Senate has doubts about climate change science

[ScottA]

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks the global warming climate change science is tainted. This is a .gov link so if it's a conspiricy theory take it up with the senate.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fa8e9e7f-802a-23ad-4a0c-bc0da0ade611

[RainDog]

 Sure. Shows how successful the misinformation campaign is. Even more-so than it was when the tobacco industry attempted to obscure the connection between lung cancer and cigarettes.

Point in case: Utah In a resolution passed earlier this month, the state's House of Representatives called on the US government to suspend efforts to cut industrial emissions until an investigation into climate science has been completed.

"Besides the creationist analogies, the South Dakota resolution sounds like something out of 1984:

   WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide;

Wrong! The Earth has been warming overall, and the last decade was the warmest on record, with records going back to 1880.

   WHEREAS, there is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the troposphere where the majority of warming would be taking place;

Wrong! The troposphere is warming.


   WHEREAS, historical climatological data shows without question the earth has gone through trends where the climate was much warmer than in our present age.

Yes, and the Earth went through a period of heavy bombardment from asteroids and comets a few hundred million years after it formed. Just because something happened once doesn't make it safe.

   WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth. Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life";

Wow. I mean, wow. Let's lock these guys in a room filled with CO2 for an hour or two and see how much life is left in them. And I love the "many scientists" line. You know what? A whole lot more scientists call it a greenhouse gas.

Wow.

   WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to President Obama stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate..."

This petition has been thoroughly debunked before; it's nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters by deniers.

However, my absolute favorite part of the South Dakota resolution is this next bit. Are you sitting down? Good:

   NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED [...]
   (2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and

Wait, what? Did those guys in the South Dakota legislature actually say astrological?"

Bwahaha!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/21/you-cant-resolve-away-climate-change/

Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html

The denial industry:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

[muldoon]

WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth. Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life";

Wow. I mean, wow. Let's lock these guys in a room filled with CO2 for an hour or two and see how much life is left in them. And I love the "many scientists" line. You know what? A whole lot more scientists call it a greenhouse gas.

I think the "gas of life comment" is directly related to it being necessary for plant life.  (a direct requirement for photosynthesis) 
Lock some trees or grains or grasses or vegetables up in a room without co2 and you'll see the same thing.  And if there were no plants or trees or grasses or fruits or veggies, yeah, you'd have no life on earth eventually.  But then again, I am not a scientist so I may be wrong here. 

[archimedes]

You do realize that Senator Inhofe is a wholly owned senator of the oil industry right?  He's hardly objective, nor is he a scientist.  He's got much more to gain by falsifying the truth than any climate scientist does.

[RainDog]

You do realize that Senator Inhofe is a wholly owned senator of the oil industry right?  He's hardly objective, nor is he a scientist.  He's got much more to gain by falsifying the truth than any climate scientist does.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank attended a meeting of the Senate environment committee, and describes Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as "the last flat-earther:"

A senator in a hostile climate - It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102702845.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[ScottA]

Standard procedure.

1. Attack the source
2. Start name calling
3. Change the subject

[ScottA]

You do realize that Senator Inhofe is a wholly owned senator of the oil industry right?

I assume you have some proof to backup this statement.

[RainDog]

You do realize that Senator Inhofe is a wholly owned senator of the oil industry right?

I assume you have some proof to backup this statement.

"James M. Inhofe has accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe#Oil_and_Coal_Money_in_Politics

[pagan]

Jupiter being in the third house of Virgo while Mercury is retrograde causes the fourth aspect conjunction of Pluto's alignment with Saturn, thus global warming on Earth.  It is asstrological after all.  

[ScottA]

Sourcewatch.org is an obvious pro climate change website. The fact that Senetor Inhofe gets campain money from the oil industry proves nothing. If you use that logic it could be said that every Senetor is owned by some group. It could also be said that Obama is owned by Wall street. I don't belive Senetor Inhofe is the only one on the committee either. Why is it so hard to belive that some scientists may have an agenda? The indications of it are everywhere but with any mention of it the standard procedure listed above is invoked. Please explain to me why they (scientists) needed to do the things that the climategate emails revealed. Please explain to me why every solution to global warming involves massive (near slavery) taxes on the peoples of the western world.

Open your eyes and see where all this is leading. We are being de-industrialized. We are being taken back in time to a harsher era. I hope you'll be happy eating beans and rice the rest of your life and walking everywhere you go. The bill of goods the climate cult is selling will result in a 100+ year rollback in human progress and loss of millions of lives. Do you think the people who are selling this will scrafice thier comforts? I doubt it.

[RainDog]

Sourcewatch.org is an obvious pro climate change website.  

SourceWatch has nothing to do with climate change. You just made that up out of whole cloth. It's a watchdog group which "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests."

Here's another which tracks money AND votes, indicating the percentage of times a member voted in favor of big oil:

Inhofe, James - 100%

http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/voteTables.php?chamber=S

The rest of what you said, "I hope you'll be happy eating beans and rice the rest of your life and walking everywhere you go.", etc, is just silliness.

People are simply going to eventually have get over abdicating intellectual responsibility to their "gut" feelings. The Gut is a moron, as anyone who has ever punched a wall knows. Dressing up the Gut by calling it "common sense" doesn't make it any more capable of determining our science or our politics.

[fishing_guy]

"SourceWatch has nothing to do with climate change. You just made that up out of whole cloth. It's a watchdog group which "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.""


Sorry Raindog, I can't accept Sourcewatch as a source.  I went to their webpage and browsed through their "stories" for the two months. 

Total count of stories bashing Republicans/Rep policies: all
Total count of stories NOT attack/propaganda: None

This from a website who in the first few sentences purport to being a Bi-partisan website. IN ITS OWN WORDS.  About what I'ld expect from a group based in Madison Wi.  It's known all over the midwest as a haven for liberals (I live in Minnesota).  We have our own, but Madison's are so much more California like...(no offense).

[RainDog]

Sorry Raindog, I can't accept Sourcewatch as a source.  I went to their webpage and browsed through their "stories" for the two months.  

Total count of stories bashing Republicans/Rep policies: all
Total count of stories NOT attack/propaganda: None

This from a website who in the first few sentences purport to being a Bi-partisan website. IN ITS OWN WORDS.  About what I'ld expect from a group based in Madison Wi.  It's known all over the midwest as a haven for liberals (I live in Minnesota).  We have our own, but Madison's are so much more California like...(no offense).

I don't really care if you accept the source or not. Accept another one if you prefer.

You understand, don't you, that the numbers are not dependent on who reports them?

How about a more mainstream source for you:

"In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe's largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership pacs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[48] In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).[49]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#Campaign_contributions

Like the money-trail better from there?

[ScottA]

Notice how Raindog never actualy answers the questions. He simply continues the bashing and moves on. My wife says I'm feeding trolls. I thinks she may be correct. 

[RainDog]

Notice how Raindog never actualy answers the questions. He simply continues the bashing and moves on. My wife says I'm feeding trolls. I thinks she may be correct.  

Didn't know I had some obligation to answer any and all questions that someone rattles off. I usually only address key issues, and don't sweat the little stuff.  

I had to look back to see what questions I missed, and these are the only ones I could find.

Why is it so hard to belive that some scientists may have an agenda?

It isn't so hard to believe. Some do, I'm sure.

Please explain to me why they (scientists) needed to do the things that the climategate emails revealed.

There are basically three ways they could have dealt with the political skeptics and noise:  

   1. Say nothing at all
   2. Circle the wagons
   3. Take the "high ground",  make data/methods available/transparent, clarify the uncertainties; openly declare their values

Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. The third option is obviously most preferable, but also requires energy that could otherwise be channeled into productive research.

Please explain to me why every solution to global warming involves massive (near slavery) taxes on the peoples of the western world.

I haven't once recommended any specific legislation be taken. That's not the question I concentrate on.

He simply continues the bashing and moves on.

What you describe as "bashing" is actually called "rebuttal".

And yes, then I move on.

[glenn kangiser]

RainDog.

I'm working out of town and don't have time to monitor replies on the forum.

One warning.

Cut the rudeness.

Learn how to say it nice or you will no longer be allowed to say it.

If you already consider that as being nice then I'm saying, be nicer.  This warning applies to all topics on the forum.  I will not limit what you say but I will limit how you say it.  Personal attacks and belittling etc are off limits.  I don't want to make a bunch of rules here so the rule is, just be nice.

Glenn

[RainDog]

Sorry, Glenn. I'm not going to agree with woefully and willfully ignorant people. I've been respectful in ever sense and in every post, short of smiling and nodding idiotically at every idiotic statement made. "Be nice" obviously means "Be stupid or be quiet".

Fine, I'll be quiet. Was getting awful old picking on the knuckle-heads anyway. Too easy.

[MountainDon]

Nobody agrees with everybody on every subject. However, when we disagree, we can state our opinion and why we disagree without resorting to using words like knuckle-heads and so on. Calling names is too easy and non productive.

Being nice does not necessarily mean be stupid. Sometimes it means exercising self restraint and diplomacy when dealing with others who do not accept one's own view. And yes, sometimes it means be quiet if there is no civil means at one's disposal,


Raindog, there will be a "read-only; no post" flag placed on your account till Sunday sometime.

[glenn kangiser]

You are much nicer than I would have been, Don.  I meant ONE warning and ONE chance to be nice.  Thanks for taking care of that. 

I, for some reason, still have work --- out of town...

[fishing_guy]

Not to stir up a hornet's nest, but Wikipedia is about as good of a source as some of the above websites.  If you look at the entry, the numbers actually come from the SAME website. 

It reminds me of a virus scare back in the earlier days of computing.  They traced the virus rumors back to a PR firm that worked for an AN ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE Manufacturer.

Always check and double check your sources.  There is always an agenda present...some good and some bad.

[Whitlock]

Thomas Jefferson Noted Global Warming
Climate change crusaders insist that the earth is warming largely due to the emission of greenhouse gases by motor vehicles and factories.
But Thomas Jefferson wrote about global warming back in the early 19th century, before there were any emissions from cars, coal-fired power plants, and other developments of the Industrial Age.
In a letter to Philadelphia physician and professor Nathaniel Chapman dated Dec. 11, 1809, nine months after he left the presidency, Jefferson wrote: "The change which has taken place in our climate is one of those facts which all men of years are sensible of and yet none can prove by regular evidence. They can only appeal to each other's general observation for the fact.
"I remember that when I was a small boy, say sixty years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter, to my knee very often, to my waist sometimes, and that they covered the earth long. And I remember while yet young to have heard from very old men that in their youth the winters had been still colder, with deeper and longer snows. In the year 1772, thirty-seven years ago, we had a snow two feet deep in the Champain parts of this state, and three feet in the counties next below the mountains . . .
"While I lived at Washington, I kept a Diary, and by recurring to that I observe that from the winter of 1802-03 to that of 1808-09 inclusive, the average fall of snow of the seven winters was only 14½ inches, and that the ground was covered but sixteen days in each winter on average of the whole. The maximum in any one winter during that period was 21 inches fall, and 34 days on the ground, the minimum was 4½ inches fall and two days on the ground . . .
"Williams in his history of Vermont has an essay on the change in the climate of Europe, Asia and Africa."
It's clear, then, that the earth was warming during Jefferson's time. It's also clear that the climate change could not be attributed to man's activities.

[Woodsrule]

Thomas Jefferson must have been what Al Gore calls a "Global Warming Denier."