.
Maybe you should worry about the future of the earth and not your taxes.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 pmdbadass,
I have ocean-front property in Arizona. Trust me, it’s there because I say so.
Please send me your check sight unseen.
This is what you are allowing to happen if you are willing to be taxed upon the dubious claims of the global warming crowd.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pmPete,
No the sun isn’t to blame. If we didn’t have as much man-made chemical and CO2 emissions the Greenhouse Effect wouldn’t be as bad.
Here ya go Tim,
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/soybeans.html
The severe heat that descends on the farm country of the Midwest each summer has combined with manmade emissions to create increasingly higher levels of surface ozone over the past several decades. As temperature and the likelihood of stagnant summertime air masses increase, chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the air – often the emissions from fossil-fuel burning – create widespread smog and its most prevalent component, surface ozone.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 pmWe only need one subject, Timmeh. Global warming. There’s not a single scientific body of national or international standing that doesn’t accept and/or endorse the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
You may scoff at the source but, check out this entry from Wiki. Then check their sources. I’ve been studying the subject since about 15 years before it became a political issue and this is a great summation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 pmblue state bob,
Sorry, but you’re gonna have to use a relevant example. Holocaust deniers can’t get past verifiable, historical events that actually happened.
The scientists you mention are entitled to their opinions, but not their own set of facts. I say that if you look at any number of issues the global warming crowd has seized upon, you will see that what they actually have are THEORIES, not facts to back them up.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 pmHere’s another good source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pmpete,
If you are willing to simply take the word of others without trying to research and understand it for yourself, then you are exactly the kind of person that will believe what you want to believe regardless of whether or not it’s true.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pmTim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pmIf you are comfortable with doing so can you please share your level of education, educational area of specialization, and career. See the thing is I am really a scientist. Now I acknowledge that my area is animal behavior but still I am more than familiar with how science works and the scientific community and I trust the work that atmospheric scientists along with biogeographist, physical oceanographers, paleoclimatologists, and all the associated fields of research conduct. You motivations as we have seen by your own words are related to your dimes and nickels and nothing more.
Tim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 pmTrust me pete has actually done the research you simply claim you have. pete is very knowledgable in this area and you are outleagued by pete. I don’t say that to disrespect you in anyway. I just think it is foolish to suggest you have hit the books and come to a learned conclusion while suggesting someone as knowledgable on this subject as pete is has not.That is just ill advised…
Tim:
As more and more of the science is analyzed, as scientific studies are completed, we are coming very close, as close as you can with science, to the fact that climate change is a fact. Yet you choose to ignore it.
I get the sneaking suspicion you also ignore evolution and think the world is 6,000 years old and that is why you won’t, and I guess can’t, accept global warming. Messes up your creationist fairy tale. Am I getting warm Timmy?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pmWe have plenty of facts Timmeh. Thousands of lifetimes worth of data. That data has led to a theory. A theory is the highest form in science. A law is merely a repeated observation. A theory, like gravity, evolution, or global warming means has reached the point where the data, in accordance with known laws, supports the theory. It’s the same standard as orbital mechanics or atomic physics.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pmFolks, history is littered with the intellectual shipwrecks of so-called experts and conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, many innocents also drowned along with them.
In times past, through the present and as it will be in the future, it is often the skeptic, the sometimes lone voice that had the courage to stand up and express an unpopular point of view that turns out to be right after all.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 pmOh really, Timmeh? Have you kept records of temperature, water and air, and date for 20 years. Have you tracked migrations? Have you watched Northern species die out and be replaced with Southern species?
Did you even bother to read the brief description in the nasa link? Did you look at the graphs and ponder the implications? How about other research. Have you spent years reading, very dry and technical, articles in scientific journals? Have you checked the sources of whatever articles you have read?
Sh!t no! You haven’t done any of that research because if you studied the subject in depth you would quickly learn that your Reichwing heroes have lied to you about this, as they have so many other things. And the poor little troll brain can never risk that. The self-realization would probably be fatal.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 pmblue state bob,
I have never said that the climate doesn’t change. It obviously does and quite dramatically throughout the planet’s history.
What I am saying is that there is no credible scientific argument that we can PREDICT it with any sort of accuracy. People who claim thay can are simply charlatans.
What the scientific debate is about centers largely upon the historical record and what the data means. Ice cores are a perfect example.
Why do folks in the global warming camp have such a hard time accepting the fact that climate science is still very much in it’s infancy?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 pmTim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pmYou still have not explain how this whole global scam thing works. Nor have you explained how you got brighter than the global governmental science community, the UN, the US military, the US governement, etc. I call total bullshit. Saying you “research many sources” is crap and you and I both know that… Now this whole sorry as lone voice thing is just pitiful and screams out for ridicule.
Tim Vaculik, You know me, I am an honest broker and all I ask is for others to be consistent and logical.
pete,
So where’s the model that when fed historical climate data spits out repeatable, verifiable and accurate predictions of average global temperatures?
You know, the one that could use known historical temperature data as a reference for the model.
You know the answer, don’t you?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 pmI’m not much of a scientist, I’ve modeled oceans, but not the atmosphere, which is a terribly complex system. I just don’t see how anyone could believe that altering the natural make-up of the atmosphere by releasing millions of years worth of stored carbon is a good thing. Sometimes you don’t need science, just common sense. If you do not understand something, do not “f” with it.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 pmTimmeh. There have also been times when the best minds are denied, ignored, and even silenced by violence. We call those times “Dark Ages”. Most people only consider Middle Age Europe but there have been many Dark Ages. And they always have the same cause.
Ignorant barbarians seize power from those who are kind, virtuous, intellectual, or compassionate. I happen to think we just turned the corner out of a relatively minor dark age. I think that the war on enlightenment waged in this country from the dawn of the Moral Majority to the end of the Bush Administration will be treated as such by future historians. I just hope it’s not going to cost us as dearly as it could if we continue arguing with block-heads like Inhofe.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 pmdbadass,
Now you are bordering on the insult. Give it a rest, Einstein.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 pmUse any issue you like.
—-
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 pmgravity…. electromagnetic attraction…. cell theory…
Not a chance Tim Vaculik
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pmYou came in with a bogus premise about a global conspiracy. Now either own it or suck up the consequences of the stupidity of that premise. You have insulted real scientists and researchers across the globe and have not had the nerve to explain exactly how you have come to be brighter than them.
Let’s try an alternative thought here:
What is actually wrong with the planet heating up? Would you folks prefer the climate in the last “little ice age” as it was known and recorded by those who were lucky enough to survive it?
I mean, if you look at the history of the earth in whatever recent time period you choose, when has a period of warming been bad for us and the rest of earth’s creatures?
The vikings didn’t call it Greenland for nothing!
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 pmI’ll keep it real simple for you, Timmeh. Google “hockey stick graph” and explore.
Actually, we don’t need to construct a model. We have the Earth itself and those lifetimes worth of records and data. Plot the data and you see that there have been moderate periodic swings leading up to the beginning of the industrial revolution.
From that point, temps and human emissions have gone up in direct proportion. In the last fifty years it’s been especially pronounced.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 pmOutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts,
Well, at what temperature would all this entrapped carbon be released?
I guess the question revolves around the theories of projected temperature rise. I don’t buy the argument for a so-called catastrophic rise.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pmJesus this is getting pitiful…
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pmpimped out is lost again. Can someone show em grammies house…
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 pmpete,
Oh come on! You are referring to the infamous and totally discredited hockey graph???
You mean the model that when fed historical data was unable to replicate known temperatures?
Oh, please.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pmThe problem with the Earth heating up is hat all the life on the planet has adapted to conditions that have been relatively stable since the end of the last ice age. Seriously, Google mass extinction. But the thing to keep in mind is that if ecosystems collapse(mass extinction), the top of the food chain takes it the hardest. At this time we humans are the top of the food chain.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pmRun all you want from the conspiracy scam deal but your documented words of a AlGore global attempt to take your pocket change make anything else you wanna say totally suspect and sort of stupid.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pmWell, it’s been fun and enlightening as usual.
I’m sure you folks have heard enough of my eloquence for one night, right?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 pmTim Vaculik Says:
OutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts,
Well, at what temperature would all this entrapped carbon be released?
Well obviously it depends on what you’re releasing it from. Combustion temperatures vary even amoung types of coal.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 pmSo Tim, never answered. Do you believe in evolution or do you watch the Flintstones and think of it as a documentary?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 pmI don’t know who “discredited” it. It surely wasn’t a climatologist. I don’t know what model you reference either. I have seen, literally, dozens that show very clear results.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 pmdbadass,
I’m not running away from anything. I simply stated a fact – Al Gore is definitely a promoter of the global warming, catastrophic climate change, carbon is the problem SCAM.
He has already made multiple millions on this and stands to make hundreds of millions more.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pmTim Vaculik:
Please don’t leave without clarifying #38.
Besides that will force me to pummel the shit out of that idiot pimped out.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pmTim
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 pmThat statement is radically different from the BIGGEST SCAM premise you promoted. Nor have you shown any tangible evidences to support the premise and use of the word “scam”. It has been BS from the get go…
pete,
Last post. You are pretty good at one thing: blowing smoke…
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 pmWhere do you get your data, p.o? I have seen several challenges to various hockey stick graphs. I have yet to see one that makes a strong case.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 pmSo Tim Vaculik:
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 pmNext time can you come with some actual data. I think that might help your “case”
cheers and best-
A scientist, actually many scientists
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm—
Nice jon pimped out. Now you can list their names… Your are not in the game little feller…
They have eyes yet can not see. They have legs yet can not walk. They have ears yet can not hear. They have brains and refuse to think.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm“I mean, if you look at the history of the earth in whatever recent time period you choose, when has a period of warming been bad for us and the rest of earth’s creatures?”
Moron,
1. Massive flooding of many of the largest cities and centers of commerce and finance in the world.
2. Massive refugee crisis, starvation, and wars (read the pentagon’s analysis of what climate change can bring)
3. Tropical diseases like malaria killing people in Europe and North America, unless the ocean current that keeps Europe relatively warm collapses and sends Europe into a deep freeze, a real possibility. But malaria and other tropical diseases will increase theiur range in a warmer world
4. Increased frequency abnd severity of hurricanes, and hurricanes seen in places they have never been seen before. like a hurricane in the South Atlantic
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2004-03-28-brazil-storm_x.htm
Is that enough for you?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 pmAnother cheery little fact. If glaciers continue to disappear at the current rate, 100 million people will be without their primary source of fresh water by 2030.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 pmMay I add resource wars, not just for oil, but water as well, which is more important…we can live without oil, but not without water…
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 pmTim Vaculik Says:
He has already made multiple millions on this and stands to make hundreds of millions more.
It’s so cute how you guys worship people for making money when they agree with you and demonize them for making money when they don’t agree with you.
If you were Noah, and had a little extra time after building your ark, wouldn’t you consider maybe selling some life rafts on the side? That doesn’t mean it ain’t gonna rain.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 pmAll Tim needs to do is gather up his evidence and return with it. We’ll be waiting with an open mind.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 pm“It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” – Frank Tipler, mathematical physicist at Tulane University
June 4th, 2009 at 12:26 amTipler? Are you serious. The guys a nutcase on several levels.
There’s no theory that would rule out the possibility of wackos getting degrees or even tenure. Indeed Tipler is one of the cases that proves they do.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:54 amBTW, for those who don’t feel like looking up Dr. Tipler, he’s a ID/Creationist who, among other things, Believes that Quantum Theory proves God and Jesus and Biblical Truth. Or something like that. I must confess I didn’t take a long look at his calculus but I read enough about him to realize he doesn’t have a lot of professional credibility.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:10 amTipler? The Omega Point guy?!? Whatever else you may think of him, one thing is certain: He’s hardly in a position to complain about the lack of verifiability of a large-scale theory. What is it with you people and all the irony all the time? Is conservatism like a huge practical joke being played by one half of the world on the other?
June 4th, 2009 at 1:12 am… I mean *sputter* – this is the guy whos claim to fame is saying that after a bajillion years all human consciousness will be replicated (or, “resurrected”) by quantum computational processes in the collapse of the universe towards a final singularity point (or, “God”). And this is who you drag out to complain that global warming isn’t scientifically testable in the here and now? Congratulations marwick, you have officially taken the cake.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:51 amIt’s a hoot ain’t it, ElBruce? He really might as well have quoted Kent Hovind and gotten it over with.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:14 amIt certainly feels like some cosmic fist up our collective a$$ at times, doesn’t it? It
June 4th, 2009 at 3:09 amIs this the sad state of the productive life of Sen Inhofe?
Or, is Sen Inhofe using Senatorial abortion of Earth’s future fertility?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:41 ampimped out Says:
hot….cold….hot…cold….
The far lefties have no conception of this theory.
Then please enlighten us, pimped out. Please explain the theory involved. And when you do cut and paste the explanation, be sure to include a link.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:14 amWith luck Inhofe will be with his “christian” maker long before we get a new President so the issue is moot.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:29 amThe theater is on fire and the denialists are trying to block the exits. Isn’t that a crime?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:36 amPurple State Says:
Then please enlighten us, pimped out. Please explain the theory involved.
They’ve told us their theory before. It goes like this “winter still comes every year so global warming is a myth; I’ll believe you only when there’s no more such thing as winter.”
Which is like the captain of a ship saying he won’t believe it’s sinking until he starts drowning.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:13 amElBruce Says:
… I mean *sputter* – this is the guy whos claim to fame is saying that after a bajillion years all human consciousness will be replicated (or, “resurrected”) by quantum computational processes in the collapse of the universe towards a final singularity point (or, “God”).
Well, as far as theories of the end of the Universe go, that doesn’t sound too bad. Hell of a thing to prove, tho…
/don’t let them immamentize the Eschaton…
June 4th, 2009 at 10:26 amWhy are you calling those people *centrist democrats*????? They are so far right of center you can’t seem them from here.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pmdbadass,
O.K., picking up where I left off last night.
I probably should have gone into much greater detail with respect to the genesis of the global warming scam. I seized upon Al Gore as a shorthand for the issue. He’s a player, but he didn’t start it.
You have to go back at least to the beginnings of the U.N.’s IGPCC and it’s efforts to make a political/economic issue developing countries have with modern Western countries into a “global climate crisis.”
The real core of the scam is that the ultimate goal of those pushing carbon taxation is a global tax to redistribute wealth from Western countries, particularly the U.S.A. to the so-called developing nations, the “have-nots.”
Now I don’t have time or the space here to go into detail, but there is a wealth of information available on the IGPCC and it’s role in pushing this scam on the world.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pmblue state bob,
Again. I am not talking about “catastrophic” warming, of which there are no credible predictions that are backed by science.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:59 pmMarwick,
Great quote. Are you of enough years to remember the “global cooling” scare of the 70’s?
Here’s an excerpt from a relevant article at: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
June 4th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Thank You
June 5th, 2009 at 8:50 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
film izle
June 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pmonline film izle
sinema izle
film seyret
film
internetten film izle
porno film izle
porno izle
sex izle
porno
porno film
sex
sikis
filim izle
filmler
izlesene
izle
okey
oyna okey
giyim
yazlik giyim
kozmetik
film izle
klip izle
müzik
I knew he would still be wallpapering this thread. I take the Holocaust seriously enough not to wear it out. I am not nor have I ever been anti-semitic. I’m agnostic. Why in the world would I be anti-semitic? The assertion that I would “forget” or approve of any persecution and systematic murder is anti-social.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:19 pmSesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
SesliChat
SesliSohbet