Inhofe on why global warming isn’t real: ‘God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles.’
Inhofe on why global warming isn’t real: ‘God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles.’
On C-Span’s Washington Journal this week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the godfather of global warming deniers, said that he will travel to the climate change summit in Copenhagen this fall to present “another view.” “I think somebody has to be there — a one-man truth squad,” he said. Throughout the program, Inhofe went through his tattered global warming denier claims: that climate change is a “hoax,” that CO2 is not a pollutant, and — latching on to the latest false right-wing talking point — that clean energy legislation will cost American families $1,700 a year. At the end of the interview, Inhofe explained what guides his views:
CALLER: Yes, I agree with the Senator on what he says about the climate change. I believe that the world is just changing like it usually does. [...]
INHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. … I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing global warming. The science really isn’t there.
Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Todays “WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD”.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pmINHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. … I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing global warming. The science really isn’t there.
Is your (idiotic) assertion that there is a “God” based upon scientific fact , you colossal ignoramus ?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pmYep, Inhofe, a lot of people are in denial!
They think “the science isn’t there” because they refuse to make any attempt to understand it much less believe it.
With people like you in our legislature, it is no wonder everything we need is a battle royale.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
He scares me
September 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pmand you were a doctor?
how did you get that tidal?
you get your degree at a k-mart blue light special?
these are a few questions needing answered.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pmoh were is your birth cert? and just how long have you been taken mentally enhance drugs?
BTW, Inhofe, where exactly is that God “up there?” Once we get into outer space which way is up?
Also, what proof is there that he exists? I think a belief based on faith is such because faith demands that you take it without evidence.
So you want more proof that global warming exists, yet you push your faith-based belief over science.
I am sure the moderator didn’t challenge you on your assumption.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmPolitically Superior:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmCan I trouble you to share with us the empirical evidences upon which your belief is predicated? Thanks…
Why should you? It’s only science, after all, and science has a well-known liberal bias.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pmPolitically Superior says:
——————————————————————————–
I don’t believe in man made global warming.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Yeah , we figured that ; most GOP backing stooges have absolutely no use for science …………Or intelligence
September 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pmThis is the guy who said that gay marriage is a purely socialist concept.
Are we to expect that he is any less idiotic when it comes to climate change?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm…
September 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm“A wizard did it!”
When I puzzle over how someone like Inhofe could become a member of the US Senate, I am reminded of the justification Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE) offered in defense of the Nixon Supreme Court nomination of G. Harrold Carswell:
“Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”
September 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pmSen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the godfather of global warming deniers, said that he will travel to the climate change summit in Copenhagen this fall to present “another view.”
__________
Oh, please don’t.
We’re already the laughing stock of the world thanks to the ridiculous concentration of Creationists in our country. We don’t need you going to Copenhagen and showing how ignorant Americans can be on climate science, too.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pm.
Can Inhofe prove that his gawd likes to see his children suffer?
.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pmPilot, It’s hard to keep these neanderthals straight; put ‘em all in a sack, shake it up and pour ‘em out — can’t tell one jerk from another.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pmCoburn is the doctor, this guy’s background is in real estate and insurance.
Insofar as stubborn idealogues, they are alike.
Is this buffoon merely playing to the base or is he really that frickin stupid?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
INHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. …
How did someone this moronic and plain stupid ever become a US Senator ?
Is this nitwit incapable of comprehending that CYCLES could either be natural or UNNATURAL ?
Sheesh…………..
September 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pmGod’s up there? what the frack… No. Wait. God’s over there. No, he’s in that rock. Wait a minute, wasn’t he in that tree a few millennia ago? Hold on, did we tag him with a GPS chip so we can track him…
Oh. Cycles, yes, we’re going in cycles. Quadracycles, powered by a petroleum oil distillate. Oopsies. Climate cycles, eh?
Sorry, St. Inhofe the Stupid. The climate is changing. Has been ever since there’s been a climate. It’s dynamic and right now, we’re in a general temperature upswing. It probably isn’t entirely antropogenic, but we are NOT doing enough to slow that down or to not contribute to that upswing. And NOT doing anything to slow it down, in fact, doing more to speed it up is not a particularly good idea for the future of humanity.
But that’s not the key to Inhofe. He could give a rat’s arse about the future of humanity or his fellow citizens. All he cares about is serving the interest of his corporate sponsors.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pmOkay time to totally discount and freeze out Politically Superior. Disingenuous poser…
September 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pmInhofe and the Republican Party’s denial of manmade global climate change hits on two of the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.
The eighth point involves the intertwining of religion and government, and the eleventh deals with disdain for science. As I have said many times, and will continue to repeat, American Republicans have turned to fascism and America will not be free of the danger Republicans pose until they are purged from our government.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pmPolitically Superior says:
——————————————————————————–
The earth is getting hotter no matter what. If we all drove prius’s and farted less, there wouldn’t be much change. Im an expert on this subject as I am on almost all things political.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Since when did the weather become categorized as a POLITICAL TOPIC , you impossibly stupid jackass ?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pmHe gives God a bad name, like believing in one changes your brain to mush. Or is it the other way around?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:36 pmWell first I wanna watch the kid avoid answering the question of which are the few political things which they are not an expert on. What a complete tool…
September 25th, 2009 at 2:36 pmJust think, this fool has constituents. To these people, if you follow the bible, you don’t need any more education. That’s why the corporatists love them.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:37 pmAre skanks with bad teeth a political topic?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pmIf he’s up there, Jim, he must not like y’all R’s too much.
Best get t’repentin’, and quick.
i’m sorry.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pm@ 13. ralph the wonder llama says: When I puzzle over how someone like Inhofe could become a member of the US Senate, I am reminded of the justification Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE) offered in defense of the Nixon Supreme Court nomination of G. Harrold Carswell: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”
September 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Let’s not disparage mediocrities by making them associate with a clearly inferior doofus, Ralph. It just ain’t fair; mediocrities already bear a considerable burden in our great nation.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pmPolitically Superior says:
The earth is getting hotter no matter what. If we all drove prius’s and farted less, there wouldn’t be much change. Im as much an expert on this subject as I am on almost all things political.
There. FTFY.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pmwhere’s the science in support of a “God up there”?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pmPolitically Superior says:
The earth is getting hotter no matter what. If we all drove prius’s and farted less, there wouldn’t be much change. Im an expert on this subject as I am on almost all things political.
and see there lies the problem for you all just because you are able to fart and shit that dose not make yo a expert. if you are then your side the wrong side right side what ever you want to call it. is in deep deep deep dooooooo do
September 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pmThis man is deluded. He should not be representing or legislating.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pmINHOFE: “Yes, the made up, make believe stuff I like, trumps the stuff that science can prove. So there!”
September 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pminhofe is a dinasuar. Soon to become extinct.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pmPolitically Superior says:
The earth is getting hotter no matter what. If we all drove prius’s and farted less, there wouldn’t be much change.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
_____________
So you don’t think adding an extra 120 ppm of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has any effect on global climate?
Because the facts disagree with you.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pmPoliticalyInferior@18 said,
From what university did you receive your credentials regarding climatology and what have you published? How long have you worked in the study of climatology to make you an expert?
Guess what, we have yet another fascist Republican liar. What happened to you, politicallyinferior, to make you such a loathsome human? Don’t you know lying is wrong, and lying to try to score meaningless political points is even more wrong.
No wonder you wingnuts are in the minority. You are all fascists and liars. You belong in a prison behind several walls of razor wire.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pmAgain, LOCAL weather doesn’t speak for GLOBAL warming.
On another note, really, this isn’t about just global warming; this is about energy conservation and preparation. We’ll need the energy regardless, so why not search for alterior sources while we have a harness on the main sources?
Why not be prepared for higher oil and gas prices by developing energy resources that can replace them?
Of course, if we do run low on oil, Inhofe probably will be wondering what we did to make God stop laying magic energy eggs.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pmCrikey. Inhofe is the biggest boob on the planet.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pmSo, if I punched you in the face, it wasn’t really my fault because G-d is “still up there”? Neat! Religion should broadcast this perk a little more loudly and openly… who knew that none of us will ever have to take responsibility for my actions ever again? What a deal!
September 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pmI’m going out on a limb here, but I think Political Posterior just got name-jacked.
Seriously, that comment was just too stupid even for a troll.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pmVirtual Pebble says:
Sorry, St. Inhofe the Stupid. The climate is changing. Has been ever since there’s been a climate. It’s dynamic and right now, we’re in a general temperature upswing.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
_____________
Isn’t the Earth actually in a bit of a downswing, not counting the effects of human-induced climate change?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pmGod was “up there” during Katrina, 9/11, WWI and WWII. He was up there during Pompeii and the Irish Potato famine. The list goes on and on so my question Sen. is what makes you think that saying he’s “up there” is significant?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pmOnly Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle……………………….That pretty much reveals a big reason why Inhofe is a global warming denier……..
September 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pm***
#38,
annie,
that’s an insult to all the
good boobs out there.
:)
September 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pmI hate to break the news to you Jimmy — but the Invisible Cloud Being checked out of his local digs a long, long time ago. He is off on a walkabout in some far corner of the Universe and has long since forgotten about Earth and the human species. If you don’t believe me — go take a flying leap off the lip of the Grand Canyon and as you plummet to the rocks below, beseech your God to save you. Let’s see if that big invisible hand reaches majestically down from out of the sky to gently catch you in the palm of his hand and tenderly and safely lowers you to the ground below.
BTW – I refer to Jimmy’s God as a he/him/his because as the late great George Carlin observed – “God has to be a man because no woman could or would ever f@ck things up like this.”
Just saying . . .
September 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pmSo God’s just effing with us is he? As usual!
Maybe Inhofe should offer to barbecue a son of his to get God to show himself and back him up, and then we can all get back to the things that really matter, like increasing our troop levels in the War on Christmas! I”m talking to you, Obama!
September 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pm“I think somebody has to be there — a one-man truth squad,” he said.
____________________________________________________________
Hmmm…last time we heard about this “truth squad”, it wasn’t a “one-man” deal. I guess Inhofe had difficulty finding people to go present themselves as fools?
So how is Inhofe going to impress the scientists with his “another view”? Does he have science to back up his claims? Peer-reviewed studies? Anything that will make great scientific minds stop and take notice? Anything at all that will make him look like something other than a complete whackadoodle?
No — all he has is “God’s still up there”, “we’re going through these cycles”, and “the science really isn’t there” (and that last one will really impress a bunch of scientists who have the “science” in their hot little hands).
But I’m sure even Inhofe knows he’s not going to convert a bunch of climatologists to his thinking. No, this is just a flamboyant political gesture meant to boost his cred back home with the climate change deniers that make up his base. He really doesn’t care how foolish he looks to everyone else.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmIf God is still up there, why is Oklahoma still down here?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmINHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles.
Well if he is he has his head in his hands thinking just what in the hell did i do to make people like you.
God>>>> jesus H tap dancing Christ, i send you down there and you could not handle the job.
so wondering to all you freaks out there are the natural disasters just his way of telling us hes still up there?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmThe science isn’t there to support global warming, but it supports the existance of a god creator that lives in the sky?
September 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmIn that case, jimmy, let’s clean up the air, water and earth, so he doesn’t asphyxiate.
And even if it was true, $1700 a year sounds like a bargain
to sustain a clean, livable planet.
That’s what I have to pay every month for my heathcare insurance.
You get what you vote for. I guess Oklahoma has really low standards for intelligence in their elected representatives.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pmPrepare to be laughed out of Copenhagen then Inhofe!
Whose dime would he be traveling on anyway? Maybe he just wants a free trip to Denmark?
September 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pmAnd that is exactly why we must bar Believers from public office, especially those who think the Rapture is imminent. It’s bad enough that they are contemptuous of science in general but, we really can’t allow those who don’t Believe in reality to make realistic plans for the future.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pmI might add that I find it ironic that I, an atheist, don’t lie while the pious Sen. Inhofe earns a new ticket to Hell every time he opens his mouth.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pmMCMetal says: “Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle……………………….That pretty much reveals a big reason why Inhofe is a global warming denier……..”
I;m sure you’d like to think so,as a reasonable human being, but I think you misunderstand the cause and effect.
Inhofe isn’t being expedient. If Planned Parenthood gave him $1million he wouldn’t vote their way.
Inhofe is part of the Christian Taliban as are most of the Republicans remaining in office. ‘God’ is the ultimate authority, not secular law or the consent of the governed. To admit that mankind has the power to fundamentally re-shape the world by merely living in it is to deny God’s ultimate power of creation and destruction. This is anathema and apostasy, to imagine that mankind has the same powers as God.
The oil and gas industry contributions don;t drive Inhofe, rather Inhofe’s worldview drives the oil and gas industry’s contributions.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pm***
conservatives do believe there is global warming.
european conservatives.
**
by joe conason @ salon.
*
how come we got stuck
with all the stupid conservatives?
:\
September 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pmI think this is Inhofe’s logic for a number of issues. He doesn’t worry about providing decent health care for every American, because “God’s still up there”. Presumably, if God wants people to be healthy and live longer, He’ll make it so without our having to break a sweat.
And why should we worry about the economy? or unemployment? or rising bankruptcies? God will just take care of those, too.
Perhaps Inhofe needs to be reminded of how God gave man dominion over His creation of earth and everything in it. Stewardship of God’s creation is our responsibility. It’s not like God is going to bring us a shiny new planet when we completely ruin this one — just as a teenager who’s been given a brand new car by his parents shouldn’t expect another one when he goes and crashes it irresponsibly.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pmdidigger says: If God is still up there, why is Oklahoma still down here?
Brilliant! Thanks for the chuckle! :D
September 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pmMr, Inhofe,
As a scientist who has been looking at the current warming trend and trying to make comparisons to past climatological changes, there are similarities. Just as we have suffered through mini ice ages in the past, the current warming spell is in part a natural occurrence. But, with one major exception. We humans are exacerbating the current situation with the addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that had been sequestered for millions of years. This can not be denied. There is ample proof that we are making a negative impact on global climate.
Since you are not educated in this area, I would recommend that you shut up and listen to the whole range of scientists who are working directly on this issue vs one or two who fit into your warped view of things.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pmI want to live in this non-fact based alternate reality.
In the alternate reality, I have Warren Buffet’s money and I’m married to Heidi Klum.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pmDoesn’t this effing clod realize that he’s, essentially, recommending witch-doctors and rain dances?
I’m reminded of the horrible stories where idiot parents let their children die from treatable diseases while they circle the kid’s bed and pray until “God takes him/her”. These ignorant freaks shouldn’t just be removed form public office, they should be arrested and/or institutionalized for mental illness.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pmI wonder if he denies smoking causes cancer. Afterall, God made the tobacco and science has linked tobacco to cancer, so which prevails? People that never smoked have gotten lung cancer, so evidently the facts aren’t conclusive in that regard. It’s not man-made: man didn’t create the tobacco, just uses it. We don’t need to regulate tobacco because it’s not man-made.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pmThe only way “Senator” ImAWhore could possibly have a Christian bone in his body is if Jesus was phucking him in the a$$.
I am fed up with these Christianistas!!!!!!!!
September 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pmNews flash: Inhofe blames God for global warming.
.
Politically Superior says:
I don’t believe in man made global warming.
It’s not a matter of “belief.”
.
Politically Superior says:
The earth is getting hotter no matter what. If we all drove prius’s and farted less, there wouldn’t be much change.
Does God make greenhouses work? CO2 traps radiant heat in systems. We are contributing CO2 to a system which receives radiant heat. Therefore, our contributions do make a difference.
The question then remains, how much of a difference? Is it a trace amount, or a significant factor? I don’t have exact measurements of the relative quantity we provide, but here is a picture of the Earth at night as seen from space. That should give you a picture of the degree to which the activity of humans can potentially effect the planet as a whole.
Unless of course, you have a vested interest in ignoring it.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pmEvery year, God capriciously sends tornadoes through that part of the world, killing and destroying everything in their paths… they call them “acts of God,” and they just love him there.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pmINHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles…
Cycles?? What in Gods name is he talking about? There’s no mention of climate cycles in the Bible! Inhofe is a heretic! Burn him! Burn him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
September 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pmPoliticallyInferior,
You claimed to be an expert on climatology. I asked you from where did you receive accreditation, and what peer reviewed papers have you written?
I await your answer with baited breath, unless of course you want to grow a pair and admit you lied.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pmI thought God was more hands-off in this little experiment of His. Why would he be controlling the climate? And if he is controlling the climate, then why isn’t He fixing all our other problems?
September 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pmzxbe says:
I thought God was more hands-off in this little experiment of His. Why would he be controlling the climate? And if he is controlling the climate, then why isn’t He fixing all our other problems?
God will eventually write in the sky: “No Rapture until you clean this place up!”
September 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThese arguments, and the media coverage of them, make me so tired. Why can’t we lay aside our prejudices, and refuse our tempting financial incentives, and think about what needs to be done in order to get this country back on track?
Even if one were to accept that God exists, and the Bible is Holy scripture, one would then have to follow that precept to its logical conclusion – that human beings exist to glorify and honor God in all they do, and to do otherwise is sin.
So religists such as Imhofe must then confront their conscience: are they truly doing God’s work by denying manmade chemicals could foul the atmosphere? or are they denying that sin exists in the hearts of men, including their own?
Look at yourself in the mirror, James Imhofe. Would you trust yourself if you were me?
September 25th, 2009 at 3:25 pmgummble-bee-itch says:
God will eventually write in the sky: “No Rapture until you clean this place up!”
The Republicans would assume that’s the work of Satan and would proceed to pollute even more.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pmThat is indeed the problem, ElBruce. Our unworthy opponents don’t distinguish knowledge from belief. Sadly, since they don’t arrive at their beliefs logically, logic is useless when trying to convince them their beliefs are erroneous. Heck! They don’t even know what facts are. It’s one thing to dispute a conclusion but quite another to simply deny the facts on which said conclusion is based.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pmGreat point.
I’ve always told the Christianistas that this Earth and your life here is a test of your stewardship for getting into heaven.
They are too stupid to understand.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pmHow does he know it isn’t satan acting through evil men to turn the earth into Hell? ;)
September 25th, 2009 at 3:33 pmOf course, our stupid trolls can’t let Jimmy outdo them in sheer stupidity. Every one of their protests boils down to; “I don’t believe in global warming because Al Gore is a librul“.
No fact, data set, map, graph, or observation of real-time climate change can impinge on that wall of political/religious denial.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pmpag2 @3:00
Blanket observations contradict progressive thinking.
A little more empathy for us on the front lines.
I have been voting against Inhofe for 14 years, but he appeals to many oil and gas types as well as the jeebus sheeple that have immigrated here in the last decade. And to status-quo loving neocons, jimmy didn’t look exceptionally crazy next to dubya, palin, and coburn.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pmThe crusading C-street cult thing needs more exposure.
There are too many levels of crazy there for most voters to rationalize.
OT: The birthers are running an infomercial on late-night TV in Texas.
The highlight of the show is an interview with Gary Kreep.
You can’t make this stuff up.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pmAll these people who invoke God during these arguments need to get written permission to speak for him.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pmokie dokie says:
pag2 @3:00
Blanket observations contradict progressive thinking.
A little more empathy for us on the front lines.
My statement should not be construed as applying to all people in Oklahoma. We have our own idiots in Illinois too. Like Blago.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:40 pmPoliticallySTUPID:
The only thing you are an expert on is reciting the idiocy Rush told you to think. YOU are stupid. You are always going to BE stupid. OF course you dont believe in science. Most brainwashed morons like you dont belive in science. Have the self awareness to be ashamed of how monumentally ignorant you are.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:41 pmkrazeeinjun says:
BTW – I refer to Jimmy’s God as a he/him/his because as the late great George Carlin observed – “God has to be a man because no woman could or would ever f@ck things up like this.”
September 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
_____________
If he’d only lived long enough to witness the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pmWell if there is a God its off in another part of the universe making another earth as this experiment is on its way to failure
So you know God is just shaking its head. So i have to Wonder just how many other times God has made this same mistake. You know making a beautiful place to live then populate it with maroons.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:48 pmJimmy’s stupidity is not news but this may be the stupidest thing he’s said. Considering the fact that he proudly told a bunch of teabaggers that he has no intention of ever reading the health care legislation, while pledging to stop it, one can assume he has no intention of reading any of the relevant work on climate change.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pmI wonder what Inhofe and company are going to say if we manage to screw the climate up to the point where the earth decides to go into self-cleaning cycle without the benefit of the AntiChrist, Armageddon and all of those other acid dreams from their Buybull.
Oh wait, Inhofe doesn’t really care because he will be dead before it happens. Sux to be a kid in his world.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:53 pmThere were people like him around when Noah boarded the ark, too. But, they didn’t last long.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:54 pmOne would think that people who base their worldview on signs, plagues, portents, talking snakes, burning bushes, invasive species(locusts and frogs), and floods; would be convinced by disappearing glaciers, plagues, changing migration routes, desertification, invasive species, and floods.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pmThe UNEP now predicts that the average global temperature will rise by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century– under a best-case scenario. The average global temperature includes both oceans and continents. Most likely, Oklahoma will be at least ten degrees hotter and agriculture will be put out of business. But Inhofe will be dead by the time that happens.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pmThere were people like him around when Noah boarded the ark, too. But, they didn’t last long.
Two of every animal on the planet. The ones from the Americas and Australia must have used their frequent flier miles. And the size of a boat large enough to carry all of them and keep them from eating each other during the trip. And the entire population of animals descended from two parents.
I really like mythology.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pmSo the science isn’t there for Global Warming…but it IS there for the existance of God? I think Inhofe needs to get his speaking points straight. He can’t deny global warming because of lack of evidence and then turn around and preach about God’s will.
And speaking as someone who DOES believe in both God and Science, the last I remember the Bible says God put us on this Earth to protect it, take care of it, and look after it. We were not put here to act like drunk tourists waiting for the true property owners to show up and clean up our shit.
So not only does Inhofe know absolutely nothing about Climate Science, he knows just as little about the Bible it would seem. Yet it doesn’t stop him from constantly shooting his mouth off about both subjects like some sort of expert.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pmUp where, Jim?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:04 pmGawd, I say Gawd, tells us all of humanity is descended from two people. Adam and Eve. These sinners that gawd made, cast forth from the perfection of the garden, bred like rabbits and populated the entire earth.
Ok, which one of them was black? Hispanic? Polynesian? Asian.
Oh crap, that is four racial types and only two people. I am so confused.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pmThese arguments would be much simpler if each side was actually translated from crazy into English
Us: “Man-made carbon emissions contribute significantly to the increase in mean global temperature we’ve experienced for the past century.”
Them: “The increase in mean global temperature is entirely determined by a magic invisible man in the sky.”
Yeah, it would save everybody a lot of time.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pmHoodathunk, your argument that two individuals couldn’t populate the earth would be better if you threw in the requirement that evolution doesn’t exist and that there was only 6000 years to accomplish the task.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pmAs someone that does environmental engineering for a living I can honestly say that people on both sides of this debate have absurd levels of certainty in their positions.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pmpags2:
I saw Blago on Daily Show last night, what a piece of work!
Sorry to single you out, I notice a lot of people making more generalized criticisms on their posts in reference to region. Besides being a native okie, I’ve been married to a middle eastern immigrant for many years, so personally I have pretty thick skin. But it has made me aware of how even liberal minded Americans often prejudge based on region, religion, and ethnicity.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pmInhofe is a monumental moron. While he has only faith that God is up there and he could be correct. God may have had it with the fundamentalist zealots who are proclaiming all knowledge in his name and is starting to end everything. There is some none-zero possibility that this is correct, but there is real evidence and a much larger possibility that we have screwed up the planet. It is time for us to send the zealots back to their states and get legislators with brains in Washington.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pmBlanchy says:
As someone that does environmental engineering for a living I can honestly say that people on both sides of this debate have absurd levels of certainty in their positions.
Perhaps so… but one side also has an overwhelming collection of scientific data… what does the other side have again?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pmBlanchy, prior to the Industrial Revolution I would say you have a real point. Today, I would recommend Gold X powder or Vaseline for your position on the fence.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pmYeah, God’s up there, and the earth is 6,000 years old and your momma is a cockroach.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pmPLC, I thought that was a given.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:21 pmAbout a billion people will run out of fresh water in around thirty years. Is that an “absurd level of certainty”?
How about the fact that summer Arctic ice was 18.4% less than the 1979-2009 average and the third least ever measured?
How about the warmest ocean surface temperatures ever recorded?
Or, on a more basic level, how about the fact that measured CO2 levels have increased in direct proportion to measured human emissions and are showing an additional rise in direct proportion to deforestation?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:21 pm“Christians” like Imhofe serve to create so many more atheists.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:26 pmHoodathunk,
The temperature of the Earth can change of its own accord. The first ice age would be an excellent example of this. That was followed by a period of shall we say Global Warming. A small ice age ocurred around 1305 which obviously was not influenced by man.
Do you discount the possibility that there may be some sort of Global warming occurring that is concurrent with the increases in the atmospheric CO2 levels?
This is an extremely complex system. Anybody that says they understand it isn’t telling the truth.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pmHoodathunk,
I meant to say do you discount the possibility that there is some sort of natural change in the Earth’s temperature occurring that is concurrent with the changes in CO2 levels?
If so, why?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:31 pmIn 1305 people (all 12 of them) were huddling around small fires and trying to figure out how to stay alive.
In this century we have massive amounts of practices that pour things into the atmosphere in a fashion previously unknown. For the first time in recorded history, mankind has reached a level of development where its actions can impact life in a global fashion.
Go hide in your cave, Blanchy.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pmBlanchy most folks I know don’t think that what seems to be going on is an either or situation but a cumulative one…
September 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pmThen, of course, there’s the fact that the rest of the industrial world is bargaining, with varying amounts of good faith, about what to do about human emissions. There are very few outside the GOP still trying to stall with absurd claims of “God’s will” or just plain contrariness.
Global warming, and mankind’s part in it, are only being debated among a small subset of greedy American idiots. The rest of the world has moved on to finding solutions and we’ll be relegated to third World status if we don’t tell our pet morons to STFU and get with the program.
If batscat freaks like Inhofe are afraid of innovation? Phuck them! We must stop allowing people who don’t believe in the future to have a voice in future plans. It’s as simple as that.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pmHoodathunk says:
Gawd, I say Gawd, tells us all of humanity is descended from two people. Adam and Eve. These sinners that gawd made, cast forth from the perfection of the garden, bred like rabbits and populated the entire earth.
That is not correct. Although Genesis calls Eve the mother of all, the rest of the account implies that other people co-existed with Adam and Eve.
Only Christian fundamentalists take a literal view of the Bible. Jews and Catholics look at some of the Bible as allegories rather than a complete factual history.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pmHoodathunk,
Ahh. I see you have thought really hard about this.
So you freely admit that the ice age that occurred in 1305 had nothing to do with man. You therefore admit that changes in the Earth’s temperature can occur that have nothing to do with man. Yet you are 100% convinced that the current changes have EVERTHING to do with man. Like I said before. An absurd level of certainty.
If we truly understood this system, then we could model it without the need for forcing factors (if you know what that means).
BTW what do you think my position on Global Warming is? I haven’t said yet.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pmWell, if the subject is human influence on the environment, I reference the Sahara plains and the vast prairie now known as the Outback of Australia. There is very strong evidence that these arid deserts were created by human destruction.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pmOddly enough, Inhofe doesn’t say much about religion when he’s campaigning here. Instead he uses those nasty negative ads against his opponent that make them look like some kind of crack smoking street thug. I was surprised at the level of his involvement with the “Family”, but locking his lips on dubya’s butt for 15 years would have that kind of effect.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pmMakes you wonder how many of these church sheeple know about it and condone it.
Blanchy says:
As someone that does environmental engineering for a living I can honestly say that people on both sides of this debate have absurd levels of certainty in their positions.
I can honestly say that the very concept of environmental engineering presumes that we should try to measure and control our impact on the world. So assuming you’re not lying about your career, you’ve already taken a position. Of course, I make no such assumption.
.
Blanchy says:
The temperature of the Earth can change of its own accord.
It can, but there’s no evidence to show that it is. Even if human activity is only a partially contributing factor, it would still be in our interest to mitigate that contributing factor.
.
Blanchy says:
I meant to say do you discount the possibility that there is some sort of natural change in the Earth’s temperature occurring that is concurrent with the changes in CO2 levels?
Given that the post-industrial-revolution period is barely an eyeblink in the scale of geologic changes, it would seem like an astonishing coincidence. There is also an identified causal link (the greenhouse effect) so it’s not mere correlation.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pmBlanchy says:
Quantum mechanics is incredibly complex too. Anyone who doesnt think physicists understand a great deal about it is a moron. Yeah I am discounting it because the SCIENCE discounts it. Took it into account and did the SCIENCE. The idiots who want to dismiss Climate change with RHETORIC are just being idiots. If they want to make a case THEY can do the science just like the climatoligists HAVE DONE. Instead they DONT do the science they do PR campaigns to fool mindless gullible easily brainwashed sheep. It works to the extent they HAVE fooled a lot of mindless gullible easily brainwashed sheep
September 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pmYet you are 100% convinced that the current changes have EVERTHING to do with man. Like I said before. An absurd level of certainty.
We better HOPE that man can have some effect on climate change… because if these trends are all ‘natural’ and ‘unstoppable’ as you seem to feel then man ends up just as dead and devestated as if we had done nothing to address our contributing factors…
There’s a small range of livable climate for US… the planet will carry on irregardless of climate change, I have no doubt.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pmMankind? Not so much.
dbadass,
Thanks. That’s my point of view too. The question is separating out the influences which is complex and may be largely beyond our ability to model a complex system. If we are in the midst of natural warming of the Earth and greenhouse gases are also contributing, do we have the ability to influence the outcome much?
I also take issue with people only talking about forward feedback loops such as polar ice melting reducing reflection of sunlight (and increased global warming) while never mentioning negative feedback loops such as increased cloud formation increasing sunlight reflection (decreasing global warming).
September 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pmBlanchy, it has been posited that the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for forestalling the next Ice Age. While this may be ultimately beneficial to mankind, it is against the natural cycles.
I do not believe that man is forcing some sort of global warming that interferes with the natural cycle.
I do know that mankind has developed and is responsible for things that can do just that.
Do you understand the difference between believe and know?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:44 pmEugene Debs,
I’m not discounting manmade global warming. Try reading instead of ranting.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:44 pmBlanchy says:
BTW what do you think my position on Global Warming is? I haven’t said yet.
I’m going to assume it’s the contrary to what you’re arguing against, unless you’re also schizophrenic.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:44 pmRational people believe that climate changes can occur as a result of nature and some can be man made. Both are consistent with scientific facts. There is strong evidence that a portion of climate change may be man made. That is the closest we can come to a scientific fact which in reality is just a theory that is subject to revision. The “truth” as professed by science has a lot more consistent evidence than the deniers theory.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:44 pmdo we have the ability to influence the outcome much?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm—-
Sure we do. We put men on the moon didn’t we? You seem to be wanting to use natural cycles as an excuse to continue to live like spoiled children
Even if the mantle of the earth is nearing the crust, I still don’t want to breathe all the shit polluters are dumping in our air.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pmI’d like to hand off to my kids a world that is livable, and I’d like to see if we’re smart enough to sacrifice some standard of living or get into green industry in time to make that a possibility.
dbadass, I wish I could give you several votes up for # 121…
September 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pmI’m not discounting manmade global warming. Try reading instead of ranting.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you arent discounting it then I am not talking about you. Try reading for COMPREHENSION and try to keep up.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pmThis guy continues to amaze just how stupid the rethuglicans and now the “Family” who Inhofe is associated and stays/visits their “C” street brothel, they continue to pump out toxic waste from every orifice daily..It’s truly amazing…
Sure got old Dick Armey’s folks working hard…All the folks at the two Neo-Nutbag rethuglican universities (teehee) and all over the world the nut bags are at work trying to fend off reality and defend stupidity with every gesture they make…hard work but every nutbag is required to contribute…
September 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pmThis makes me hungry for sky cake.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pmThe, so-called, “Little Ice Age” was not an ice age. It’s merely the popular name for an event a “climate engineer” would probably be familiar with.
BTW. We don’t need models to measure an ongoing pattern. We don’t need models to clarify the measured increase in atmospheric CO2. We don’t need models to tell us 8 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the last twelve years. We don’t need models to tell us the polar sea ice is melting. We don’t need models to plum the lakes that now exist where it had been a glacier since the end of the last “real” ice age. We don’t need models to produce the record that began when Europeans began bringing their newfangled thermometers on their journeys.
Models are only used to predict results outside the existing data set. But, here’s what should alarm a “climate engineer”. The models that have been used since this accelerating warming trend became apparent around the mid eighties have been, correctly, weighted to throw out extreme results. Over those 20 years or so all the highs and lows were allowed to offset. But? The sad fact is that the warming, and melting, and other changes are proceeding at rates exceeding the most extreme predictions.
The facts of today, measured in great detail, are worse than the worst possible cases proposed 20 years ago.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:51 pmEugene Debs,
If you weren’t talking to me then why call me out by name? Seemed basic.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pmWas God here when the world population was reduced to about 2000 people between the ice ages? I guess you’re OK with that, huh?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm“Inhofe: “God is still up there”
I realize I sound like a broken record (and old for even using that expression) but how many times do we in the rational world have to yield to the twisted beliefs of these Christian lawmakers who believe to the core of their being that GOD is in their pocket? And that they and ONLY THEY know his will?
Facts mean NOTHING to them. Shame means NOTHING to them. They EMBRACE hypocrisy. They are “soldiers for GOD” and they are praying for their so-called “End Times”.
These Christians are Nucking Futs. GOD help us all.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pmBlanchy, if you are indeed some sort of scientist, then you can recognize the data gathered that shows the patterns of weather and climate gathered to date.
And as elBruce says, the amount of time mankind has been able to influence these patterns is but an eye blink if geological time.
So why is it that this eye blink of time, there is a noticeable impact?
Are you one of those people who thought that the decline of the buffalo herds in the late 19th century was because of an increase in lead poisoning?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pmPete,
Thanks for the recap. You have done NOTHING to disprove the hypothesis that the Earth might also be warming in conjunction with anthropogenic Global Warming.
Why would you model an ongoing pattern? That is empirical evidence of warming. Fine the Earth is warming. Are we causing it? What is the relative contribution of man.
Models are used predictively. Changes in the way that people do things is always based on predictions of how those changes will influence a given event. If the models need substantial forcing factors then they are not very handy to knowing how to modify future behavior.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pm“I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that there is a God. The science really isn’t there.”
September 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pmHoodathunk,
I can see that the Earth has warmed some. A few degrees (which mind you I don’t think is insignificant). At the same time I am looking for a rigorous analysis of how we can separate this warming trend from the possibility that there is natural warming also occuring (which we know has happened in the past). If we could do this, then we would truly understand what is going on. I have not seen anything to this point which would constitute a proof.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pmok, which toad troll went to night school?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pmThanks for the recap. You have done NOTHING to disprove the hypothesis that the Earth might also be warming in conjunction with anthropogenic Global Warming.
Again, that’s fine if that’s your hypothesis, blanchy.
Explain how natural causes make mankind less dead than anthroprogenic causes?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm@ 42. chiroptera toasterhead says: Virtual Pebble says: Sorry, St. Inhofe the Stupid. The climate is changing. Has been ever since there’s been a climate. It’s dynamic and right now, we’re in a general temperature upswing. September 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm Isn’t the Earth actually in a bit of a downswing, not counting the effects of human-induced climate change? September 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I don’t know the answer to that, Chiroptera. My recollection is that I’ve seen assertions to the effect that global temperature was going up, independently of what we were doing to push it along. That assertion would say that our own efforts in producing greenhouse gases, etc, just adds to the problem. It could be that the baseline, without anthropogenic effects, is, in fact, going down, in which case we’re really adding to the problem in a big way, because no matter what the non-anthropogenic dynamic, there is a global rise going on.
It isn’t easy to sort out the man-made from the natural effects at present, because we don’t really have substantial quantitative data from the pre-industrial period. A lot of what we ‘know’ is inference and correlation.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pmbelaccifer lacca,
I have no problem with reducing the amount of CO2 that we produce. I’m sure this would come as a shock to the Global Warming true believers on this site but one of the things that I do for a living is analyze greenhouse gas emissions of various environmental treatment systems and work to minimize them.
My main issue is the ludicrous degree of certainty most people on both sides of the issue have. People on both sides of this issue act like religious fanatics. Heaven forbid that anyone try to point that there is substantial uncertainty currently.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pmVirtual Pebble,
Look out. You just pointed out that we are having a hard time sorting out the influence on Global Warming. Expect to be flamed and troll rated.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pmBlanchy says:
My main issue is the ludicrous degree of certainty most people on both sides of the issue have. People on both sides of this issue act like religious fanatics. Heaven forbid that anyone try to point that there is substantial uncertainty currently.
The scientific community says there is a strong correlation with climate change and man’s activity. It would be fatal to do nothing as opposed to taking action.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pmusing words like “Anthropogenic” doesn’t make you an expert, inhofe
September 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pmDear Purple State,
You wrote: “why not search for alterior sources…”
Sorry, alterior is not a word. You can have alternate sources or ulterior motives, but not alterior.
I agree with your sentiment, though.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pmBlanchy says:
People on both sides of this issue act like religious fanatics.
Absolutely not. Only one side has the religious fanatics.
We’re not talking about who’s to blame for the current state of affairs. If we were, then we would be showing too much certainty. We’re only talking about what we can do about it. In response, the right wing tries to shift the argument back from solutions to blame. You buy into their shifting.
Equating both sides of the argument as being equally ridiculous amounts to taking the side that is supporting the status quo, aka. doing nothing. Therefore, you are supporting doing nothing. Thus, you should probably find a new career.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:15 pmWell. Solar output and orbital variance are out. There’s no data to suggest that the Earth is heating internally. Space isn’t hotter. About the only thing left as an alternate forcing agent would be a reduction in clouds, whether from natural sources or man made particulates (NOTE: The Western World has made great progress in deducing particulate emissions.).
On the other hand we have a forcing agent present in the increasing emissions from human activities. There’s never been a similar constant source of greenhouse gases. We have, according to the best available data, seen evidence of greenhouse warming in Earth’s past and there’s a striking correlation in the exponential increase in emissions, the exponential rise in atmospheric CO2, and the rapid (some would say unprecedented in absence of a forcing agent) rise in temperatures.
Excluding CO2 because one distrusts “forced” models is silly. One would think that, in light of existing data, it would only make sense to do all in our power to reduce our forcing agents and observe the results.
Here’s a link that covers most of the importance of CO2 in models.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php
September 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pmOf course there is uncertainty.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pmWhat course of action do we take is the real question.
What would Blanchy do?
Pags2,
There is a problem with this “scientific community” that you refer to. People have looked into it and there are very few meteorologists or atmospheric chemists on it. It seems like a fabricated community in a lot of respects.
You might not guess it but there are a number of meteorologists that also think that yes there is global warming but that it is not significant compared to natural warming processes.
Call me crazy, but I seek out the opinions of scientists on both sides of the issue.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pmAnd he’s watching your every move Inhofe, your every move. But I doubt he’s in agreement with you.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:18 pm“Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Senators….” With apologies to Waylon and Willie.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pmBlanchy says:
Eugene Debs,
If you weren’t talking to me then why call me out by name? Seemed basic.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
WOW you dont read well at ALL do you? I called you out by name and made a specific rebuttal of one of your arguments. That is about quantum mechanics. Just because something is very complex does NOT in itself mean we dont understand it. Then I talked about a specific type of wingnut that no one can dispute exists if that isnt YOU, and I didnt in any way imply it WAS, then you have no reason to snivel about it.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:20 pmPete,
But I don’t discount the result of models that have been forced. At the same time we need to understand that in a lot of cases we don’t understand why we need to force the models to make them fit actual measured data. Scientifically that’s a problem and one that Global Warming theory proponents don’t like to dwell on.
The change in CO2 concentration from 1960 to current has been from 320 ppmv to 390 ppmv. Your description of this as being “exponential” indicates to me that you don’t actually know what that word means.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:22 pmBlanchy says:
Ah the religious fanatics stupidity. You do KNOW that talking points is hopelessly STUPID dont you? SCIENCE is behind the climate change movement NOT faith. If the other side DOES THE SCIENCE and shows we are wrong I for one will be glad and convinced. Of course they arent even TRYING to do that. Religious dogma is all about FAITH. Science, evidence, these things have nothing to do with religion so you are blowing ignorant smokerings out of your ASS.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pmOnce again, ElBruce beat me to it. The choices are simple.
1. Do something.
2. Do nothing.
When one considers the upside of doing something, things as diverse as cleaner air/water and being able to use our dwindling petroleum for plastics and stuff instead of just burning it as fuel, doing nothing loses it’s appeal even if no one dies.
I might add that, while exact measurements in atmospheric conditions in the past are difficult, there is a common correlation. Rapid changes in atmospheric chemistry are bad. They are often associated with mass extinctions and there is strong evidence that we humans are the triggers for an ongoing mass extinction event. Mass extinctions are bad and, since we humans are the top of the food chain, it’s important to note that the top of food chains are historically the biggest losers.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pmEugene Debs,
Do you understand what a model forcing factor is? They are used when your model doesn’t give you the right data so you introduce a forcing factor to correct it. We don’t currently know why we need to force Global Warming models yet we do. Guess what. We don’t understand the system well at all. Perhaps you can share some more irrelevant examples about Quantum Physics to rebut me here.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pmSo Blanchy what is the harm but reducing human contribution to environmental degredation?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pmEugene Debs,
I would love to respond to your last post if only someone could translate it into something resembling English.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:27 pmMy use of “exponential” was a mistake. I meant to use the word “proportional”.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:28 pmdbadass,
Absolutely no harm whatsoever in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is one of my jobs at my company to come up with greener (lower carbon footprint) ways of cleaning up the environment. It is simply amazing as to how much CO2 is used running even small motors for an entire year.
My whole point is that the science isn’t nearly as settled as some people believe. At the same time, even if Global Warming wasn’t occurring at all, it would still be in our best interest to reduce fossil fuel consumption as they are finite. Someone said once that considering all the things we make from petroleum it is utterly stupid that we just burn it all up and that some day we will regret it.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:30 pmBlanchy says:
That is a better argument IF you can show evidence it is true. That wasnt the argument I responded to. THAT was you saying it is too OHHHH complex for us mere mortals to understand. Well in THAT context Quantum mechanics is very relevant. You arent very bright are you?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:30 pmBlanchy says:
I am not seeing why YOUR admitted stupidity is MY problem. Find a reasonably bright six year old and pay him to explain it to you
September 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pmBlanchy admitted he is an industry insider. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Blanchy must be Tim Vaculik or whatever his name is.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pmMy main issue is the ludicrous degree of certainty most people on both sides of the issue have. People on both sides of this issue act like religious fanatics. Heaven forbid that anyone try to point that there is substantial uncertainty currently.
See, the problem with that is that people like Imhofe use your ‘uncertainty’ to argue that nothing should be done to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions… and you know that.
So whether there is certainty or not, your ‘reasonableness’ only reinforces the position of those who would do nothing… and I think you know that.
And whether or not the causes are man-made, mankind will suffer the consequences, that IS certain.
And we need to start dealing with those problems/consequences as soon as possible, in my opinion.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pmBlanchy, what would be the harm in erring on the side of caution?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm@ Shayne. Heh. Industry insider? That’s funny. I spend my life cleaning up environmental spills created by major oil companies and now I’m an industry insider. So what have you done for the planet?
@Eugene Debs,
As for my brightness, I get paid a pretty decent wage to run an engineering group and one of the larger environmental conferences seems to like having me on their technical committee. I guess I just must have snookered them all because you see right through me, you dog, you.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:34 pmSo you admit you believe in antrhropormorphic addition to the problem and are STILL pushing the mantra that the science isnt settled. Yeah it is. It is settled not as to how much is manmade but it is settled because the climate change deniers are not doing SCIENCE they are doing PR. Those doing the SCIENCE are all on the same side. How may peer reviewed studies SUPPORT climate change and an anthropormorphic element? Isnt that number close to a thousand? How many DISPUTE IT? Isnt that number less than ten?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:35 pmShayne,
Absolutely no harm in erring on the side of caution. Quite frankly it would help line my pockets. At the same time, it really irks me when people are overly sure about anything particularly scientifically related.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:35 pmBlanchy says:
Pags2,
There is a problem with this “scientific community” that you refer to. People have looked into it and there are very few meteorologists or atmospheric chemists on it. It seems like a fabricated community in a lot of respects.
The only scientists that are denying climate change are those who are not qualified to make that conclusion or those on the payroll of the lobbyists and corporations who are against cap and trade.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pmWhat people have looked into it? Fox News? Your bosses? How about climatologists or physicists? Or don’t your “people” know what those are?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pmBlanchy says:
Well you are the one saying you couldnt understand a pretty straight forward post written in plain English. As for fooling your boss? Good luck with that.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pmWhat’s your degree in?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:37 pmEugene Debs,
Actually being peer reviewed doesn’t mean as much as you think it does. Currently papers that imply that the science isn’t settled wrt anthropogenic Global Warming aren’t selected for publishing by many scientific journals. Is it because the papers are bad or because the editing committees have an agenda? A PhD Meteorologist over at MIT can’t get a paper published questioning the science of global warming. I have read his material and he isn’t uninformed in the slightest wrt this topic.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pmChemical/Biomedical Engineering.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pmAbsolutely no harm in erring on the side of caution. Quite frankly it would help line my pockets. At the same time, it really irks me when people are overly sure about anything particularly scientifically related.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I find this to be a reasonable statement. However as I keep pointing out those DENYING the really important aspect, not quibbling about how much, anthropormorphic componenet to climate change are doing PR. Those doing the SCIENCE are not denying this.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pmHey Inhofe… if god’s still up there, then prove it.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pmBlanchy says:
Its funny. That is the EXACT talking point that Rush Limbaugh and the rightwing screechmonkey choir keeps making. I dont think I will take your word for it. Perhaps YOU just arent good enough to GET any peer reviewed studies published.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:42 pmBlanchy says:
Chemical/Biomedical Engineering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so then you are NOT a climatologist. Yeah another engineer talking above his paygrade. FAIL.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pmGeh, ulterior.
TGIFF.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pmShayne,
Check out something written by Richard Lindzen. PhD meteorologist over at MIT. He went down the list of the scientist are on this “scientific community”. Very few people on there actually studied the climate for a living. I’m sure if I wanted to say that the Global Warming science is settled they would love to add me to their numbers.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pmEugene Debs,
Based on what you have written so far, I’m not even sure you got a college degree. How many atmospheric chemistry classes have you had? I had a couple of semesters myself.
Point me in the direction of a well thought out scientific article that you think will show me the light. I doubt I will need to pick up a dictionary to understand it.
Above my pay grade? I can see that you don’t even think. You simply parrot.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:47 pmBlanchy-
Again, explain how we are any less dead if climate change is the result of natural causes?
Your ‘uncertainty’ argument seems calculated to play into the agendas of those who would do nothing and yet you claim to be in favor of action…
strange.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pmBlanchy says:
Based on YOUR posts you seem like a brainwashed poser. I am not claiming to be a scientist nor speaking directly to the science itself. I am NOT a scientist. What I keep pointing out and you keep is that the DENIERS are not doing stuides nor peer reviewed papers which is how SCIENCE IS DONE. If they want to convince me a non scientist. THAT is what they have to do. Instead they are doing a PR campaign which is to say the least unconvincing.
Yes above your paygrade. When did you get your degree in climatology again? Oh you DIDNT? Imagine my suprise. YOU are a parrot and not a very bright one at that. SKWWWAAAAAKKKKK peer reviewed studies are political SKKKWWWWAAAAAKKKKKK science isnt settled. SSSKKKKWWAAAAAAAAKKKKKKK no certainty SKKKWWWAAAAAAKKKKK I had a Limborg flashback there.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pmYou don’t need a degree in chemistry to appreciate the significance of the fact that 7 or 8 of the hottest years on record for the planet happened in the last decade.
First, industry stooges tried to say it wasn’t happening at all. Their fall-back position, when confronted by the facts has been that it’s happening, but we’re not really the primary cause. When faced with general circumstances that lead most people to reach natural conclusions (like the average temperature getting warmer at a higher rate), one tried and true method industry stooges use is to obfuscate with arcane details. You see a lot of that these days. Another is to use any countervailing opinion, no matter how contrary to prevailing scientific thought, as a means of saying “the science is still not settled.”
Memo to Blanchy: the “science is not settled” on a lot of things that we nevertheless know to be true. It’s not settled on gravity, evolution, the age of the universe, etc. etc. So what?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:58 pmEugene Debs,
The people that you call “deniers” are actually doing quite a bit of science. Here is some writings by PhD Richard Lindzen. MIT meteorologist. Is it above HIS paygrade too? I’m sure you won’t even bother to read it.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762
September 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pmhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/
Blanchy,
Richard Lindzen
Do you think we haven’t heard of him before? He also says cigarettes aren’t bad for your health.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
NinerFan says:
Exactly. The science isnt settled on gravity. So Poser er, Blanchy, tell me the exchange particle for gravity or jump off a cliff and see if you can fly
September 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pmThe Republicans are using a two prong argument about climate change. They keep trotting out people who work for the Chamber of Commerce which has denied climate change according to their scientists. The second prong is that even if we accept climate change it is too costly to do because it will inhibit economic growth. This second argument may be true but it does excuse the need for cap and trade. Republicans have been claiming a study showing each family will pay $1700 more because of cap and trade, but that figure has been debunked. Members of the Chamber of Commerce, including some major utility companies, are leaving the organization because they do not agree with the Chamber’s position that there is no climate change.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:01 pmNinerfan,
Thanks. That was my point all along for which I have been troll rated and flamed. Heaven forbid that someone point out that the science on an amazingly complex system isn’t settled.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:01 pmEdit:This second argument may be true but it does not excuse the need for cap and trade.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:02 pmThanks. That was my point all along for which I have been troll rated and flamed. Heaven forbid that someone point out that the science on an amazingly complex system isn’t settled.
Right.
But you have consistently ignored MY point that regardless of the causes, mankind will suffer the consequences.
And that your argument seems calculated to give cover to those who would prefer to do nothing about it for their own reasons…
strange.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:08 pm@Shayne,
Pointing out that Richard Lindzen works at a think tank funded by ExxonMobil doesn’t refute what he is saying. Maybe there is some validity to his arguments or maybe not. Argue against his points if you can. I find some to be interesting and to add some value to the discussion.
@Eugene Debs,
We know a wide variety of things about gravity and in some cases have assigned that knowledge the name Law.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:08 pmWe also don’t know everything there is to know about it. Funny, but I can state that without drawing the ire of anyone. LIke I said before, heaven forbid that someone say the science isn’t perfect on our atmospere.
Uhhhhh, we don’t believe facts like you believe religion mr. inhofe. We understand facts until they can be dis-proven, then find new facts to disprove and replace.
We try to avoid documents that have been selectively rewritten to appease the political leaders and fragile belief systems of their respective times, and held as “what you should believe” over punishment of death or torture.
I take it being laughed at in public gives you a thick skin against reality.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:09 pmBlanchy says:
GOD you are pathetic. I read it before I even read your post MORON. So you have Linden making some arguments. The same guy PAID by Exxon and who REALLY didnt make any argument AGAINST cliamte change. Also since he ADMITS that water vapor IS a greenhouse gas that kind of contradicts the idea that clouds are going to have a NEGATIVE effect because they block the sun. The guy who whored for tabacco companies is your BEST ARGUMENT? Take a pill.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pmbelaccifer lacca,
Please do pass legislation controlling CO2 emissions. It will just increase my workload designing emissions control equipment.
The question is how much leverage we have over the environment. That is an important question. If we have little, then we could be wasting money that might be better spent. If we have a lot, then trying to change the temperature of the earth is a good idea. I would contend we don’t know that answer right now.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:11 pmBlanchy says:
OK. So we are at the point that MATTERS. The science on gravity is settled enough you arent going to try to fly. The science on climate change is settled enough that we ought to do what we can to ameliorate the effects to the extent we can. So what is your argument then? There isnt any question that the consensus is for anthropormorphic climate change. The deniers are out there doing a PR campaign to convince the gullible, just that they should be skeptical and NOT do anything. THAT is the problem not this mythical strawman about certainty you keep tossing out there
September 25th, 2009 at 6:13 pmBlanchy, your degree isn’t in science but I’d think you could at least understand what peer reviewed means. It means nobody has disproved the theory presented. Lindzen has not been peer reviewed and hasn’t even presented his theory to scientific journals.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:13 pmIs it this Richard Lindzen you’re talking about,
The one who reportedly
“charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC.”
Is that the one?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pmEugene Debs,
This is a hard concept I know so I will type slowly for you. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. As the temperature of the Earth increases more water vapor goes into the atmosphere. That is of course a forward feedback loop which should theoretically lead to uncontrolled increase of the Earth’s temperature. We know this doesn’t occur because there are significant negative feedback loops that keep the temperature from running away in an uncontrolled manner. Lindzen’s research (which I think is important) is along those lines.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pmPlease do pass legislation controlling CO2 emissions.
Okay, thanks. I’m not a member of Congress but I’ll get right on it…
Why are you giving Imhofe cover again? Do you agree with his God hypothesis? Does that adequately explain the data?
Why are you so intent on arguing, ‘We have no answers!’ if you would prefer to see this legislation passed?
Seems strange…
September 25th, 2009 at 6:15 pmIT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!! That does NOT give you a right to ignore it. Look at the people who disagreed with Newton or Galileo. Just because they didn’t have it all figured out doesn’t mean he didn’t have the right idea.
In fact, you won’t know if the science is ever right on global climate change. But, your grandchildren sure will if you continue to ignore it.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pm<eBlanchy says: Actually pointing out he is funded by Exxon IS a valid point. That shows a conflict of interest.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:17 pmIf this is true why wouldn’t you just STFU. Either you’re a liar or you’re even stupider than we thought. Probably both. Their are many of us here who have degrees in science. So why do you take your pompous attitude and shove it.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pmBeing paid by Exxon is more than enough reason to ignore his conclusions.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pm@Shayne,
So chemical/biomedical engineering isn’t a science degree? I guess I didn’t just peer review a paper by a chemical engineer on catalyzed oxidation of volatile organic compounds on a soil matrix. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
@pastcaring
Pointing out where someone gets their funding doesn’t refute their ideas. Argue against his points or don’t. I don’t bother pointing out that many of the Global Warming proponents are funded by organizations that are trying to save the environment. Why? Because it is intellectually lazy.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pmBlanchy says:
This is a simple concept and I still think you will be too stupid to grasp it. No matter what speed you type it looks the same on the page.
Yeah. I get that he is saying the reflective quality of the clouds is a negative loop which is in SOME measure counteracting the positive loop of the added greenhouse gas. What I am not seeing is how this will not STILL be an overall positive loop as MORE temperature creates MORE cloud cover which is MORE greenhouse gas. If I am filling a pool at the rate of a hundred gallons an hour saying that I cut a hole in the pool that will drain ten gallons per hour really isnt making an argument the pool isnt going to overflow. I made that as simple as I can. Find someone with a normal IQ to explain it to you
September 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pmBlanchy says:
Anyone with an IQ above that of an ice cube can see that showing a conflict of interest DOES call his study into question. Try to keep up
September 25th, 2009 at 6:25 pmEven Lindzen has stopped spouting this “theory”. But not out corporate shill.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
The question to the senator is why is it is not a hoax, the what?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pmShayne says:
Good job Shayne
September 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pmSorry, the question to the senator is; “What if it is not a hoax?” Then what is the solution?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pmPlus Lindzen believed in climate change before he started getting paid by corporations. Blanchy if you are what you say then you would have a clue and you don’t. You’re just spouting propaganda and not investigating the science behind it.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pmThanks EugeneDebs.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pmLets see those studies by Foxes about who is best qualified to guard henhouses
September 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pmEugene Debs,
We know that what you are describing doesn’t occur. Water itself could overtemp the earth yet it doesn’t becaue of negative feedback loops. We exist on this planet precisely because of the combination of both forward and negative feedback loops. The clouds reflect light straight back into space so that it never interacts with greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases themselves absorb infrared radiation that is reflected from the earth. The clouds themselves reflect the ultraviolet radiation back which limits the total amount of energy intercepting the planet.
Greenhouse gases by the way don’t absorb ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet strikes the earth, converts to infrared which is what is actually absorbs by greenhouse gases. If you are going to argue against Lindzen, at least try to understand the hypothesis.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pmThat’s not my point. The point is that you referenced Lindzen
as if he was free of any tarnish to prove your point.
My point to you is, you’re wrong…and I don’t need science to back me up on that, nor do I need funding from OPEC either.
As far as being intellectually lazy…your performance is a great example of that as well as of disingenuousness.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pmWhat an idiot.
How bad does it have to get before your unsubstantiated cycle is completed? Will people be around when your cycle is completed? Your “God” has forsaken your brain.
Did your “God” rule over the dinos?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pmYour degree was in engineering was it not?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pmP.S. Source To # 195:
September 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pmhttp://dieoff.org/page82.htm
Shayne,
Get this. Lindzen has always believed in climate change and still does. He has indicated that negative feedback loops limit the temperature change to a level that is not consequential.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:31 pmBlanchy says:
There is a problem with this “scientific community” that you refer to. People have looked into it and there are very few meteorologists or atmospheric chemists on it. It seems like a fabricated community in a lot of respects.
People have looked into it?
“People?”
And you’re the one challenging sources?
Here’s the list. Look into it yo’self.
.
Blanchy says:
You might not guess it but there are a number of meteorologists that also think that yes there is global warming but that it is not significant compared to natural warming processes.
The number is small, and most of them are paid to believe so, and/or also believe that early man rode on dinosaurs.
.
Blanchy says:
Do you understand what a model forcing factor is?
No I don’t, and apparently neither does Google.
.
Blanchy says:
We don’t currently know why we need to force Global Warming models yet we do.
No we don’t.
Hey, arguing without specifying what I’m talking about or backing up anything is easy! Why didn’t I try this before?
.
Blanchy says:
My whole point is that the science isn’t nearly as settled as some people believe. At the same time, even if Global Warming wasn’t occurring at all, it would still be in our best interest to reduce fossil fuel consumption as they are finite.
I am in agreement with this statement. I think our only point of disagreement here is how broad or narrow the category of “some people” is. The fact remains, all of the arguments you have presented are those that support the political position of doing nothing. If you’re not a denier, then you’re behaving as a tool of deniers. But I think you are one, since you’re repeating all of their arguments. I don’t see you arguing against the people who don’t think human behavior is a significant contributor to global warming.
.
Blanchy says:
Actually being peer reviewed doesn’t mean as much as you think it does.
It beats the hell out of whatever it is wingnuts do to “bless” their research. Probably something involving headless chickens.
.
Blanchy says:
Currently papers that imply that the science isn’t settled wrt anthropogenic Global Warming aren’t selected for publishing by many scientific journals. Is it because the papers are bad or because the editing committees have an agenda?
It is because that would be a remarkable position, outlying the majority of data, and therefore would need very strong evidence backing it up. The papers that have been submitted lack such backing evidence, and therefore don’t get published.
.
Blanchy says:
As the temperature of the Earth increases more water vapor goes into the atmosphere. That is of course a forward feedback loop which should theoretically lead to uncontrolled increase of the Earth’s temperature. We know this doesn’t occur because there are significant negative feedback loops that keep the temperature from running away in an uncontrolled manner.
Just because negative feedback loops exist doesn’t mean they can’t be overcome. What it does mean is that the problem can worsen extremely rapidly once they are. They create a threshold beyond which what seemed to be a gradual problem turns into falling off a cliff. All the more reason for exercising caution and gaining control over our emissions.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pmBlanchy says:
OK good argument. Now take a stab at Shaynes rebuttal then get back to me with your citation for the study by Foxes about who is best suited to guard henhouses
September 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pmEd S. is kicking ass!
September 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pmEven guys like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Moammar Gadhafi believe
September 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pmin the need to do something about climate change but not Inhofe and Blanchy. Whose a third world country (tickle, tickle) whose a cute widdle third world country?
Blanchy, see #205 and get back to me ‘mkay?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pmMaybe it’s this Richard Lindzen, the one who was debunked here
September 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pmShayne,
Saying that engineering isn’t a science degree is splitting hairs and is not relevant to the discussion in any manner. Chemical engineers do a LOT of science in the real world particularly anywhere that fluid flow or mass transfer is involved. Medicine is one place. Atmospheric processes is another.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pmBlanchy says:
Yes and physics is involved in frying a chicken. Doesnt mean I want Stephen Hawkins making dinner for me.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:37 pmBlanchy says:
Pointing out where someone gets their funding doesn’t refute their ideas. Argue against his points or don’t.
Yes it does. The data is their but the interpretation of the data is done by the scientist. Of course, when you paycheck is coming from Exxon you can interpret the data to suit their needs.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:39 pmWell I just have a piddly little degree in environmental biology but I can see where your research is flawed immediately so I guess there must be a difference between engineering and science.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pmEdit: Mispelling–the data is there.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pmEl Bruce,
I don’t have time to deal with everything you wrote. Not that I really care to. If your inability to find model forcing factor on google is any indication of your ability to do research I can rest my case.
We know that the negative feedback loops overcome the positive feedback loops with respect to water vapor. We are having this discussion right now so I’m guessing you won’t debate me on this unless you care to argue that life would have occurred on this planet at temperatures perhaps 100 degrees higher.
@Reggie
Not much of a debunking at all from my quick skim. Don’t have time to read it all right now.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pmShayne,
I’m not really seeing where you have debunked the idea that negative feedback loops will substantially limit any global warming. I also haven’t seen where you were able to rule out changes in the earth’s temperature as a cause of Global Warming. I also haven’t seen you explain away the need to use forcing factors to make the models work.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:44 pmpags2,
This is just intellectual laziness on your part. Argue against the points or don’t it makes no difference to me. Saying that someone got funding from somewhere so all of their research is junk is just lazy.
If you notice, Shayne has actually done some research. Of course that took a bit of time on his part.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:47 pmAll of a sudden Blanchy is out of time. But he’s still using Lindzen’s theory even though Lindzen has stopped using it. How convenient.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:47 pmBlanchy says:
I also haven’t seen you explain away the need to use forcing factors to make the models work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I havent seen any evidence from YOU that they ARE relying on force factors to make the models work. Cough up the evidence
September 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pmBlanchy,
I don’t have to debate with you because the vast majority of peer reviewed scientists (those not on corporate payrolls) agree with me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Look at the groups of scientist who believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed and see how stupid it is to ignore the problem.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pmDon’t have time to read it all right now.
.
Of course not, I wouldn’t expect you to have time to read anything,
you’re much too busy spamming this thread.
Your time is much too precious to read anything that
doesn’t fit your preconceived position.
Do you have anything else to add to this discussion, perhaps something not bought and paid for by big oil?
.
.
For the non deniers reading this thread,
How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
is an excellent resource for use against
corporate shills like Blanchy,
pretending to be bloggers,
September 25th, 2009 at 6:52 pmShayne,
Quit being silly. Lindzen has done a lot more thinking about this topic than is indicated in your post #205. That is one point and if you notice that it say:
Why? Because the science isn’t settled. Even an article that is arguing against Lindzen can’t definitively say he is wrong.
Where did I say ignore the problem? Are you going to put words in my mouth so you can then argue against some strawman?
And yeah, I am out of time. It’s called going home and taking care of the kid. Have a good night.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pmIn all due respect, in regards to your claims regarding the science surrounding climate change, you haven’t shown how anything you are asserting will affect real time events that we have been experiencing, either preventing climate events from worsening, bettering or stabilizing.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pmReggie,
I’m a corporate shill? Sure. Run with that because I’m sure it works well with your worldview.
I do environmental cleanup for a living. I’m the last guy any of these “corporations” want to see on their sites.
Anyway. Night everyone. Time to quit stealing from the company and head home.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pmDoes Inhofe think “God” is riding around on clouds taking care of us? I think he might find him if he took his head out of his ass. This CLOWN is in Congress! Is he a F’n idiot!! How the F@$& can he believe such bullshit and act as if he is knowlegeable to vote on chocolate or vanilla than laws of the land? Is this the best Oklahoma can do? Sure as shit, this guys family should have left the country during the time dust took over the state. Let him screw up Oklahoma but leave the rest of the country alone! He must be a functioning illiterate. What a dipshit!
September 25th, 2009 at 6:56 pmBlanchy says
He isnt being silly. He is KICKING YOUR BUTT.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:58 pmI find it ironic that Blanchy is calling several of us intellectually lazy, when Blanchy cites one person, Lindzen, whose faults have been spotlighted by the very people being called intellectually lazy–all while Blanchy is arguing climate change science on a message board.
If Blanchy was not so intellectually lazy he/she/itself, would Blanchy be here in the first place instead of in a forum or conference of qualified scientists arguing the merits of such a thoroughly discredited argument?
Perhaps not…hmmm
September 25th, 2009 at 7:01 pmBlanchy shills:
Excuse me?
What do you know of my worldview?
Maybe when you come back, you could explain the massive loss in ice mass of the alpine glaciers?
Perhaps Lindzen sold the oil companies an explanation that would fit your worldview.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pmIndeed. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It’s also true that warm air carries more moisture than cool air. However, warm air doesn’t translate to more cloud cover. In fact, cool air is needed to make a cloud.
Then there’s the fact that clouds allow through a fair amount of infrared radiation and, as a greenhouse gas, water vapor traps as much heat as it blocks. And I haven’t seen any substantive research that supports a global change in cloud cover.
Also, the limits on air’s ability to take up moisture are indeed self regulating. There is no known similar dynamic force to limit CO2 content or it’s contribution to the greenhouse effect.
I’m growing increasingly suspicious that someone who professes such a fair and balanced approach to science would group those who are convinced about the merits of global climate research in with Inhofe and his Psychochristians.
One would think a scientist would know the difference between entire lifetimes of research and the childish contrariness of a freak like Jimmy Inhofe who proudly displays, and defends, his utter scientific illiteracy, and general ignorance, with every moronic breath.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pmSince our guest failed to provide any substantive research in support of his claims I must conclude his reticence is financial, religious, or political in it’s inspiration.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pmI think I just figured out what industry Blanchy does “environmental engineering” for… Blanchy gets his paychecks from the energy industry. Probably these guys.
.
Blanchy says:
I don’t have time to deal with everything you wrote. Not that I really care to.
I accept your forfeit.
.
Blanchy says:
If your inability to find model forcing factor on google is any indication of your ability to do research I can rest my case.
Dude, I used the search string climate change “model forcing factor”. If anything had been written on model forcing factors relevant to climate change anywhere, I should have gotten hundreds of hits; there are thousands of websites devoted to discussing anything that might make an argument in either direction on this issue. Instad, I got zero. The fact that I didn’t have to look very hard to find nothing isn’t a weakness of my argument. Rather, it suggests that your argument is completely “original research,” i.e. uncited.
Are you sure you’re talking about the right term? Another search on just “model forcing factor” gives only four total hits, none of which have ever been applied to climate change. Maybe you’re thinking of a different term than the one you keep talking about.
But let’s put the ball back in your court. If you can direct us to some papers suggesting that model forcing factors have been used to skew climate change results, please provide your citations.
.
Blanchy says:
We know that the negative feedback loops overcome the positive feedback loops with respect to water vapor.
Do they overcome the positive feedback combining a steady increase water vapor and CO2 forever?
.
pete says:
There is no known similar dynamic force to limit CO2 content or it’s contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Bullseye! That single statement sweeps away at least 40% of Blanchy’s “arguments.”
September 25th, 2009 at 7:38 pmOy vey,
Yes the term is model correction factor and not forcing factor. My bad. See, if I really was a corporate shill I wouldn’t make mistakes like that. And all the global warming models seem to need substantial correction factors to make their results come out. Why is that if we understand this system?
Yes. Let’s talk water vapor. The carrying capacity of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of the temperature. Higher ground temperatures lead to higher atmospheric concentrations of water vapor which is a greenhouse gas. Yes cold is required to generate a cloud. Considering that the upper atmosphere is always cold, you have plenty of cold to work with. Water vapor currently accounts for some 50 or so degrees of greenhouse effect. It is a positive feedback loop yet there is a limit due to the reflection of clouds.
And you guys want to question my scientific knowledge? LOL. CO2 is soluble in water. The same mechanism that limits the amount of water in the atmosphere also removes CO2 as carbonic acid. It is called rain.
And that is the question I would like to see explored. Instead we get a pile of garbage to sort through.
Pete, your understanding of this system might need some improvement. The light that passes through clouds is ultraviolet. It strikes the earth and is reemitted as infrared. The infrared light is then absorbed by the various global warming gases. If you are going to argue that Global Warming is occuring (which I don’t doubt), then you might want to research it a bit more.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:55 pmThey hired Imhhofe for the comic relief?
September 25th, 2009 at 7:58 pmThis man is seriously nuts.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:59 pmElBruce,
Decent discussion in Wikipedia on Global Warming model issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Flux_correction
It is wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt but it is sourced. It seems to be a fairly neutral take on the models IMO.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:07 pmThe ability of air to hold moisture is within a very narrow range. There’s a finite amount of moisture that can remain in the atmosphere.
The processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere are more broad. By the time the ability of those processes you mention find an absolute limit, where CO2 literally precipitates out of the atmosphere, we would be outside the limits of higher life as we know it. Plus, the mechanisms you mention are not keeping up with the emission of CO2.
And the acidification of the oceans may be a more immediate and dire threat than global temps. If the ecology of an entire ocean zone were to collapse because organisms can’t form shells and bones or just can’t tolerate a pH change? We could see the end of civilization as we know it within a startlingly short time frame.
So, you see, the fact that CO2 combines with water to form carbonic acid is irrelevant since it’s not keeping up with current emissions, can’t be increased by any known process, and could be worse than the temperature increases. And I still doubt the intellectual integrity of one who compares informed opinion to religious fanaticism.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:11 pmSince we’re going with, sourced, Wiki entries; may I suggest this one?
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[72]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
September 25th, 2009 at 8:15 pmUntrue. It is solely a function of temperature. At 100 degrees Celcius water boils at which point the atmosphere has the ability to contain a full 760 torr worth of water vapor.
Wrong again. CO2 continously precitates out of the atmosphere. The concentration in rainwater is defined by something called Henry’s Law. Whether it keeps up with input is another question. The concentration in the rainwater varies with atmospheric concentration.
I didn’t say that acidification of the oceans was a good thing. Just pointing out that when you said there was no comparable mechanism for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as there was for water vapor that you were wrong.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pmThe real problem here is not the senator; but that so many Americans broadly agree with him. In fact the U.S. joins just a few other countries where extreme (viz. fundamentalism) religious views trump reality based views from the world of science. In fact Americans don’t highly value scientific fact. It is sad that our compatriots choose people like Imhofe and his ilk to represent their interests.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:19 pmPete,
Did you actually read the rest of the article that you quoted ? It also indicated that the group of scientists most likely to question Global Warming are meteorologists. A full 36% doubt that it is significant. Hmm. What is going on here?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:20 pmI am not an expert on the bible but seem to remember one of the most important tenets of the New Testament is that we were given free will by God to do good or evil. I also recall several places in the bible where we are told that we must take care of the earth and all of the beings on the earth. Inhofe isn’t pleasing God with his there is no such thing as global warming bull. He’s serving his God–Corporate America.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:24 pmThe models used have been updated over time. So what? They haven’t invalidated the old models and, in fact, most of them have been fairly accurate if one takes the more pessimistic results of the old models.
I find it hard to understand why one would spend so much energy trying to de-legitimize models that have been shown to be fairly accurate and consistent as new data comes in. Especially in light of the alarming nature of all that new confirming data. One would think one would be impressed at the relative accuracy of the pioneers in the field.
It seems like we are being presented an argument that all the models that accurately predicted current trends are wrong because they included the atmospheric CO2 content when the obvious deduction is that the increasing CO2 is driving the trends.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:29 pmPete,
You seem like an intelligent guy. Think about it. The models have wide variation and we need to jump through hoops to make them fit the data. WE are told that the “science is settled” or there is a “scientific consensus” yet 36% of meteorologists disagree. Well we still have majority here, but we are led to believe that something like 95% of all scientists agree. Well doesn’t it seem significant that the largest group of dissenters are amonght the people that should understand this the best? Kinda smells where I come from not to mention that. Who are the rest of these scientists?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:35 pmBlanchy says:
yet 36% of meteorologists disagree.
Citation, please? I’ve heard of a number of meteorologists who admitted that there was no proven link but it was still an important concern counted among the “denier” camp against their intentinos.
Also, since you’re a neutral free-thinker and all, do you spend this much time on right wing websites arguing against them too?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:41 pmSigh…
One can’t compare a poll to actual scientific positions. I don’t discount, or disregard, the fact that people will answer a poll stating they have doubts about most anything. But I’m not going to get too worked up about the dissent until someone like the American Meteorological Society or NASA produces evidence that the current consensus is wrong in any significant way.
Let’s face it, while they aren’t scientific journals, unless one sees “They had it all WRONG”! on the cover of National Geographic and Scientific American? It’s safe to assume that no one has significant evidence of such a claim. It would be akin to discovering that nuclear weapons won’t detonate on Wednesdays or Man was built by a very clever octopus in 1776.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:41 pmWe live on a globe that rotates. How can god always be up there? Does he sit just above inhofe’s head all of the time? Wouldn’t he be down there sometimes?
The more religious people talk, the more insane they sound.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:44 pmIs this guy really that stupid or is he just playing politics? Nobody is really that idiotic, are they?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:45 pmBlanchy shills:
You are being myopic by focusing on minor details
and not on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
What happened to the alpine glaciers, can you find a
scientific explanation for the unprecedented loss in ice mass
in just the past five decades?
You could go with Inahofe’s theory, God is responsible,
September 25th, 2009 at 8:45 pmperhaps he uses glacial ice when making cocktails.
Blanchy says:
ElBruce,
Decent discussion in Wikipedia on Global Warming model issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Flux_correction
It is wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt but it is sourced. It seems to be a fairly neutral take on the models IMO.
All scientific bodies with expertise on the subject globally disagree with you. Global warming deniers are like people that say evolution isn’t real or that the earth is flat. Only the ignorant, the zealot and the fool refute overwhelming science. Which are you?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pmAgain with the models? We have spent twenty years or so collecting data that generally confirms the models. They were only off by matters of degree and things like the disparate heating between the Northern and Southern hemispheres have thown some curves and forced some tweaking. But none of that invalidates the basic concensus, even among most of those meterologists you keep harping on.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:49 pmElBruce,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
80% of the way down. I don’t claim to have read the source materials.
Pete,
But aren’t the scientific positions that make up the “consensus” taken from a poll even if it is just a hand poll? I could make the argument that an anonymous poll would get the best results because then meteorologists could then say what they really think.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:49 pmReggie says:
Blanchy shills:
You are being myopic by focusing on minor details
and not on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
That’s what the Creationists do. The constantly whine about this missing fossil and that, only to have it show up. Then they move to the next detail despite the overwhelming evidence that constantly crushes them.
There was a recent psychology study that was completed that showed conservatives only further entrench in the face of facts. The more overwhelming the facts, the more intractable and irrational they become. They don’t want facts, they want to feel and have an opinion about something. They’re insane enough to think that an opinion that says the earth is flat or that there’s no climate change is the equivalent to the preponderance of facts that contradict them. This is now a known syndrome and a dangerous disease for the future of democracy and civilization. Lets just hope it isn’t something contagious!
September 25th, 2009 at 8:50 pmBlanchy says:
ElBruce,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
80% of the way down. I don’t claim to have read the source materials.
Pete,
But aren’t the scientific positions that make up the “consensus” taken from a poll even if it is just a hand poll? I could make the argument that an anonymous poll would get the best results because then meteorologists could then say what they really think.
If you think a few unhinged republican weathermen and petroleum engineers are climate researchers, it explains your lunatic perspective.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:52 pmOn a related note, I once read that meteorology is one of the few “acceptable” sciences at several religious colleges and weather and climate are two separate, if related, things.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:53 pmElBruce,
And yes I have spent quite a bit of time on this website populated by a pile of right-wingers arguing that global warming likely was occurring and that their certainty that it wasn’t was simply absurd.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:54 pmJustthebleepn facts,
But you see, I don’t doubt that Global warming is occurring. The question is whether there are changes in the Earth’s temp that are more significant, and if it is solely anthropogenic, are there negative feedback loops that would limit it to where it wasn’t significant?
I do environmental engineering for a living. If we start limiting CO2 emissions, it just throws money at my industry.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:57 pmAnd to the people that keep hide rating me…..SCREW OFF. I’m just trying to have a reasonable discussion about an important topic. I’m sorry if you didn’t show up here and just find the echo chamber.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pmNo. The official position of a scientific body is supported by copious evidence and examination, and dissection, of prevalent theories. People stake their reputations on such positions. A poll response doesn’t carry any accountability.
In fact, even among known crackpots, there’s a dearth of research refuting the consensus of the World’s scientific bodies and associations. And many of those that have come to my attention were people with fairly obvious financial, religious, or political motives. And the best of them fail to provide any evidence for an alternative theory or, indeed, anything but the shakiest of hypotheses.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pmPete,
Did you dig into the nuts and bolts of that study?
Bingo! Some atmospheric scientist, no matter how well reasoned his thought processes, can ruin his reputation saying that he questions the magnitude of the effects of Global Warming. That’s not science.
What alternate theories am I pushing? That negative feedback loops exist? Fact. That the earth has warmed and cooled in the past? Fact. That we can’t discount that temp changes in the Earth are responsible? Pretty sure that is fact too. I have seen people try to refute that hypothesis and have found their logic to be weak.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:07 pmIn matters like these I recomend people like Inhofe watch a little film put together by a southern Baptist.
You may know him as Al Gore.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:10 pmHere is a summary of research done by Bing Lin, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA LaRC that refutes Lindzen’s hypothesis.
Perhaps if Blanchy isn’t to busy, he can give it a brief glance and then tell us it is meaningless because Lin wasn’t paid by oil companies, therefore his science is worthless.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Oh yeah. Back to the relative limits on water and CO2 content in air.
Airs ability to carry moisture is based on temperature, pressure, and the relative constituent gases of the air. That being said, water can only evaporate down to a certain temperature, roughly the same at the limits of human endurance, and we would die long before it boiled.
CO2, on the other hand, is always a gas under normal conditions. By the time it actually formed liquid rain and precipitated? Again, all life on the planet would have been long dead.
There are indeed a myriad of natural processes that utilize atmospheric CO2 but they are not using it fast enough to counter human emissions.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:15 pmjust the bleepn facts says:
We live on a globe that rotates. How can god always be up there
Apparently, God rotatates around Republicans.
.
Blanchy says:
ElBruce,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
80% of the way down. I don’t claim to have read the source materials.
Is it this part?
Or this part?
Those are the two most recent surveys. Everything I found supports the side that says you’re completely wrong about everything. But thanks for directing me to that.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:21 pmPete,
Your last post is just silly. The carrying capacity of water in the atmosphere is directly a function of the temperature. All other factors such as concentrations of gases and pressure are pretty constant. Increased temperature increases water vapor concentration. That is a positive feedback loop yet we are all not cooked due to water vapor greenhouse gas emissions. And why is that?
CO2 always precipitates as carbonic acid. The concentration is defined by Henry’s Law as I indicated before. Note that I didn’t call it Henry’s postulate. It is a law of the universe.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:24 pmI guess I should apologize for my imprecise language. Alas, my formal education ended some decades ago and I majored in biochemistry, not climatology. But that doesn’t mean I can’t follow the reasoning of learned dissertations. I can even follow calculus in a pinch.
That being said, I’m more of a general concept guy than one who sweats details. I think I get that from my Dad. He was working on stuff like disc storage and regenerative braking back in the fifties.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pmEl Bruce,
You know what they say about statistics. No one that I know of doubts that temperatures have risen. That study quoted there asks a bunch of sort of no brainer questions and then draws some sweeping conclusions. Keep focusing on whether Global Warming is occurring or not. I have said it was. The question is whether it is significant and whether there are other factors such as warming of the Earth that are more significant. Let me know when you can answer those questions.
Again thanks for quoting the part where it indicates that 36% of meteorologists disagree with that it is due to human involvement.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:28 pmPete,
I have spent a LOT of time doing water vapor pressure and Henry’s Law calculations so certain things such as imprecise language wrt those topics sort of jumps off the page at me.
Anyway. It’s been interesting. Reggie, I’ll check out Bing Lim’s research.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pmBlanchy:
I notice you are still avoiding answering
the question about alpine glaciers.
Is that because it wasn’t included in your talking points?
Did you have time to review Lin’s work
that refutes Lindzen’s hypothesis?
While you’re at it, maybe you should
September 25th, 2009 at 9:34 pmaddress the issue El Bruce raised
regarding your linked article at Wiki.
Why are folks here discussing science? I mean, Rational Thinkers understand and “get” the science. They/we know we as a society need to answer for runaway CO2 emissions and the detrimental impact it is having on our planet.
But why are we using facts to argue with Christians who as a matter of “faith” were raised from birth to reject science and facts and instead believe in God’s Will?
Christian elected officials like Inhofe and their blind followers are demonstrating themselves to be not only ignorant and hateful but sociopaths as well.
That, and they are just downright mean.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:36 pmReggie,
We know that glaciers advance and recede naturally on this planet without the influence of man. Please prove to me that this is manmade. Saying it coincides with rising CO2 levels is not a proof.
I’ll look at Lin’s work but I’m not going to do it now.
My linked article? Other people linked it for me. It says bigger than Christmas that 36% of all meteorologists in one study disagree with the Global Warming hypothesis in one manner or another. I’m not in the mood right now to go really digest the source of that stat.
And yes we all know about this “scientific consensus”. Except for it seems just a few meteorologists that no one seems to like to point out.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pmWolfsinger,
Who is that Christian here? I’ll be the first one to tell him Christianity is a big fraud designed to scam people out of their money in hopes of saving their sorry souls. Let me at him.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pmIn reverse order. Yes, CO2 reacts chemically with water, whether it’s airborne vapor or the surface of the sea. Some of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere does indeed fall, in raindrops, along with the rain. Molecular CO2 can not precipitate under standard atmospheric conditions.
Indeed, the amount of water vapor held by the atmosphere doesn’t appear to be rising much with the observed temperature increase.
If you think that pressure has nothing to do with air’s capacity to carry water? Stick your finger in a pressure cooker. (Sorry. I jest.) Besides which that’s not what I mean. I was referring to atmospheric pressures role in triggering precipitation. Severe pressure differentials causing squalls, changing dew points, subtle changes in the freezing point, and such.
Again, the ability of the air to carry water is, so far as I know, not significantly effected by temperature changes in the scale we are discussing. There is certainly no data that suggests there’s been a significant mitigating effect from cloud cover and/or precipitation.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:43 pmLovely Blanchy.
But I was specifically referring to Inhofe and those who think like him, follow him, re-elect him, financially support him and give him a platform from which to speak his hypocrisy with a air of authority when in fact he is both denier and beneficiary of the highest bidder. In this case, the oil lobby. So with all due respect, its not always about you.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pmBlanchy says:
Meteorologists study weather not climate, so their opinion
is not based on expertise, it’s just their opinion.
I assumed an esteemed scientist of your stature knew
the difference, sadly I was mistaken.
It appears you don’t have a real answer to what
September 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pmhappened to the alpine glaciers.
This loss is unprecedented
and not part of any cyclical pattern.
Science has shown this to be a fact.
Again I think you are mixing things up. You are now talking about steam and not air so we are not talking about the same system. And as far as anyone that I know of is concerned the pressure of the atmosphere is just about…wait for it…one atmosphere. It does not change much.
There is simply zero doubt in anyone’s mind (except maybe yours) that the vapor pressure of water over hot ocean is higher than over cold ocean. The idea is that the elevated vapor pressure of water translates upwards. It doesn’t seem controversial to me in the slightest. It really shouldn’t be controversial to you either considering that it is one of the principles by which Global Warming is supposed to occur. Increased CO2 in theory increases temperatures which increases water vapor concentration compounding the effects of the CO2.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:54 pmReggie,
Did we cause the first Ice Age? Evil scientists in a time machine? Glaciers come and go. It is not controversial.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pmGlaciers that have existed since the last ice age have disappeared. Ice core data, tree rings, and sediment studies all suggest that the current de-glaciation is unprecedented. And it’s certainly unprecedented within human history.
Those same ice cores suggest that the current rise in CO2 is unprecedented in it’s nature and the tree rings and sediments suggest that the current rising temperatures are also unprecedented in recent geologic times. Indeed, the prevailing patterns seem to show rapid cooling events and slow warming events. The current warming is very fast by comparison.
The same studies find it hard to find a parallel to human CO2 emissions. Some spikes have been attributed to volcanism or other cataclysm. But there’s simply no natural analog for the steadily increasing emissions of human activity. We do, however, know that it’s relatively rapid compared to big spikes in the past but slow compared to small spikes like a single volcanic event would have produced.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:57 pmWho are these cowards with their little hide ratings? That gets you banned over at Daily Kos if you hide rate posts you simply disagree with.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:01 pmI note that we still haven’t heard a competing theory for the observed and, to the best of our knowledge, virtually unprecedented rise in global average temperature.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:03 pmBlanchy @ 292 says:
“Who are these cowards with their little hide ratings? That gets you banned over at Daily Kos if you hide rate posts you simply disagree with.”
Dunno. Maybe its… God’s Will?
Just sayin
September 25th, 2009 at 10:04 pmBlanchy:
Now you’re being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Show me scientific proof for a previous loss of alpine glacial ice mass of this magnitude in a mere fifty years. Of course you can’t, it’s unprecidented.
Don’t talk down to me punk, I have taken advanced
September 25th, 2009 at 10:05 pmcourses in Glacial Geomorphology, I know more
regarding this issue than a corporate shill who wandered in here with two discredited talking points.
Don’t sweat the down votes, Blanchy. If I hadn’t given my fan club the night off we would just make them disappear. Again, I jest.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:06 pmOn a more serious note. Perhaps others are less tolerant of condescension from a jackass (as they may say) who can’t seem to distinguish informed opinion from religious fanaticism? I’ll stack my ability to follow the scientific method against anyone so I’m not greatly offended. Some folks are less understanding.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:12 pmOr it’s possible that certain posts could be construed as claiming anyone who’s made up their mind about climate change has all the credibility of this freak:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/11/can-university-of-minnesota-professors-research-be-trusted/
September 25th, 2009 at 10:18 pmpete:
You’ve got one member of you fan club here. I had a feeling
Blanchy was going to return when he thought the coast was clear.
What’s with the same tired debunked talking points,
every thread on climate change make me feel like
Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day.
Just because they are delivered by a new sock,
doesn’t mean they have a snowball’s chance in hell
of finally achieving success.
How are things up in Minnesota?
September 25th, 2009 at 10:19 pmBlanchy says:
Note that I didn’t call it Henry’s postulate. It is a law of the universe.
… says the guy who calls himself a “scientist.” Science hasn’t dealt with “laws” for almost a century.
.
Blanchy says:
Keep focusing on whether Global Warming is occurring or not. I have said it was. The question is whether it is significant and whether there are other factors such as warming of the Earth that are more significant.
Please describe to me the difference between global warming and warming of the Earth. Are you talking about geothermal factors?
.
wolfsinger says:
Why are folks here discussing science?
Because the energy industry pays a lot of money to people like Blanchy to keep the electorate as confused as possible.
Much like the tobacco industry used to pay doctors to say that cigarettes were good for you.
.
pete says:
I note that we still haven’t heard a competing theory for the observed and, to the best of our knowledge, virtually unprecedented rise in global average temperature.
The competing theory is as follows: *shrug* sh!t happens, let’s burn some more fossil feuls and ignore it.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:23 pmIt must be great to live in a bubble in which you can selectively believe in science….assuming that he believes that medical science can save someones life…or that science has proved that the earth is round and rotates around the sun or that gravity, which cannot be seen, heard of felt was proven by science.
It is shocking to see an individual who has the power to legislate laws in this country can deny that science does prove and disprove hypothetical assumptions…and that has nothing to do with “god”. An educated person can believe in both, but his argument is irrational and based on _______ (nothing).
September 25th, 2009 at 10:25 pmThanks, Reggie. It’s cool and rainy. Our first day that actually feels like Fall. The trees are starting to blush and the ducks are flocking up and flying around at odd hours but I haven’t seen too many Northern birds yet.
Still eagerly awaiting the day that the nice young men in uniform drag Crazy Shelly off to her padded cell. And you?
September 25th, 2009 at 10:27 pmBlanchy,
Do you think that thousands of the world’s top climatologists could not consider that the Earth has had Ice Ages come and go in the past—-and that only deniers such as you could think ot it? It is due to the tilt of the Earth on its path around the Sun (or the tilt of the Sun on its path around the Earth for Inhofe and his kind).
Don’t the ice cores that have been studied cover the past 300,000 years? Don’t they say that nothing like what is happening now has happened in the past 300,000 years?
September 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pmThere is a difference blood1 between someone who is both equally in awe of the world as we know it in a Spiritual way AND scientific way. After all, there can be real magic in real numbers, real science.
But when a person denies science and feels they and only they “know God’s Will” then you get people like Inhofe and those who support him and that is where the trouble begins.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pmInhofe doesn’t just live in a bubble. He lives in a black hole where knowledge actually exits the known universe. He makes anyone around him stupider. And it’s not just science.
I seem to recall he had the stupid notion, last summer when gas was $4.00+ a gallon, that the oil industry was doing it’s patriotic duty by recording record profits while the world hurdled deeper into recession.
Come to think of it, I haven’t heard the “librul media” speculate on the effect of their rape of the economy while the other bubbles were bursting. But that’s another subject.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:34 pmVery true, wolfsinger. It’s unfair of us non Believers to let fanatics like Inhofe color our respect for those who follow a spiritual path. He’s as bad an example of a Believer as he is of an intellectual. Though the two are not mutually exclusive. He’s just a really crappy person, by all accounts, and it’s shameful that he has a vote in the Senate.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:38 pmApologies to blood1. What I said at 304 was what you already said very well at 301. Sorry. Eyes tired. Brain too.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:40 pmOne of the top men in the Texas state legislature was handing out pamphlets saying that the earth was always in a fixed position and the entire universe revolved around it! People like him are opposed to evolution being in textbooks.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:43 pmPete at 306 says:
“It’s unfair of us non Believers to let fanatics like Inhofe color our respect for those who follow a spiritual path. He’s as bad an example of a Believer as he is of an intellectual. Though the two are not mutually exclusive. He’s just a really crappy person, by all accounts, and it’s shameful that he has a vote in the Senate.”
Well said. Brilliant. Many people of many Faiths and Spiritual paths are not in any way threatened by the findings of science and those who practice it.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:43 pmIt’s been in the mid seventies here and sunny, very enjoyable weather, it’s nice to be able to live with the windows open.
The trees are starting to turn a little here, mainly non native species and that is probably due to the shorter days. We don’t get much color here, mostly yellow with a little bit of orange.
The migration of the northern birds should be passing through this area soon. I am 45 minutes from Point Pelee National Park, which is one of the preeminent birding sites in the mid west.
I have been spending a little time taking cheap shots
September 25th, 2009 at 10:52 pmat the trolls on my blog.
It seems that their tangled web is larger than I first suspected. The right wing spin maching has moved on to attacking center right bloggers, especially Charles Johnson over at LGF. He had the audacity to defend evolution, climate change. separation of church and state and has run foul of the Birchers and Ron Paul worshipers.
Keith at 308 says:
“One of the top men in the Texas state legislature was handing out pamphlets saying that the earth was always in a fixed position and the entire universe revolved around it! People like him are opposed to evolution being in textbooks.”
Oh, don’t you know it. I remember driving south on hwy 281 just north of San Antonio back in 2002. I was following behind a brand spanking new Cadillac with three bumber stickers on it. No joke.
First one on the back left said: GOD Said, I Believe It & That’s the End Of it! The second bumper sticker said the same thing EXCEPT, in place of GOD it said “W”. The last sticker said: I Vote The Bible.
Yeehaww.
I went home and threw up in my mouth a little bit.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:57 pmI’d just like to say I find it interesting that the subject of this post is Inhofe’s comment stating that God alone controls the temperature of the planet. And yet someone still felt the need to equate the non-scientific-ness of that comment with that of the hypothesis that manmade carbon emissions contribute significantly to global warming. To him, both us and Inhofe sound equally crazy. On one side, Jehovah with a thermostat. On the other hand, millions of humans driving cars, running smokestacks and factory farming. Both of these are equally fantastical? How crazy is that?
September 25th, 2009 at 11:02 pmYeah. Most of the birds appear to move more by length of day than weather. I expect we’ll be in full swing right on schedule. But the teal seem to stick around longer in warm weather and some of the hardier ducks wait until the smaller bodies of water start freezing up North.
It’s odd that you bring up invasive species. There was a recent local outdoor show that was talking about some of the more recent threats and some, including the ash borer, have been introduced before but were stopped by the more severe winters. There’s a reason why species from more moderate climates are invading the North though, to be fair, some of that is also from other factors that may be independent of climate.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:02 pmReggie.
Indeed, the infighting among the ranks of the Reichwing does seem to be gathering momentum. It’s tough to keep a thriving group together that expels all dissenters. And it doesn’t look like the bulk of the GOP is slowing it’s mad plunge to the right or it’s tolerance of voices of moderation. History would suggest that they won’t recover.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:06 pmpete says:
“And it doesn’t look like the bulk of the GOP is slowing it’s mad plunge to the right or it’s tolerance of voices of moderation. History would suggest that they won’t recover.”
Sorry for the pun here given the topic tonight but “Heaven help us” if they ever do. With what they’ve become, we all would be boned.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:09 pmI don’t know about that but, thank you, wolfsinger. It really seems more like common sense to me.
I’ve known enough good people from enough different upbringings and cultures that, even with language barriers, it’s easy to conclude that we share more similarities than differences.
It’s also relatively easy to recognize smart people and stupid people and nice people and mean people. Mr. Inhofe is neither smart nor nice so it’s unfair to compare him to those who are.
Now, to be fair, Inhofe and others might know more than they let on and they have been scared beyond sanity. The entirety of human experience can be overwhelming and it’s never been more accessible. Some of them may have just snapped when confronted by more reality than they were equipped to deal with.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:15 pmWe were ground zero for the ash borer and the neighborhood I live in lost all stately old trees. The theory is that the ash borer came from China in wooden pallets. There is a restriction on firewood leaving our county but the borer jumped the containment line and is moving north east up the peninsula.
We now have a problem with ducks and geese staying long into
September 25th, 2009 at 11:18 pmthe winter, as long as there is open water, there are signifant numbers sticking around. It makes for an awful mess in the riverfront parks, the goose droppings make the parks unwalkable come spring.
On a positive note however, the parks department probably has to use less fertilizer.
It’s time for me to call it a night, as usual it’s been a pleasure. Keep your stick on the ice.
wolfsinger.
On a rainy Friday night after a few lagers I can be pretty optimistic. Plus the history of extremist movements is actually encouraging.
It’s rare for an extremist movement to actually gain much control. Most just disappear before becoming more than a curiosity. When an extremist movement does gain control, like recent GOP rule, it rarely gives up power without bloodshed. I think we should show a little pride in our electorate, and system, that took control back without a coup. It certainly suggests that reason will prevail in a time of upheaval.
The right-wingers are still dangerous, and certainly loud, but polls still show the American public rejecting them in increasing numbers. One can conclude that we saw the rot in the system just in time, or perhaps a bit too late for comfort, and have voted many of the worst out of office. All things considered, I think the worst is over.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:23 pmG’night, Reggie.
We too have growing numbers of waterfowl sticking through the winter. The lake I grew up on has safe ice for about two weeks less than when I was a kid. And many of my old favorite flowing sloughs remain treacherous through the winter. It’s not hard to see the changes when one lives in the Northland.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:30 pmAnd God is saying “If those humans don’t care about the Earth I created for them, I’ll have to let them go extinct.”
September 25th, 2009 at 11:41 pmAs a believer, I must say that Inhofe doesn’t speak very sensibly. As early as Genesis, mankind was given the responsibility of wisely caring for the Garden. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence that God has rescinded the human responsibilities for managing the resources in the world–nor that any commitment to Him requires turning the brain to “Off.” Mr. Inhofe may need to revisit his Bible and read more deeply and thoughtfully than he seems to, to date.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pmI’m not sure who’s dumber Inhofe or the dolts who like to pretend all Christians are like Inhofe.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:22 amI have to say, the early comments on this topic are critical of God, faith, and every American who believes in a creator. Actually, they are more than critical, they are totally disrespectful and out of line. I hear constantly that liberals believe in multiculturalism, freedom of speech, and overall justice; and that conservatives are the opposite. Based on the comments on this site the opposite seems to be much closer to the truth. Most of America believes in God, you may want to consider being considerate of their views….its the liberal way.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:32 amOne more thing, our President (Obama) claims to believe in God as well. He also claims to believe in Jesus Christ. Before you call Christians idiots remember who all claims to be one. Lastly, if you want to know if there is a God ask Him? If you really want the truth you will find it.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:36 amSAPPER23 whatever you’re on cut back on it.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:32 am@ 323. SAPPER23 says: I have to say, the early comments on this topic are critical of God, faith, and every American who believes in a creator. Actually, they are more than critical, they are totally disrespectful and out of line. … Most of America believes in God, you may want to consider being considerate of their views….its the liberal way. September 26th, 2009 at 12:32 am
That’s nice, Sap, but does God necessarily believe in them? I suspect that God, should he exist in the (non) form that various and sundry try to jam him/her/it into is more than capable of taking care of him/her/itself, and does not need the protection of the small-minded. Glad to hear that most of America believes in God; let me know when the God that each and every one believes in is the same God and that each and every one is in lock step in their defintion and understanding and comprehension of self same God, because that will truly be an interesting moment in human history.
@ 325. cd sez;
concur with that, cd. sapper’s been into the communion wine again, and Padre T. Leary may have laced it with a little something before he went on retreat.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:52 amI am proud that Senator Inhofe is my senator and repesents my views in Washington.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:57 amjjss says:
I am proud that Senator Inhofe is my senator and repesents my views in Washington.
You’re proud to have a senator that “repesents” you? I can see he represents your literacy level as well… LOL!
September 26th, 2009 at 4:26 amSAPPER23 says:
I have to say, the early comments on this topic are critical of God, faith, and every American who believes in a creator.
Why do you religious extremists always play victim while persecuting others? Project much?
SAPPER23 says:
Actually, they are more than critical, they are totally disrespectful and out of line.
Funny, that’s exactly what you are, totally disrespectful of others that don’t believe in your superstition. Why do you get a monopoly on beliefs? What an arrogant and disrespectful jerk you are!
SAPPER23 says:
I hear constantly that liberals believe in multiculturalism, freedom of speech, and overall justice; and that conservatives are the opposite.
That’s because it’s true.
SAPPER23 says:
Based on the comments on this site the opposite seems to be much closer to the truth.
Only if you’re an illiterate freak and bigoted fool.
SAPPER23 says:
Most of America believes in God, you may want to consider being considerate of their views….its the liberal way.
And we say you have a right to believe whatever you want, but not a right to force others to believe and follow your beliefs and superstition. That’s the conservative way. You want to legislate bible superstitions on scientific matters. You are narrow minded, bigoted and arrogant.
SAPPER23 says:
One more thing, our President (Obama) claims to believe in God as well. He also claims to believe in Jesus Christ. Before you call Christians idiots remember who all claims to be one. Lastly, if you want to know if there is a God ask Him? If you really want the truth you will find it.
He also believes atheists and polytheists such as Hindu and Buddists are his equal and deserve protection. You don’t.
He’ll say he “believes” there’s a god, you’ll say you “know” there’s a god and that it’s your god. One is the mark of someone with beliefs, the other is of someone with delusions. Guess which you are?
September 26th, 2009 at 4:31 amI know that you, Blanchy, are long gone, but for the record I voted down on all of your posts simply because of your overwhelming arrogance.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:13 amI drove by your house the other day and noticed flames and smoke coming from your roof. I knocked on your door and alerted you. You said “we don’t think the house is on fire. Besides, if we called the fire department, they’d make us leave the house, and we’re watching a real good movie on TV”.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:12 amIt is people like Inhofe, and the knowledge that people have voted for this ignoramus that make us all despair!
Where is the US from the sixties, with the hope of a brighter future for us all, gone?
To medieval gloom and ignorance based on religious dogma?
Let’s all hope the US can turn the tide, and knock back the religious fanaticism that dominate your country today.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:00 amOr you will become something like Saudi-Arabia, the apex of ignorance and suppression.
Religious people view the phenomenon of sunlight refracting through rain, also known as a rainbow, as a promise that their god won’t murder nearly every human on the planet again because he is so loving.
Since they assume a worldwide flood will not be our next major demise, they apparently assume that whatever our next demise will be will come directly from the hand of their god. What they fail to realize is that maybe their god is allowing themselves to create their own next demise.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:12 amThat’s some legacy he’s leaving for his children and grand children.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:44 amCO2 is not a pollutant? It’s not harmful to anyone?
Anyone remember the movie Apollo 13 (based on true events) when the CO2 levels in the spacecraft got so high that the crew was having problems breathing?
Inhofe is a f-ing idiot.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:56 amInhoff is a bleeping moron and I can’t understand why he is in a leadership position on a committee that deals with science since he has such disdain for science. Listening to him it becomes clearer why 77% of the school kids in OK don’t know who our first president was.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:57 amI ran into God yesterday. This time, He was working the drive-through window at In-N-Out. As He handed me my #2 meal He told me three things: 1. That was my last #2 Meal for the week. 2. When dogs die their spirits remain with their masters and only go to Heaven when their Master’s die…so never grieve the loss of a dog, because they actually happily remain by our sides and free of pain.
and finally, 3. Inhofe is a “sanctimonious prick who’d been angry since childhood and he’s an unapologetic racist who I’m going to send back as a three-legged pig in his next life.”
September 26th, 2009 at 12:29 pmWell, SAPPER23, if you are referring to my “hateful” posts let me explain something so even a Rapturite can understand it. I object to those who reject reality having a vote in our government. My objection to Jimmy Inhofe is that he lets his ignorance rule his actions and then tries to hide behind religion in an attempt to make his abject stupidity socially acceptable. His moronic utterances make all Believers look stupid and, one would think, that genuinely spiritual people would want him to just STFU. Unless they are also as abjectly stupid as Inhofe in which case they really don’t have much to add to the conversation anyway.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pmYes, God is still up there, and he or she is in tears over what we are doing to the home he has provided for mankind.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pmSenator, put a paper bag tightly over your mouth and nose and see how long you can breathe the C02. And Senator, how much money has the oil industry given you?
September 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pmWhat an embarrassment. Its people like Sen. Inhofe that make me ashamed to admit to being American when I travel abroad.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pmpete says:
Yeah. Most of the birds appear to move more by length of day than weather
Nonsense; the bible clearly states that God personally directs the movement of all birds in the air.
/snark
September 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm25% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age. We are screwing ourselves and the planet, and this guy is asking God to come and save everyone. The science is there, the scientific consensus is there and only a lunatic, paid liar or incredibly uneducated person would be saying otherwise at this point.
Is there some Congressional law regarding a Senator’s mental competence? Can we get him out? Really, a person like Inhofe shouldn’t be in office.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:00 pmThe rest of the civilized world is laughing at America because of right-wing loonies like him. sigh.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pmOk guys, I read the replies. I stumbled onto an article and ended up on this site. I checked it again today. I believe in science and all things reasonable, including saving out planet. I also believe in God. The only point I wanted to make was how suprised I am at how rude the posting were. I understand there are people on the right who are not all there, its upsetting to me too. But alot of what I read was aimed at what people believe and were cheap shots. I think you would be hard pressed to find a site with similar postings being this rude to athiests, which I would be just as much against. If you have a point to make then make it, why be hateful. Isnt that what you guys say “dont spread the hate.” I thought Liberalism meant everything goes? Guess everything except Christians. I know, I know, we do all that evil stuff. Youre right, churches are evil. If America had used the koran to build its founding documents we would be SO much further ahead. I know we wouldnt be going through this financial crisis.
When you demean others beliefs you are doing exactly what you claim to loath. Example, the childish replies to my post, not all but some. They know who they are, tempted to return the cheap shots but Ill pass. Ill be sleeping peacefully in a few minutes, they will still be bitter. Consider the fact that you are spending your time typing nonsense to a bunch of people you probably dont even really know.
I once heard a guy refer to such people as “sitting at a computer in their mother’s basement in their underwear with nothing better to do.”
Here is a small but important difference between us…
>>> I will admit that what I typed above was a cheap shot, childish, and not productive. You got me, I was a hypocrit!! I undoubtedly offended some who I did not intend ( temptation was too strong ).
Have fun replying! You will be happy to know that I wont be back on the site. Too busy denying global warming and forcing people to read the Bible.
PALIN / JINDAL 2012 !!!!!
September 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pmActually Inhofe is correct. God is still up there taking care of us. he may also be disciplining us for the truly disgusting way we treat the world He has made. Inhofe is insane if he thinks that America has free reign to do whatever it chooses. God made this world and then told us to take care of it. Unfortunately, the Inhofes of this world feel they can dump any old thing into the environment and get away with it. God’s rule of whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap should be of some concern to Inhofe. Remember God admonished us to take care of his marvelous creation. Look at the horrible smog and then tell me, Mr. Inhofe, just how well we are doing.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:38 pmSAPPER23 says:
The only point I wanted to make was how suprised I am at how rude the posting were. I understand there are people on the right who are not all there, its upsetting to me too. But alot of what I read was aimed at what people believe and were cheap shots.
Sorry, forgot to include my response to this.
Go cry on someone else’s shoulder. Serious discussion happens here, passions run high, and sometimes we say mean things. If you can’t take it, shut up and don’t vote. At other times, we give completely coherent arguments, and if you’ve got the brain and balls to participate, then I invite you to do so.
.
SAPPER23 says:
If America had used the koran to build its founding documents we would be SO much further ahead.
Want to re-respond to this. The implication here is that America is founded on Christianity. This is so not the case.
The early “pilgrims” who came to the American shores escaped persecution from… a Christian nation (England). Got an explanation for that? I do. Whenever a country mandates a state religion, all other forms of the same religion become illegal and therefore open for persecution. The “pilgrims” who came here immediately established a “live and let live” system of avoiding religious persecution specifically because they had been subjected to it. Same thing happened to a lot of Iranians in 1979. They found that the Ayatollah subset of Islam, as the new state religion, immediately excluded all other interpretations of religous practice. The same thing happens every time a state religion takes over; many who thought it was a good idea find themselves “on the outs” as the “correct” religious interpretation becomes a matter of actual law.
The United States of America is founded on Enlightenment Philosophy, and particularly echoes the works of John Locke. This calls for discarding religious trappings, with a focus on “natural law,” and an underlying assumption that we need never postulate a God in order to work things out amongst ourselves. In fact, much of the Declaration of Independence literally mirrors Lockes’ writings. Yeah, that incredible document that Jefferson penned, a first in human history successfully appealing to humanity itself against tyranny? Mostly cribbed from Locke.
But if the Founding Fathers wanted to found “a Christian nation,” they would have established a king. Consider: in 1976, every single country in the world was run by a king. Kings were established by divine right. The Bible talks about kings all the time. If you were a “fundamentalist” Christian in this time period, then kingship is the only appropriate way to run a country. Nothing else existed. Every single country in the world had a king who claimed divine right. To argue against it, would be anti-Christian.
For the Founding Fathers to defy Divine Right and establish a secular, democratic system (based on the Greeks, those pagan sodomites!) would have been the most liberal, progressive, and atheist act possible at that time.
You do not get to claim them now. They are ours, and forever will be.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:31 am@ 347. ElBruce says: … The early “pilgrims” who came to the American shores escaped persecution from… a Christian nation (England).
True
The “pilgrims” who came here immediately established a “live and let live” system of avoiding religious persecution specifically because they had been subjected to it.
Not so much. The “Puritans”, the folks who founded the Plymouth Colony, aka Plymouth Plantation, had been hounded out of England and hither and yon, but that had no particular effect of making them tolerant toward other sectarian dissenters from the Church of England; remember, the Puritans are the guys that ran Roger Williams out of the Plymouth Colony to Rhode Island, where he established the firest American Baptist theoocracy. The Quakers wereen’t originally very tolerant either, nor were a number of other sects that established outposts and colonies in the “New World”. Most of them were seeking the freedom to practice their own religion, but they were all pretty adamant about their own religion being the only religion and treating internal dissenters as heretics.
Same thing happened to a lot of Iranians in 1979. They found that the Ayatollah subset of Islam, as the new state religion, immediately excluded all other interpretations of religous practice. The same thing happens every time a state religion takes over; many who thought it was a good idea find themselves “on the outs” as the “correct” religious interpretation becomes a matter of actual law.
Which is 1) true, and 2) parallels what our ‘dissenting from the Church of England” forefathers started with. Didn’t work out for them, because it didn’t take people long to realize that they could just leave or that in the circumstances of a frontier colony, someone who had visions of being the local religious tyrant couldn’t pull that off without the consent of those he might wish to tyrannize. Playing the tyrant doesn’t work in an environment where you have to pull your own weight to survive.
The United States of America is founded on Enlightenment Philosophy, and particularly echoes the works of John Locke. This calls for discarding religious trappings, with a focus on “natural law,” and an underlying assumption that we need never postulate a God in order to work things out amongst ourselves. In fact, much of the Declaration of Independence literally mirrors Lockes’ writings. Yeah, that incredible document that Jefferson penned, a first in human history successfully appealing to humanity itself against tyranny? Mostly cribbed from Locke.
Pretty much the case.
But if the Founding Fathers wanted to found “a Christian nation,” they would have established a king. Consider: in 1976, every single country in the world was run by a king. … September 27th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Please. 1776. Not that I have anything against 1976. For me, that wan’t a particularly bad year – it was mostly pretty good.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:03 amVirtual Pebble says:
Please. 1776. Not that I have anything against 1976. For me, that wan’t a particularly bad year – it was mostly pretty good.
1776 is what I meant to type, of course. Thanks for the correction.
As for the “religious tolerance” of pre-U.S.A. America, there seem to be two contrary strains running – on the one hand there are laudable and remarkable examples of religious “live-and-let-live” policies established in colonial society as a reaction to their treatment in England, while on the other hand, you’ve got witch-burnings and the like going on as a result of their absolutist biblical theology. Both tended to run against each other, when they weren’t mixing at the same time and place. Frankly, the situation was too complex for either side to claim a monopoly on.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:42 amIf “God is still up there”, the question is, of course: who is ordered to build an ark, and who is convicted to drown? And who takes the liberty to use the brains he thinks God gave him?
September 27th, 2009 at 8:46 amGod is where? Do you mean the North pole? Or is it the Moon? Maybe you mean one of the seven other Planets or even Pluto.
What is God? Can you show us?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pmInhofe and his ilk make God in Mans image. they go for all the best attributes of mankind. An forgiving or unforgiving God on a case by case basis,intolerant, angry, judgmental, executioner, and limited to the point that God can’t manage things without the help and direction of people like Inhofe who is always to make ready use of the belief system or Idea of a god and that makes him the believer better than YOU.
What a jack ass.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:34 pmI think it would be beneficial for President Obama to have Senator Inhofe present his views to the global climate-change summit. People in Europe have no understanding of the shocking level of indifference to facts that rational Americans must face in these political “debates” with our Fundamentalists.
Jim Inhofe is an imbecile and thus offers an excellent opportunity to introduce Europe to America’s real problem, which is of course him and ignorant-bigoted idiots like him who obstruct rational legislation across America.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:55 amIf we are going to talk foolishly, then let’s do it
I’ve got to say that the climate change is partially man made, that is the changing weather patterns.
How we are doing this is quite simple, first – let’s take a look at the dams that we have built, and the water that we have backed up behind them. This water will hold heat, thus creating up drafts that would not normally happen, then once it cools down it will hold the cold in thus creating down drafts when it not normally happen. This changes the prevailing winds. Along with that think about all the irrigation that is being done in normal aired climate areas, I.E Phoenix, AZ , and how it has change the climate
We should also take a look at how much concrete and asphalt that we have laid on the ground; this also will hold heat or cold, not to say any thing about that fact that the rain run off does not adsorb into the ground as it would normally.
You all say you want to eliminate carbon—I ask you how do you plan on doing that, originally part of the plan was to tax the farmers on each head of cattle that they have.
Perhaps we should tax all them that have a compost pile (this creates carbon as it heats up during the decomposing process), and then we should drain all the swamps and bogs because they emit methane gasses, ( if at any time you don’t believe me here is a test you can do — take a small diameter pipe, put your thumb over the end and shove it into the bottom of the swamp bed- then take a lighter and light a flame next to your thumb, being careful not to burn your self, then remove your thumb and watch the pretty blue flame).
We also need to get rid of all the pigs, moose, deer, elk – they also produce ozone depleting gasses.
what we are seeing in normal cycle
September 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pmCome on are we talking about global warming or engaging in character assasination??? Global warming is a hoax!!! All of this theory, & I mean all of it, it is based on the THEORY that the earth & universe is billions of years old & that is just plain nonsense. First of all the earth is losing speed in its rotation around the sun. (provable) The sun is getting cooleer. (provable) the magnetic fields are losing strength. (provable). NOW go back billions of years ago & what would we have?? A faster rotation around the sun, YES. A stronger magnetic field, YES. Also a much hotter sun, right?? NOW if you can not do the mathematics get someone to do them for you. If we go back just 1 billion years, the sun would be so hot that everything would have burned up & we would not be debating this nonsensical theory. Now inrease the speed of this planet & at some point less than a billion years ago the planet would have been spinning so fast that everything & everyone would have been hurled into space & we would not be here having this debate on such a useless theory. There many more proofs that this universe is not billions of years old, but to get all of this information into schools is NOT ON ANYONES LIST OF THINGS THHT SHOULD BE DONE 2 IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET. But anything that can be regulated & taxed & will need a government subsidy is getting a high priority rush through the congress. INCLUDING HEALH CARE REFORM, but that topic is for discussion on another page, not here. One question before I leave this topic, does anyone read anymore, other than the 15 sec blurbs on the tube, do any of u actually read any books on scienc & the universe that actually use the word THEORY, or is what you read just giving you the assumption that all science is enfallible & that no man of science has an agenda. All people have an agenda, the problem with this global warming nonsense, is how it is being used to place our resources & our money & our POWER to give up our soverienty to another beauracracy, that nobody in this country has voted for & they have NO allegiance to this country, but they want our money, so then laws can be passed to regulate our lives. If you want my money, then live in this country & get yourself elected to congress, that way we can watch you steal it, & sometimes an elected official gets caught & we can watch them go to a “country club” federal prison & still keep there government pension, ain’t this country great or what??? LOL LOL LOL
September 29th, 2009 at 3:18 am