Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[Big Fitz]

I never said there'd be ill effects on people, just the climate, so your greenhouse analogy fails.

And yet, you continue claim that a mild increase in such an insignificant gas will cause great damage. My analogy points out that this planet would BENEFIT from a quadrupling of CO2. Oh damn! Missed the point again.

As for the concentration of CO2, what's important is the % increase, NOT the absolute amount.

You're kidding, right? So how can the increase of an insignificant gas by an insignificant amount in only 200 years matter?

Saying that it's not a threat is just bluster without backup. If the carbon is being sequestered, why is its concentration in the atmosphere going up?

The fact is, there is no proof you will accept if it is contrary to your gaia worshiping religion. Secondly, you can claim that mankind is a significant producer of CO2, but yet, the atmospheric compositional data just doesn't back that up. 20 trillion tons globally may seem like a lot, but compared to the other 200 trillion tons or so, produced by nature is negligible.

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, but that's not relevant to the discussion.

Bullshit it isn't. It is many multiples stronger than CO2, in 100 times the concentration of CO2, yet you discount it because it debunks your faith utterly.

What IS relevant is that any rise in temp due to CO2 would introduce more vapor into the atmosphere, thereby amplifying its effect.

That's the theory, but proof is still lacking or mixed. Why is it that CO2 has risen in the past only after temperatures increased? Either your cart or your horse is backwards. Regardless it makes you look like an ass.

The last part of your analysis, proves my point that the deniers' positon is purely political, since I as I have shown the science is either above your head or being purposely twisted to fit your bias.

You make the claim but provide no proof. I'm using junior high earth science data to defeat your faith. I am pointing out that you have ZERO non-socialist/fascist solutions. Therefore, global warming by logical extention is nothing more than a taco chip for this ecofascist salsa: a delivery system to global tyranny by idiots.

 

[MaggieMae]

You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it. People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category. CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming? Don't tell me about variations in the past. Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

PC, you are just so scientifically ignorant. For you the world begins and ends with your Conservative Politics. Well, reality is going to bite your silly ass in the near future.

When you think about it, the conservatives wouldn't be trying to define a very real scientific phenomenon a "hoax" if Al Gore hadn't written the heads-up book. If it had been, say, Ann Coulter, they'd have already made sure that their energy focus was on alternative fuels which do less damage to the ozone and the capitalists would be building and hiring like gangbusters.

 

[MaggieMae]

And, of course, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. Only you, just little you, truly know the truth. You are so much more learned and wiser than all them thar pointy headed librul scientists.

It's all part of the leftist/Communist/Muslim takeover, don't you know? The scientists are in on it.

 

[Big Fitz]

And, of course, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. Only you, just little you, truly know the truth. You are so much more learned and wiser than all them thar pointy headed librul scientists.

It's all part of the leftist/Communist/Muslim takeover, don't you know? The scientists are in on it.

Hmmm... what is that 'statistic' Rdean likes to constantly parrot?

Oh that's right. let's see if I can quote it properly...

94% of all scientists are liberal.

Hmm... doesn't sound quite right, but I think the math is for his quote.

Red letter day folks... I've actually quoted something stated by Rdean. If it was true... (which is debatable) that would actually prove that point, now, wouldn't it?

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

You see, you and Rocks are looking in the wrong direction...the Global Warming Scam has nothing to do with science....

it is politics.

A pure and simple global power grab.

And who made it political?

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieMae]

Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?

PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

How did we get from climate change to intelligent design v. Darwinism? Once again, there are certainly more SCIENTIFIC facts to support the theory of evolution than there are some magical guy in a robe and a halo that made it all happen. As for "cult theories," all anyone has to do is look at Christian fundamentalists like Jim Jones.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

You see, you and Rocks are looking in the wrong direction...the Global Warming Scam has nothing to do with science....

it is politics.

A pure and simple global power grab.

And who made it political?

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me a 'global warming solution' that isn't based on government growth, increased power and decreased liberty and choice.

I'm still waiting for any chicken little to answer that.

Oh, and regarding the link:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2010)

Makes it pretty clear there are strong political attacks made upon the authors by groups that are completely unbiased and with no political goals whatsoever...

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

The IPCC prefers 'evidence' from students and activists, so why should it matter?

There were over 800 Ph.D's who produced publications and material at the 2010 conference. Why do you prefer to look dumb?

 

[MaggieMae]

Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?

PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

OK. So you are totally scientifically ignorant. Expected, I guess. You interpret everything through political glasses. Real dumb.

As the effects of the ongoing climatic change resulting from the forcings from the AGW affect the agriculture of the world, people will come to realize that people like you have totally misled them. There was a time when conservatives were more scientifically based than liberals. Today's Conservatives are in complete denial of science. Science of any kind.

I believe the conservative punditry had already labeled global warming as "junk science" even before the NASA report came out, and which is why the report was ultimately censored.

This is an indication of how real news gets distorted. Fox reports on the censorship, yet it's headline screams:

Report: NASA Distorted Global-Warming Studies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

From the article^:

It also found evidence that NASA headquarters press officials canceled a press conference on a mission monitoring ozone pollution and global warming because it was too close to the 2004 presidential election.

In addition, the report detailed more than a dozen other actions in which it said the NASA public affairs office unilaterally edited or downgraded press releases having to do with global warming or denied access to scientists.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

The IPCC prefers 'evidence' from students and activists, so why should it matter?

There were over 800 Ph.D's who produced publications and material at the 2010 conference. Why do you prefer to look dumb?

Yet the IPCC admitted publically they used data regarding glacial retreat from a geography student at the University of Berlin (IIRC) who was interviewing Ice Climbing Guides in Nepal as evidence for the disappearance of glaciers worldwide. Furthermore, that student has been heavily involved with the WWF writing articles about the environment in crisis.

Doesn't matter if you have a Ph.D or not. Bad data is bad data.

And there's the East Anglia fiasco which proved that all of Hansen's and Mann's results from data (the originals now destroyed to try to hide evidence of fraud) is potentially criminally fraudulent.

Then of course that there's the P-BO's administration goals to turn NASA into a global warming research center more than space exploration.

Again... regardless of your degrees and credentials, when you use bad data, knowingly or not, you get bad results.

Do some research on Climategate. The discovered emails are now searchable online in an index, and you can see the amount of fraud that was intended and attempted.

 

[MaggieMae]

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

OK. So you are totally scientifically ignorant. Expected, I guess. You interpret everything through political glasses. Real dumb.

As the effects of the ongoing climatic change resulting from the forcings from the AGW affect the agriculture of the world, people will come to realize that people like you have totally misled them. There was a time when conservatives were more scientifically based than liberals. Today's Conservatives are in complete denial of science. Science of any kind.

"You interpret everything through political glasses. "

Oh, yeah...well you interpret everything through your obsession!

Let me explain it to you is the simplest possible illustration:



The political explanaion is the man behind the curtain.

Get it?


It has nothing to do with science...it's manipulation of the less than perceptive,...

oops....did I hurt your feelings?

I like this one better. Who's pulling YOUR strings?

Notice the elephant.

 

[Big Fitz]

I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.

 

[R.D.]

It's the deniers that have made it a political issue. A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure. THAT'S LOGIC. The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Damn them!! Pointing out fake science being used to regulate and push a leftist agenda


“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero , the puppet master behind Kyoto.

 

[westwall]

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago. We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible. Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there. But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.

When deniers lie like that they prove that they KNOW there is global warming.
Thank you.

There you go with the "lie" crap again. Alarmists are the only folks who lie incessantly. If you have a problem with what I said take it up with the satellite record.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's the deniers that have made it a political issue. A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure. THAT'S LOGIC. The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Damn them!! Pointing out fake science being used to regulate and push a leftist agenda


“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero , the puppet master behind Kyoto.

As Mark Twain pointed out back in the day that the trip from St. Louis to New Orleans was shortening a quarter mile or so every year. In only a few hundred years, New Orleans and St. Louis would be neighbors!

Or would they???

 

[westwall]

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago. We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible. Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there. But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.

Since when is the ability of CO2 to trap energy a theory? That's proven scientific FACT. You say the temps haven't gone up, but on the other hand claim there are other factors. Those factors go up and down, but CO2 is constantly going up. When they reverse themselves the contribution of CO2 will become evident to everyone. In the meantime, that's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. Hope it's not too late, when y'all finally see the light.

You people have said that natural cycles no longer apply. You have repudiated the fundamental basis of natural science such as uniformitarianism and even with all of that, with more CO2 than Hansen predicted the temps are the same. 30 years has passed and according to the sarellite record the global temp now is the same as it was in 1979.

That means your theory has a serious problem. You have no basis in science so you're not capable of understanding that, but that's your problem, not mine nor the scientists like me who actually do understand the underlying problems.

 

[MaggieMae]

The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.

Yesterday, Mr. Boe and I drove out to the Central Valley for a family birthday party.

As we traveled through the Altamont Pass, we did not see one windmill actually turning. They were all stock still. I've seen them like this before.

I'd really hate to get my 'lectricity from a huge installation of windmills that don't work on a windy afternoon.

Just sayin'.

They're not your basic windmills dotting landscapes in The Netherlands.

Wind FAQs - EcoEnergy - Renewable. Responsible. Right now.
What if the wind doesn't blow?

Our turbines may not be turning in one of our wind projects – but they're turning in another. The energy created by wind turbines is either sold to the wholesale power market comprising many utilities or to individual utilities directly, just like the power created from a fossil fuel plant, a nuclear facility, or a hydroelectric dam. Regardless of the exact sale arrangement, all commercial wind power is included in the wide scale regional planning that spans across many utilities and multiple states by what is known as the Regional Transmission Operator (RTO). The result is that wind energy becomes part of the overall power supply mix and once planned over a large geographic area, it then becomes quite predictable because there are many facilities in the network.

In other words, wind and weather patterns, which are taken carefully into consideration when planning wind facilities, ensure that wind energy is being produced somewhere on the network, even if the turbines you see at any given moment may not be turning. Once connected to the grid, power from wind energy – just like power from other renewable energy sources – is available virtually all the time, helping to reduce dependence on power created from non-renewable sources.

 

[westwall]

The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.

Yesterday, Mr. Boe and I drove out to the Central Valley for a family birthday party.

As we traveled through the Altamont Pass, we did not see one windmill actually turning. They were all stock still. I've seen them like this before.

I'd really hate to get my 'lectricity from a huge installation of windmills that don't work on a windy afternoon.

Just sayin'.

They're not your basic windmills dotting landscapes in The Netherlands.

Wind FAQs - EcoEnergy - Renewable. Responsible. Right now.
What if the wind doesn't blow?

Our turbines may not be turning in one of our wind projects – but they're turning in another. The energy created by wind turbines is either sold to the wholesale power market comprising many utilities or to individual utilities directly, just like the power created from a fossil fuel plant, a nuclear facility, or a hydroelectric dam. Regardless of the exact sale arrangement, all commercial wind power is included in the wide scale regional planning that spans across many utilities and multiple states by what is known as the Regional Transmission Operator (RTO). The result is that wind energy becomes part of the overall power supply mix and once planned over a large geographic area, it then becomes quite predictable because there are many facilities in the network.

In other words, wind and weather patterns, which are taken carefully into consideration when planning wind facilities, ensure that wind energy is being produced somewhere on the network, even if the turbines you see at any given moment may not be turning. Once connected to the grid, power from wind energy – just like power from other renewable energy sources – is available virtually all the time, helping to reduce dependence on power created from non-renewable sources.

And every wind power system on the panet is subsidized by taxpayer money. Not one system is capable of standing on its own. Thus it is GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT IS ONCE AGAIN DRIVING THE BUS. As was asked previously, show us one program that doesn't entail massive governement regulation and taxpayer subsidies to keep these "green" energy companies running.

 

[MaggieMae]

What a ridiculous analogy. CO2 is known to trap energy. Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic. Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain. Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.

Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago. We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible. Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there. But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.

When deniers lie like that they prove that they KNOW there is global warming.
Thank you.

For one thing, surface temperatures are only part of the puzzle. This is a one-stop site which links all the scientific data, and the pro/con relevant studies and articles.

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

[logical4u]

Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society

Old Rocks, please say what you actually want for our society. Do we pull the plug on all electricity in the country? How do we determine who gets service and who doesn't? If we tax each person for breathing (they exhale CO2), do we eliminate those that do not pay the tax? If we tax "big industry" for expelling forms of carbon gas into the air, will it change the temperature of the earth? If it doesn't is there any process to sue those that put the "ponzi scheme" in place? Is there anything that people can do that has "proven" results to change the climate of the planet (besides cutting thousands and thousands of acres of forest in the same place)?

Seriously, the religion you follow is really cultish. For someone that uses science to start discussions, why do you avoid scientific evidence so, when it comes to making your point?