Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress

Posted on  

"Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress"

barb.jpgMy brother Dave lives in Minneapolis and has been interviewing RNC delegates. Here is Barb Davis White in her own words (audio here):

WHITE: My name is Barb Davis White and I’m running for the 5th Congressional District against Keith Ellison for the United States House of Representatives, which is called Congress.

ROMM: Where are you on global warming?

WHITE: Well, global warming really has not been proven. There are 30,000 scientists, including Al Gore’s professor, from Princeton, who says that we are now in a cooling stage. And ev-every — also every other climate that has been warmed had better grapes.

ROMM: So you don’t believe in global warming and you don’t think that people caused it.

WHITE: No, I think global warming is a scam. I think it’s a scam to put taxes — more taxes on us, and it’s called carbon taxes. Our environment has never been so clean, and if we want to push global warming, let’s push it on China, where the smog is so thick that you almost need a helmet to breathe. Let’s push it on Africa and see how they adapt to it, because they’re not going to.

That is frighteningly incoherent, even for a would be GOP representative. Is this really the best person Republicans can find in Minneapolis? Or perhaps that’s whom they are recruiting (see “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP“). So you don’t end up totally depressed, there’s a second interview at the end with a DNC delegate who is a Minneapolis City Council member. So, yes, the Twin Cities has some sane politicians.

UPDATE: I’m trying out a new plug-in that will put audio files right into the post. Let’s see if it works:

« »

42 Responses to Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress

  1. P. G. Dudda says:

    Yes, there are some sane politicians in the MSP area. However, none of their names contain “Coleman” or “Pawlenty”…

  2. Dennis says:

    Fortunately that’s someone who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell.

    Now a palm tree’s chance in Alaska — that’s becoming more likely!

  3. Doug says:

    UPDATE: I’m trying out a new plug-in that will put audio files right into the post. Let’s see if it works:

    I see just a blank area. :)

    Note that I’m using Firefox on a Solaris platform. But I can see Youtube and many other audio/video plugins just fine.

  4. Joe says:

    Hmm. I use Firefox and I see it. It appears right at the start of the next line. Do others see it?

  5. Brewster says:

    I see it fine, Joe. And it works well…

  6. Brewster says:

    I should have added that I use IE on a Windows XP platform…

  7. Bud says:

    Works fine for me on Firefox.

  8. John Hollenberg says:

    Works fine with IE on Win XP here also.

  9. snowblind says:

    Incoherent? I understood everything she said because it is all true. AGW is a scam. CO2 is plant food. Optimum CO2 levels are about 1000 ppm. Don’t get your information from the UN because they are a corrupt group with an agenda. Let me ask you – why do you want AGW to be true? And further, at what point do you declare the problem solved? In other words, what would the climate have to do in order to declare success?

  10. tidal says:

    The unfortunate thing is that she does not live next door to Russia, because other than that foreign policy shortcoming she looks like she has everything it would takes to step in on the ticket if Palin has to be replaced.

  11. BrooksB says:

    Audio clip works fine in Firefox 2 on a Mac book.

  12. red says:

    “ROMM: So you don’t believe in global warming and you don’t think that people caused it.

    WHITE: No, I think global warming is a scam. I think it’s a scam to put taxes — more taxes on us, and it’s called carbon taxes.”

    This is a major problem with strategies like carbon trading/taxes and higher gas taxes that are being put forth to solve global warming. If they walk like an attempt to raise taxes and make government bigger, and they talk like an attempt to raise taxes and make government bigger, to a convervative, they must be an attempt to raise taxes and make government bigger.

    The conservative reaction is no different, in a mirror image way, than that of a liberal to something like, say, the invasion of Iraq (or pick any number of other reverse examples). For those firmly against that war, just imagine the hurdle someone would have to overcome to convince you that it’s right. That is the kind of hurdle you’re up against with conservatives and global warming that requires a gas tax or carbon tax to solve. To get the many 10′s of millions of U.S. conservatives on your side, you’ll have to either wait 30 years for it to be too obvious, by which time it will be too late, or you’ll have to counteract the gas or carbon tax with some kind of concurrent tax cut or rebate of a sort that the conservatives will like. For example, cut income taxes or payroll taxes – taxes on something conservatives value like work and business – to match the carbon or gas tax increases.

    That will go a lot farther than scientific papers, which will have limited impact in a politically-charged environment.

  13. John Hollenberg says:

    Snowblind (apt name, by the way):

    If you don’t want to get your information from “the UN”, you can get it from about 35 other organizations:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Unfortunately for your position though, ALL of these reputable scientific groups come to the same conclusion–AGW is real, and it is a very serious threat.

  14. Dano says:

    I can see it on FF 3.0.1 with Flash AdBlock.

    Not that I’d listen to the denizen of Wingnuttia state that GLOBUL WARMINS A SCAY-UM. I already know their whack-job opinion. Why do I need to listen to it?

    Best,

    D

  15. paulm says:

    red said ….To get the many 10’s of millions of U.S. conservatives on your side, you’ll have to either wait 30 years for it to be too obvious, by which time it will be too late, or…

    OR you may have to have civil disobedience and disruption…this is starting to happen and is probably necessary.

  16. Pharmer says:

    John H.: You can find reputable scientists on both sides of this fence. Your carbon taxes would mostly hurt the world’s poor, not being able to compete in the energy market. As a scientist, I view CO2 as a necessity for plant life, with man’s contribution being very minimal. It’s funny that James Hansen cannot get a single model to work, and Michael Mann’s hockey stick has long been history, this is truly a scam of monsterous proportions. Once it becomes obvious to the majority, we may see law suits and possibly jail time for this AGW ponzi scheme.

  17. Dano says:

    I call BS on Pharmer.

    He’s not a scientist, but rather a sock puppet cut and pasting the template.

    Best,

    D

  18. John Hollenberg says:

    Sorry, Pharmer, but we aren’t interested in your individual “opinion” about global warming. We go with data here, and what is published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

  19. Snowblind,

    A victory constitutes a peak CO2 concentration below 450 ppmv and a path back to 350, resulting, hopefully, in climate variability eventually settling back close to preindustrial patterns, a recovery of ocean chemistry (and hopefully ocean biology, which requires other steps as well), and non-melting of major ice sheets.

    Incoherence constitutes saying several things that don’t make sense and can’t possibly all be true simultaneously, for instance 1) that it is “a scam” and 2) we should “push it” on the Chinese (which is called “China”) 3) because they have smog.

    The 1000 ppmv you hope for is not impossible, but I hope you never get to test your hypothesis. Exactly how certain are you that it is “optimal”, and come to think of it how far from the shoreline do you live? If you don’t get your info from “the UN” or the major scientific bodies, where did you come up with this number you are willing to bet so much on?

  20. snowblind says:

    Your reference to wikipedia speaks for itself. Now back to the question – why do you want AGW to be true? And further, at what point do you declare the problem solved? In other words, what would the climate have to do in order to declare success?

  21. snowblind says:

    Now why would CO2 concentrations be your measure of success? After all, its the state of the climate that concerns us, correct? Wouldn’t this be a better measure? Arctic sea ice expanding, no sea level rise out of the norm, cooler global temperatures, less drought, more rainfall. You know, all the things opposite of what is predicted by models. Wouldn’t that be the reference for success? I mean if all the predicted catastophies never happen then the case is closed, right? Why on earth would any sane person continue to believe in the notion that CO2 will cause all these terrible things when, despite ever increasing concentrations of plant food, the globe cools, as is now the case?

  22. snowblind says:

    The reference to optimal CO2 levels:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

    Again, why is it that you want AGW to be true?

  23. John Hollenberg says:

    Snowblind,

    I don’t want AGW to be true, I find it very inconvenient. I just follow the science, which says that global warming is happening, and that there is at least a 90% chance it is due to human activities. I see you sidestepped the Wiki article, by not following up to see whether the scientific organizations named agree the AGW is real and a serious problem. If there is an error in the article, I would be happy to know about it.

    Can you point to a single independent (=not funded by Big Oil) major national or international scientific organization that disagrees with AGW? We aren’t talking about “Institutes” here, which are thinly disguised fronts for ExxonMobil–only legitimate, independent, national scientific organizations that have taken a contrary position.

  24. That’s not a reference, that’s a random webpage.

    I know for a fact that the argument on p 22 is factually wrong, based on an elementary misunderstanding of what MODTRAN does, for instance. Digging on RealClimate will put the lie to this one as I recall.

    I imagine the rest of it is equally problematic. The graph on p 24 is a masterpiece of misdirection. Spot the flaw, anyone?

    Your question then is exactly backwards. Why do you WANT to believe an unreviewed rant on a web page over the opinions of all the world’s major scientific bodies?

    I don’t WANT to “believe in AGW”. I have had advanced training in atmospheric physics. An expectation of AGW is a consequence of such training, based on understanding of physical principles.

    Finally, the 1000 ppmv number you feel you have referenced is pulled out of the author’s, er, hat. There is also not even the slightest squeak about the huge impacts of the carbon pulse on ocean biogeochemistry, itself alone enough reason to restrain emissions. Even if 1000 ppmv were a good idea doesn;t mean that getting there quickly would be.

    Of course some whole new pseudoscience will need to be drummed up about that one.

    In short: you have no physics, your evidence is not gathered correctly, your data is cherry-picked and massaged, you don’t explain why the simpler hypothesis generally held by scientists fails, and you ignore other consequences of rapid CO2 accumulation in the environment.

    I don’t WANT to believe that. The evidence casues me to believe that. I am open to changing my mind if you provide some actual evidence, using the methods that work to extract truth from evidence.

    If “believing” is construed as a matter of will and not evidence that explains a great deal about why we are in such big trouble.

    Wow. “Want”. Wow.

  25. John Hollenberg says:

    PS What journal was that article published in? Didn’t think so.

    I note that the “conference” was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, an organization funded by ExxonMobil as part of their denial campaign. The scientist associated with them, Spencer, got his data analysis wrong and had to admit it in print back in 2005. Turns out his data showed global warming IS occurring. Interestingly, the Heartland Institute has also been involved with the Tobacco denial industry. For those interested in more objective information, see:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397

  26. snowblind says:

    You people have your heads in the sand. Again, shouldn’t the measure of success be a climate where the predicted calamities do not take place? The globe is cooling, oceans aren’t rising faster than before, less drought now than 10 years ago, fewer forest fires. There is no problem with the climate here folks. You site “a 90% chance it’s caused by man” That’s straight out of the IPCC report, a totally biased and corrupt UN organization with a mission to prove their own claim of AGW. Give me a break. Trained in physics and still a believer? That is truly sad, as is all this AGW garbage. Your dreams are going down the drain. The globe is cooling and you’re beside yourselves on what to do next. Just throw out another headline like this one already published “Circumcisions down due to global warming”, and you’ll keep recruiting more believers – not. You can discount all the science on the other side of the debate all day long because in the end, mother nature will prove you wrong. Love the environment, hate the environmentalist.

  27. paulm says:

    snowblind if you study the graphs you will see that cooling happens!
    (As you can see at various period in this UK met graph).

    In the mean time the heating trend is relentless and all the consequences(UN report) that come with it. All happening now.

  28. Dano says:

    The globe is cooling, oceans aren’t rising faster than before, less drought now than 10 years ago, fewer forest fires.

    I call BS on the snowblind troll. He his cutpasting templated misinformation.

    Ignore the troll. No feed troll.

    Snowblind, your mommy is calling you. Why aren’t you in school today?

    Best,

    D

  29. snowblind says:

    I cut/paste nothing. What are you talking about? And why the childish language? I work in natural resource management and I’ve observed how climate changes influence habitat at a fairly acute level. Much of our management decisions are based on the condition of the vegetation and soil. So I’ve been very aware of the variablility within seasonal changes over the last 30 years. For instance, in 2007 the peak bloom for a plant called service berry (Amalachier alnifolia) was April 20. This year it was May 15. You see, much has been made of the potential impacts to plant and animal communities as a result of a warmer climate – i.e. spatial shifts with respect to habitat, but it just isn’t happening. So again, wouldn’t the basis for measuring sucess be cooling or at least static temperatures? You mentioned that you would base success on peak CO2 levels below 450. But what if the climate continued to warm after this benchmark was achieved? Would you still claim success? I’m just trying to keep it real here and I have yet to hear back from anyone regarding this point. If the temps are cooling, and say they continue to cool for the next 10 or 20+ years, then how would that be explained in the face of increasing CO2?

  30. Ronald says:

    take a look at this article. You and your source about temps are probably wrong.

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

    Nice try.

  31. John Hollenberg says:

    Temperatures aren’t cooling. Cooling from a climate perspective would mean a negative slope for data points plotted for 15 years or longer. Remember, time 15 years = climate. Short-term variability does not falsify global warming. By the way, how bout that melting arctic ice and the melting glaciers.

  32. John Hollenberg says:

    Snowblind, if you want to find out more, you can read this web site created by a physicist, Spencer Weart, on “The Discovery of Global Warming”:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

  33. Dano says:

    Snowblind spreads still more FUD. Many know why the bloom was late this year (and why I still can’t find decent #s of mushrooms in the mountains). Even others know that one year is not a trend.

    Your argumentation is the equivalent of a childs’.

    Smarter trolls, please – ones where the time spend addressing them isn’t wasted.

    [killfile]

    Best,

    D

  34. snowblind says:

    Your arrogance is enlightening. It appears you want AGW to be true even in the face of evidence to the contrary. You seem to desire a world where individual freedom is lost to the carbon card. I have lived in a communist country for years and I find the mere notion of government control repulsive. Be careful what you wish for. And please, try to answer my questions without the attempted insults.

  35. John Hollenberg says:

    > It appears you want AGW to be true even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    There isn’t, in fact, any such evidence. That is why the scientists of 130 nations signed off on every word of the IPCC summary. If anything, the IPCC summary is a conservative one, as it only represents what everyone agrees on. As Joe has described, it appears that your ideology does not allow you to accept the facts, because the solutions proposed to deal with the problem aren’t to your liking. No matter how you spin it, even the Bush administration has released reports confirming global warming and describing the national security concerns related to global warming. The U.S. supreme court has found that CO2 is a pollutant that the EPA has the authority to regulate under existing law.

    We could supply the official statements from the National Academy of Science and others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry, and would do so if we thought you had any interest in what climate scientists and those in closely related disciplines have to say about the subject.

    You can read all about it in the articles on this blog if you take the time.

  36. Ronald says:

    Snowblind,
    The change in the growing season has been very well documented and the growing maps have already been changed. The growing season is moving north. The last frost in spring is sooner and the first frost in the fall is later. Just check out growing maps now from 5 years ago.

    You wrote ‘I find the mere notion of government control replusive.’

    Well, my state, as I’m sure most, requires seat belt use in a motor vehicle when moving. How about the requirement that you can’t drive a motor vehicle if you have an alcohol level over a certain amount. How about the requirement that you have to teach your kids at least some basic level of knowledge, whether at public schools, private or home schooling. How about polution controls or trash pickup. Are all these things government control.

    I find it weird that someone would equate controls on the release of greenhouse gases with the communists of repressive governments. There are many requirements that modern, democratic, constitutionocracy governments control. It’s sad that unrestricted release of greenhouse gases causes problems with the climate for future gernerations. It’s be easier if that wasn’t true. It appears to be true and it’s something that respondsible people and governments should do something about. But to say that at sometime there were repressive governments and then the only solution because there were repressive governments that now we can’t do anything about this problem is nuts.

    Personally, I think there is to much government control in many areas which causes us to not be able to solve real world wide problems when they come up such as this. But global warming is real, human machine and land use caused and we should do something about it that requires grown ups to do something about it.

    But don’t go to the extreme of

  37. SOHBET says:

    Even others know that one year is not a trend ?

  38. ohh thankss :))

    Good to see you here!