Boehner does belly flop on climate change

[Star]

.
Boehner does half flip...

Boehner's gone from having an opinion on climate change to, to, wait for it to-----"I'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change."

John Boehner: 'I'm Not Qualified To Debate The Science Over Climate Change'

.​

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd put money on the cry-baby for a 1st round knockout of Nancy Pelosi in a grudge match over Climate Change..

Featured bout would be John Fraud Kerry versus Newt Gingrich.. Newt might tap out tho...

 

[Crick]

In 2009, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Boehner what the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions would be, and Boehner dismissed the concern. "George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical," said Boehner. "Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide." He went on to suggest, though, that Republicans would come up with a plan.

Who told Boehner that ANYONE thought carbon dioxide was a carcinogen? And where'd he get his info concerning the content of cow farts? I'd say this recent self-appraisal as to his qualifications to discuss the issue is spot on.

 

[Desperado]

Boehner --"I'm not qualified"
End of story... nothing more need to be said.
The man is a waste and is more of a Dem than he is a Conservative.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh good. Crickham wants a moron fest..
Democrat RANKING member of Energy and Environment.. Hennnnnnerrrrrrry Waxman !

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

OK now do a Republican.. And then a Libertarian..

But PLEASE watch this video --- it's VITAL to understanding this Star topic...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DALcHFTKlzA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DALcHFTKlzA[/ame]


Which do you prefer?? Honesty? or FAKING IT?

 

[skookerasbil]

You dummies.....its an election year. Chances of a climate change bill even getting to the floor much less being voted on???


XXXXXX

 

[Crick]

Now do CrusaderFrank and Skookerasshole and jc456 and for your GRAND FINALE, SSDD.

 

[jc456]

Crick, what about doing me?

Out there on denier island...maybe you'll be lucky and see Gilligan floating on by as he heads to his deserted island.

 

[flacaltenn]

Crick, what about doing me?

Out there on denier island...maybe you'll be lucky and see Gilligan floating on by as he heads to his deserted island.

I think jc -- we should be more compassionate to Star and Crick and all the other panicked ones. Should take up a fund to buy a crate of these and distribute them to our favorite chicken-littles..

The Global Warming Survival Kit website.
The Global Warming Survival Kit

Obama should be distributing these right now to the folks who can't afford to survive GW.

 

[jc456]

Crick, what about doing me?

Out there on denier island...maybe you'll be lucky and see Gilligan floating on by as he heads to his deserted island.

I think jc -- we should be more compassionate to Star and Crick and all the other panicked ones. Should take up a fund to buy a crate of these and distribute them to our favorite chicken-littles..

The Global Warming Survival Kit website.
The Global Warming Survival Kit

Obama should be distributing these right now to the folks who can't afford to survive GW.

I like it, sure let's distribute to them.

 

[skookerasbil]

Crick, what about doing me?

Out there on denier island...maybe you'll be lucky and see Gilligan floating on by as he heads to his deserted island.

Oooops.......sorry but Gilligan basically died about a year ago.

And anyway.....the Skeptics have their own island anyway......its called, "Winning".

 

[skookerasbil]

Crick, what about doing me?

Out there on denier island...maybe you'll be lucky and see Gilligan floating on by as he heads to his deserted island.

I think jc -- we should be more compassionate to Star and Crick and all the other panicked ones. Should take up a fund to buy a crate of these and distribute them to our favorite chicken-littles..

The Global Warming Survival Kit website.
The Global Warming Survival Kit

Obama should be distributing these right now to the folks who can't afford to survive GW.

I like it, sure let's distribute to them.

I just want to throw in a little suggestion to make the poster a little more bomb-like......the little guy up there standing next to the house? Need to make it appear he is standing under water or better yet, drowning = far more compelling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boehner and Rush and the nay sayers here are not qualified to debate this issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the content of their posts, most of the deniers here are totally unqualified to debate the effect of GHGs on the climate, or any other scientific issue, for that matter.

There are people in the GOP that are having second thoughts on their denial of the effects of the GHGs. We have an El Nino on the way, and if the weather turns really hot, they might have some explaining to do to the voters affected by that weather.

 

[SSDD]

By the content of their posts, most of the deniers here are totally unqualified to debate the effect of GHGs on the climate, or any other scientific issue, for that matter.

There are people in the GOP that are having second thoughts on their denial of the effects of the GHGs. We have an El Nino on the way, and if the weather turns really hot, they might have some explaining to do to the voters affected by that weather.

And from the content of your posts..it is still clear that you are operating from a position of faith as there is still no evidence that adding some CO2 to the open atmosphere can cause warming. We know that the present ice age began with CO2 above 1000ppm...we know that CO2 follows temperature....we know that most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were "safe". We know that the small remainder of 20th century warming ended about 1998. We know that temperatures have remained static for damned near 20 years now while CO2 has increased steadily. The observed evidence points to some other cause for warming....perhaps that big ball of fire in the sky.

 

[Crick]

there is still no evidence that adding some CO2 to the open atmosphere can cause warming.

WILLFUL LIE

We know that the present ice age began with CO2 above 1000ppm...

Irrelevant. The CO2 levels were NOT the cause of our most recent ice age. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right SiD?

we know that CO2 follows temperature....

No, we do not. We know that it can because it has but this does NOT tell us that it cannot lead temperature. Once again, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

we know that most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were "safe".

The temperature anomaly in 1900 was about -0.23C. In 1940 it was +0.08C for a change of +0.031C

Obviously, you are cherry-picking and taking advantage of the lengthy hiatus between 1941 and 1979 - the one for which you have NO explanation and despite being orders of magnitude more of a change than has occurred in the last 15 years, did NOT mark the end of global warming.

Despite that - at the end of the 20th century, the temperature anomaly was +0.50C. Measuring from the local peak at 1940 we get a change of +0.42C, GREATER than the pre-1940 change. Measuring from the local minimum in 1948, we get a change of +0.60C.

So, you are incorrect - YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE - no matter which way we look at the data.

We know that the small remainder of 20th century warming ended about 1998.

No, we do not. Surface warming slowed. Ocean heating accelerated. The ToA radiative imbalance increased telling us that the Earth's accumulation of heat has done nothing but ACCELERATE.

We know that temperatures have remained static for damned near 20 years now while CO2 has increased steadily.

Again, only surface warming slowed. Ocean heating accelerated and, above it all, for every second of every day, more radiative energy has struck the Earth than has departed and this imbalance has done nothing but get worse. We have NOT stabilized. Anyone that tells you we have is lying. Like you. LYING.

The observed evidence points to some other cause for warming....perhaps that big ball of fire in the sky.

The behavior of the sun has been thoroughly observed. It simply has NOT produced or transmitted the energy that would be required for it to be responsible for the warming we have experienced. The warming from greenhouse gases, on the other hand, HAVE. And, as we have seen here over and over again, attempting to blame anything else for the warming requires ignoring the basic physics that tells us increased greenhouse gases increase temperatures. It requires MORE bad science, MORE dishonesty, MORE LYING.

 

[IanC]

there is still no evidence that adding some CO2 to the open atmosphere can cause warming.

WILLFUL LIE

We know that the present ice age began with CO2 above 1000ppm...

Irrelevant. The CO2 levels were NOT the cause of our most recent ice age. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right SiD?



No, we do not. We know that it can because it has but this does NOT tell us that it cannot lead temperature. Once again, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The temperature anomaly in 1900 was about -0.23C. In 1940 it was +0.08C for a change of +0.031C

Obviously, you are cherry-picking and taking advantage of the lengthy hiatus between 1941 and 1979 - the one for which you have NO explanation and despite being orders of magnitude more of a change than has occurred in the last 15 years, did NOT mark the end of global warming.

Despite that - at the end of the 20th century, the temperature anomaly was +0.50C. Measuring from the local peak at 1940 we get a change of +0.42C, GREATER than the pre-1940 change. Measuring from the local minimum in 1948, we get a change of +0.60C.

So, you are incorrect - YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE - no matter which way we look at the data.



No, we do not. Surface warming slowed. Ocean heating accelerated. The ToA radiative imbalance increased telling us that the Earth's accumulation of heat has done nothing but ACCELERATE.

We know that temperatures have remained static for damned near 20 years now while CO2 has increased steadily.

Again, only surface warming slowed. Ocean heating accelerated and, above it all, for every second of every day, more radiative energy has struck the Earth than has departed and this imbalance has done nothing but get worse. We have NOT stabilized. Anyone that tells you we have is lying. Like you. LYING.

The observed evidence points to some other cause for warming....perhaps that big ball of fire in the sky.

The behavior of the sun has been thoroughly observed. It simply has NOT produced or transmitted the energy that would be required for it to be responsible for the warming we have experienced. The warming from greenhouse gases, on the other hand, HAVE. And, as we have seen here over and over again, attempting to blame anything else for the warming requires ignoring the basic physics that tells us increased greenhouse gases increase temperatures. It requires MORE bad science, MORE dishonesty, MORE LYING.

your math is a bit wobbly crickham, you may want to check it.

 

[IanC]

 

[jillian]

I'd put money on the cry-baby for a 1st round knockout of Nancy Pelosi in a grudge match over Climate Change..

Featured bout would be John Fraud Kerry versus Newt Gingrich.. Newt might tap out tho...

uh.. .ok.

now tell us what that has to do with the fact that the right has made science denial into policy.

 

[Crick]

The temperature anomaly in 1900 was about -0.23C. In 1940 it was +0.08C for a change of +0.031C

Obviously, you are cherry-picking and taking advantage of the lengthy hiatus between 1941 and 1979 - the one for which you have NO explanation and despite being orders of magnitude more of a change than has occurred in the last 15 years, did NOT mark the end of global warming.

Despite that - at the end of the 20th century, the temperature anomaly was +0.50C. Measuring from the local peak at 1940 we get a change of +0.42C, GREATER than the pre-1940 change. Measuring from the local minimum in 1948, we get a change of +0.60C.

So, you are incorrect - YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE - no matter which way we look at the data.

your math is a bit wobbly crickham, you may want to check it.

You're right. I said the change from 1940 to 2000 was +0.42C. I misread. I should have said +0.46.