On Fox, Inhofe claimed without challenge that "[i]t was warmer in the [19]30s"
SUMMARY: On Special Report, correspondent Molly Henneberg uncritically aired Sen. James Inhofe's false claim that "[i]t was warmer in the '30s than it is today," and Inhofe's baseless assertion that "it was warmer in the 15th century than it is today."
On the December 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a report about committee hearings held by outgoing Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) to "turn[] up the heat on the media coverage of global warming" and focusing on " 'the hype of global warming' and what causes it," Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg uncritically aired Inhofe's false claim that "[i]t was warmer in the '30s than it is today," and Inhofe's baseless assertion that "it was warmer in the 15th century than it is today."
In fact, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies' average global mean surface temperatures data demonstrate that Inhofe's claim that "[i]t was warmer in the '30s than it is today," is false:
Similarly, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, released in June, appears not to support Inhofe's assertion that "it was warmer in the 15th century than it is today." According to the NAS report, "presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."
From the NAS report:
- It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
- Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures form these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
Further, as Media Matters for America noted, in 2003, Inhofe called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." However, as Media Matters has documented, organizations representing thousands of scientists share the consensus view that, according to the June 2006 NAS report, "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming" of the planet.
From the December 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HENNEBERG: Turning up the heat on the media coverage of global warming, Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe wanted his last hearing as chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee to focus on, what he calls, "the hype of global warming" and what causes it.
INHOFE: It's being distorted by the media. It's something that needs to be called to the attention of the American people. Seventy percent of the people out there, Molly, think that, you know, that the climate is changing and it's due to the, what they call, anthropogenic gases -- Methane, CO2 -- and when in fact, there is -- there is really is questionable science as to whether or not that has anything to do with it.
HENNEBERG: To make his point, a panel of mainly scientists suggested to the committee that temperatures may be rising, but not because of what people do, although that's what other scientists and the media might report.
ROBERT M. CARTER (adjunct professorial research fellow at James Cook University): The reason it's a problem is it's diverting our attention from what is a real climate problem, and that is natural climate change, not human-caused climate change.
HENNEBERG: Certainly, there has been tremendous coverage of the topic. Earlier this year, Time magazine put out a special report on global warming, saying, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." And then there's Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
GORE [video clip]: The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming.
HENNEBERG: But Senator Inhofe says the science on that is not settled.
INHOFE: Yes, there is -- we're going through a warming period but, throughout history, we've gone through these warming periods. It was warmer in the '30s than it is today; it was warmer in the 15th century than it is today. Let's let God work his thing, keep the cycles going, and if there's something that we can do -- certainly, we do want to clean up the air, clean up the pollution -- CO2 is not a pollutant.
HENNEBERG: But one Inhofe critic says the science is undeniable, and so the senator has to pick another target.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In this town, if you don't get your way, you blame the media.
HENNEBERG: And California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who will take over as chair of the committee in January, indicated that she's not buying it either.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: We can't, as policymakers, it seems to me, turn our backs on the overwhelming scientific evidence and opinion.
HENNEBERG: In fact, Senator Boxer said yesterday that global warming is, quote, a potential crisis of a magnitude we've never seen. And when she chairs the committee, she says one of her goals is to press for mandatory caps on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.
Why do the Troglodytes fear science so much? Because, too much knowledge threatens their world view, and that is not to be tolerated.
Why is the Propaganda machine, spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh, so dead set against acknowledging Global Warming? Because it could threaten the profits of those who pay their astronomical salaries. Rush and his imitators are paid to lie. That's what they do, that's all they do. You can be sure that their topics and their agendas are set by their employers.
NEWS BULLETIN: "Miami and much of Florida are now under water." Limbaugh, Inhofe, et al: "Oops, my bad!"
Those pustules wouldn't blink an eye at maintaining that it was simply "God doing His Work", that is, merely natural climate change, nothing to do with the 50% CO2 load in the atmosphere, the void of O2 (replaced by ozone), nothing to do with the miasma of lethal chemicals pervading the air we (survivors) must breathe, nothing to do with the greed of fools . . .
Unfortunately, you are very likely right on the money with that response...
" nothing to do with the 50% CO2 load in the atmosphere, the void of O2 (replaced by ozone), nothing to do with the miasma of lethal chemicals pervading the air "
1) And, what have YOU done (or any other liberal) to reduce those feared chemicals? I see tens of thousands of cars being driven each morning and evening that have only one person in them (my wife and I commute together). These people all have one thing in common...they choose NOT to take mass transit and choose not to share rides with others. Therefore, they choose NOT to help with your global warming situation by causing one more car to be on the road.
2) Why am I saying that? Because I live in the sf bay area. You know....land of pelosi/boxer...ultra-liberal land. And still, we have thousands who choose not to help the environment. 45 million people (75% liberals) chose not to car pool in 2003 on just one bridge of the 3 going into sf. But, I'll bet you money they're on the computer right now typing out some kind of complaint against big-oil for ruining mother earth. Who pays big-oil there big incomes?? YOU liberals do just as much as us conservatives. If you liberals got off your duffs and actually did some of the things you cry about, perhaps we could cut the oil usage in half. Then we could have a reduction in pollutants and reduce global warming. See? If you liberals actually DID some of what you complain about, there wouldn't be such a huge problem.
3) If science was actually worried about global warming they would start thinking of ways to decrease it. Like rebuilding the highway system to accomodate next generation vehicles that run on "tracks" similar to the old electric car tracks you had as a kid. Or by coming up with an electric vehicle that doesn't pollute the land (instead of the air) like the current brilliant minds have thought of (lead acid battery driven electric cars). All of you will ask why is the current electric car bad...mainly because you are all clueless. It's because lead acid batteries are hazardous wastes. When they go bad (every 3 years) you have to dump them somewhere safe, similar to nuclear waste. Is that your brilliant idea of saving the air? Creating havoc to the earth surface?
science is not "worried" about global warming as much as they are telling us that it is happening. so you apparently are not denying that it is man made pollution that is contributing heavily to global warming. as for the solutions, one would be raising the mileage standards on cars, something that the corporations and republicans [and truthfully the auto unions] have fought. the gop is hand in hand with big oil to avoid the use of alternate energy sources. so maybe a little lecture to all your conservative buddies might be more in order.
" so you apparently are not denying that it is man made pollution that is contributing heavily to global warming. "
NO, I do not deny this. However, all scientific evidence also indicate the happens naturally in cycles. But, yes it is definately enhanced since the industrial revolution.
" as for the solutions, one would be raising the mileage standards on cars, "
Duhhhh! Why not work on eliminating milage standards all together by eliminating fuel usage on vehicles? How much fuel does an electric train use?
" something that the corporations and republicans [and truthfully the auto unions] have fought.
Let's see..."corporations" that would include those owned/operated by democrats and republicans. "republicans" that would only include republicans. And, "auto unions" which are almost all democratic. Thank you for putting blame where blame belongs...democrats AND republicans!
" the gop is hand in hand with big oil to avoid the use of alternate energy sources. so maybe a little lecture to all your conservative buddies might be more in order. "
Pure and total conjecture. Try to convince yourself before you try to convince me that ALL scientists are in the back pocket of big oil. Have YOU stopped driving a 'fossil fueled' vehicle, yet? Why wasn't alternate energy sources created in the last democratic administration? They had their chance and did not do what you complain the repub's don't do. Republicans are not the only ones who go "hand in hand" with big oil. All democratically controlled business interests use fossil fuels, too! Are you saying YOUR leaders don't need a lecture, too?
i know auto unions are mostly democratic, that's why i wrote "truthfully". but in general the democrats are in favor of, and vote for, alternate energy resources. and if you think that corporations don't favor the republicans you better go check the corporate donor lists. and gee, it's really only that choice? we don't have electric cars so let's not bother with raising the mpg standards. the problem with that is that it would take a long time to develop a system that relied exclusively on electric. mpg standards can be raised much quicker. detroit moaned that they couldn't do it back in the 70's when the democratic congress ordered standards raised significantly. guess what? they did it and within the time period that they said was impossible. and it's the republicans that keep giving tax break after tax break to the oil companies, when they are the last people who need them.
" detroit moaned that they couldn't do it back in the 70's when the democratic congress ordered standards raised significantly. guess what? they did it and within the time period that they said was impossible. "
Raised the standards? To what? The average american car gets 18 mpg, back in '73 the average was 13 mpg, (my old 70 Challenger R/T got 8 mpg). Yet, there is still whining about global warming caused by vehicle emissions. We've been "at it" for 40 years and the best they can do is raise it 30%? At this pace (3 democratic and 5 republican administrations) we'll see 40 mpg by the year 2090! Is that going to cure global warming? Are you stuck on complaining about the problem or fixing the problem?
the standard for "cars" is 27 mpg, which is pretty much where it has been since the mid 80's, which is the carter mandated standards. the problem is that so many other vehicles have become exempt from those standards. and again it is your republican buddies that have been the main opponents of raising those standards. as for complaining vs. fixing the problems, i think raising the standards significantly, it's not that hard, is a big step to take while working on more long range solutions. i never said we shouldn't be trying to do that. the fact that you don't think i'm proposing anything is proof you were breathing those fumes a little too heavily. i'm the one that says fix the problem.
" the standard for "cars" is 27 mpg, which is pretty much where it has been since the mid 80's, "
What's the difference? You double the standard in 10 years, then do nothing since. The result is the same...no improvement. Face it, the average American doesn't want to drive a low power, small car just to save a few bucks at the pump. Until THAT mentality changes, then all the "fuel improvement standards" in the world won't do any good. The problem is that both democrat Americans and republican Americans have the same mentality concerning fuel efficient cars- neither want to drive them for fear of being run over by cheney driving his suv down the same road as your small car.
here republic, here's your paycheck. i know you asked for a raise, and i was going to double your salary, but that's no improvement, so i'll just pay you the same. [and please don't make me explain this is sarcasm]
Yeah, thanks. I'll keep living off the raise you gave me 25 years ago. lol
as long as you're happy in thinking a doubling is "no improvement". i got a bridge to sell you, too.
You are making good points on this thread. I wont go into the things I do to help but your criticisms here are pretty much on target. I accept them overall if a bit broad. I think the answer has to go beyond the stopgap measures to a quick as possible transition to alternate fuels like hydrogen and renewable energy sources but overall I have to say I am impressed your criticisms are not just valid but fairly well thought out. We could all do more, but the answers are going to be hard and entail sacrifices that many want to talk about and not actually do. I am ashamed to say I own a midsized SUV, my job is what it is and I cannot carpool I also live at 7000ft and its snowing right now, I have to get to work when there is 3 feet of snow in my front yard which happens but I hate the fact I have to own an SUV. I usuall drive a small compact car but I do own the SUV and its embarrassing.
Since when is global warming the fault of liberals? I don't blame it on conservatives. A lack of usage of public transit is apparent everywhere in America because no one in America likes taking it (unless it's in a HUGE populated city). Because no body takes public transit, the public transit isn't going to be as frequent or fast. Therefore, one more person taking public transit isn't going to help. Don't try and blame global warming on San Fransisco. Besides, we can reduce global warming by raising pollution standards, not just by cars.
"And, what have YOU done (or any other liberal) to reduce those feared chemicals?" I'm 57 and what this liberal has done is I bike to work, 16 miles each way, come rain or snow or howling wind. I'm out there in 10 and 110 degree weather. I'm out there in it all, and yes, there are days where I wonder if perhaps my mama did raise a fool. Deep snow and ice are the only show stoppers. I have a 1993 Honda Civic with 44, 450 miles on it. I just retired a bicycle with over 60,000 because it started to shake like a London taxi. So until you match that shut up about you and your wife car pooling together. You lose, that extra passenger is nothing to me. You ain't doing enough pal.
Yeah, there are libs and neocons driving alone to work but until basic transportation changes come about they can't just abandon it. Argue all you want about left and right, the POINT here is it's the right that's denying it, they're on national tv saying it's all a bloody lie for chrissakes.
Until they come on board there ain't a lot to talk about now is there? All solutions are in the tank until everybody acknowledges that there's a problem. Your boys and rising to the task pal.
It had to be with all of the people being burnt at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition. If only Inhofe had been around back then, I'm willing to bet he'd be one of the first to throw a torch onto the kindling under a heretic or a liberal.
When I was a kid. And the snow drifts were so much higher. Or maybe I was shorter ;-)
[in case Sue/Ellie is lurking...I'm joking around here]
That if you are full of hot air the surrounding air seems cooler.
It really is amazing that these people sneer in the face of facts being shown to them regarding this crisis.
NERZOG makes a great point: "Why is the Propaganda machine, spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh, so dead set against acknowledging Global Warming? Because it could threaten the profits of those who pay their astronomical salaries."
And it's not only their salaries, but the large sums politicians receive from lobbyists to keep a stranglehold on raising the standards of companies to use more effective, cleaner ways to developing their product. God forbid it should cut into a fraction of a percentage point of their profits.
in denying global warming?
Profits
But to some degree I also think that it's arrogance. Some people feel that freedom means you can do as you please and damn the consequences. After all, if God didn't want us to have and burn oil, why did he give us all of these guns?
What advantage is there to complaining about global warming when the scientists don't come up with any ideas to curb the problem? What's YOUR solution, I offered one earlier. If your solution is for everyone to stop using "big oil" products then you are unreasonable and clueless. If these people can go back over a hundred years and tell me what tempature the earth was, why can't they build a vehicle that satisfies the general public's requirements (fast/powerful/economical/comfortable/loaded with every comfort feature imaginable). See, solon (and the rest of you liberals), this problem is caused by you just as much as me. How many of you drive vehicles that get over 70mpg? Remember when they advertised a carberator that could get 100mpg? Well, you liberals are still buying cars that get 20mpg and then consider 50mpg the greatist invention since toasted bread. I dare you to tell me ALL the scientists have been bribed or coerced by "big oil" into NOT furthering technology so we stay in the stone ages when it comes to vehicle efficiency!!
Do you know what the biggest problem with next generation vehicles will be? No, I imagine you don't. It will be the FACT that people buying them don't want 30hp vehicles that are smaller than 90% of every other vehicle out there. You want my ideas to fix (or at least begin to fix) the problem of too much oil usage? (I know...no, you don't, but I'll give you one anyway). My idea is to build a new highway system (creating millions of jobs) next to the old highway system (for big truck usage keeping them seperated from smaller vehicles) that is impregnated with electrical or magnetic sensors and will provide electric or magnetic power to each vehicle, allowing vehicles to shut off the engine that got them to the system while they are on it (saving millions of barrels of oil). We currently have bullet trains that ride on a 'cushion of air' and we have electric mass transit, if scientists were so smart they could devise a way to incorporate both into the next highway system.
jimmy carter installed solar panels on the roof of the white house. reagan removed them. and guess what 50 mph is a pretty damn good start. according to your ranting i could say 100 mpg is no good either.
Solar panels. That's very good. Did Clinton reinstall them, only to have Bush remove them? Do you know anything about how solar panels are built and what with? You liberals only think of "now" not tomorrow. Batteries are bad because they creat ground based waste, and so will old solar panels. How much of your computer can you throw into the trash? Much of it is required to go to specific recyclers because of the dangerous chemicals inside. Don't you even consider about the future?
Sure my electric flashlight is better than my gas powered one. Until I buy new batteries, then I've got to throw the old batteries into the trash. But, as you liberals think, since you no longer see the old batteries they are no longer harming you. Picture a pile of one hundred million batteries...now, how beneficial is that pile to the earth surface?
And, yes, 100mpg isn't much better than 50mpg which isn't much better than 30mpg. You're advocating "delaying" global warming, not correcting it! Brilliant! Just brilliant. And you people call me clueless.
so your theory is tripling mileage standards is no big deal so why try? and as far as batteries, i use rechargables. i have some aa-s that i have recharged several hundred times. i also have flourescent bulbs in most places in my home. more expensive to begin with, but last a long time and use 25% of the electricity. i find it hard to read with them so i use a regular bulb for that. every appliance i buy is top energy use rated. they more than pay for themselves. as for the computer, sure it's a problem of disposal, so you make sure it goes to the proper place for recycling. your answer to everything seems to be nothing is good enough. a lot of small steps help though.
No, you don't understand. BTW all you do to help reduce power usage is great. The problem is that we can't swap air born pollutants for ground based pollutants. There has to be a different course of action. Your aa batteries, will eventually fail. What do you do with them? Again, picture that pile of 100 million of those batteries. What good is changing power source if the other source pollutes just as much? Where are you going to live when they build a battery waste dump in your back yard? Do you want a nuclear waste dump in your back yard? Well, the battery one will be even more common.
So, why do you have a problem with my supporting NO pollution? Do you think that since that is impossible then it shouldn't be attempted? What do you think allowed the oil industry to continue their strangle hold on vehicle production? Because people like YOU don't think it is worth the effort and would rather settle on polluting 10% less instead of finding ways of eliminating pollution. So, people like you call me "clueless" for expecting better results than a 5% increase each year.
You know, some scientists feel there is a limited supply of crude oil in the earth. If they are correct and when we run out, what benefit is improving mpg's by 100% each year if we haven't even explored ideas to eliminate oil usage?
Oh, they make "full spectrum" fluorescent bulbs that are better for your eyes and health. They are called "grow lights" and you can find them at most good nurseries.
i am proposing what we can do now. you ask what good are my rechargables that will "eventually fail"? try and follow. say i have recharged a pair 300 times before they "fail" [the charge by the way only lasts about half as long as a regular battery], then i have replaced throwing away 150 pair with throwing away one pair. but this to you is a worthless effort. and i'm not arguing no pollution shouldn't be a worthy goal. you, on the other hand, are saying we can't achieve no pollution , so let's not do anything until we reach that standard. sorry, common sense tells me we should be doing as much as possible now.
" you, on the other hand, are saying we can't achieve no pollution , so let's not do anything until we reach that standard. "
That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying the "cures" that you and other liberals propose only slow down the problem. I agree that is good. But, it doesn't achieve the ultimate goal. Your complaint is that big oil companies are in cahoots with republican business and won't allow scientific discoveries to be developed that would allow polution free energy. That's a bunch of phoooey. Your liberal ideas that throwing trash into the ground instead of using oil based combustion engines is the goal. I say phoooey to that. Where are you going to grow the food needed when all the land is polluted with your batteries that you feel are the solution (that pile doesn't shrink, just grows slower) to the problem? You refuse to accept that land based pollution is just as bad as air born pollution. I don't. I realize that both are pollutions that need to be addressed now. You don't.
You can scream that republicans are the only ones creating polution till you're blue in the face and it won't change the fact that democrats create just as much pollution as republicans. Democrats have been in charge of enough programs enough times to have created or sent the scientific industry in the right direction plenty of times and it doesn't change the fact that the direction has never changed. Your blind blaming of republicans for all of the worlds problems is not going to fly when democrats haven't done their part either. Slowing down global warming by 5% using democratic dreams isn't going to save the world from the scenario that global warming theorists claim will happen. I agree those theories will happen, but slowing them down won't stop the complaints of global warming, will they?? Reality is that we are headed for a serious problem if something isn't done to stop it. Key word is STOP. What's the difference if the next generation is killed by global warming (republican fault) or if the generation after that is killed by global warming (democrat fault)?
how many times do i have to repeat it? start on the long term solutions now. at the same time, do the things that can be easily done. and you seem unimpressed by the idea that the pile of batteries can be reduced by a factor of 150 times? you really believe that?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Get the ideas going NOW. Reducing our current state is fine, but not without starting the "long term" ideas. We (both parties) are NOT exploring long term solutions, just exploring solutions that slow things down. One without the other is useless.
that's not what you've been saying. "reducing our current state is fine". but when i proposed tripling mileage standards or reducing your 100 million pile of batteries to 1 million, you just dismissed those. anyone can go back and read your posts saying exactly that.
" Duhhhh! Why not work on eliminating milage standards all together by eliminating fuel usage on vehicles? How much fuel does an electric train use? "
I said "work on eliminating" not to ignore milage standards. And, still, where are you going to put those millions of batteries? In YOUR back yard? I didn't think so. They still have to go somewhere. Maybe batteries are a convieniance for you but they are a danger to future generations. I can understand that you don't get that part of it. What's one battery? Right? Only times that by (how many people in the US...world?) that would 'only' use one battery. What's the world up to, now...billions? Sure 4 billion is a lot better than 400 billion, but it's still a big pile no matter how you try to dismiss it. Get with the program and start asking for what you really want...a safe future for generations after ours! Maybe if more asked for THAT then the government would start taking it a little more seriously. I don't think a 'less dangerous' future is really the answer. Maybe that's ok for your kids, but what about their kids? I have consistantly said that in each of my posts.
You can try to convince others that I'm some horrible anti-conservationist, but that is the farthest from the truth. I work in the auto industry and know a little bit about the truths of it. Liberals constantly seek the easy (for now) answer, and ignore the harder (for the future) answer. I'm definately not saying that republican have the answer, either! Both sides need to take a NEW look at the problem and what will correct it. Reducing only works if they have a long term vision of reality, and neither side is looking in the right direction. THAT is what I'm saying.
were nickels, you'd be a rich man. now you're back to saying reducing the current state is not fine. there's going to be batteries anyway so it doesn't matter how many. it's useless to try? keep going though. you're a wonderful example of illogical thinking.
Ok, you go ahead and continue to pollute. It won't matter to you, anyway. By the time any of your batteries leach into the ground you'll be planted next to them. You're just argueing the arguer, you're not adding anything new. So, you must have run out of things to say and are just mad at me for even posting.
But the public has to be offered the products you describe at close to an affordable price. I love the idea of an electric car. I wonder why no one else has proposed marketing one?
[link to www.sonyclassics.com]
You mentioned somewhere about a carburetor that gets 100 miles to the gallon. I don't remember that option being offered the last time I bought a new car. Could you provide more information?
Your idea about building roads adjacent to the present highway is interesting. I'm sure with that eminent domain can be applied to all of the private property that would need to be purchased to build these roads. But this might be a problem too. Have you ever driven the truck lanes of the NJ Turnpike?
I'm not knocking any of your suggestions. We all need to make suggestions. But the best possible change that needs to take place is that the CAFE standards must be raised. People will buy cars that are more fuel efficient but the buyers don't design, manufacture and sell the cars.
This Inhofe must be a gambling man.......cause he is gambling with the all of our lives here. Luckily he go bye bye now at least from his position anyway . Even though I believe that global warming is man made, if I had a doubt or what have you I would still want to ere (spl.?) on the side of caution here. wouldn't you? I don't get it? Inofe and crew are dangerously insane on this issue. I think this situation is analogous to the Ralph Nadar crusade against the car industry but on a much larger scale, Any thoughts?
It seems that there is way too much money and greed at stake both there in the US and here in Canada. These people are being lobbied every day to lie and try to convince the guilable public that there really is no problem with warming in the world. Record floods, droughts, high temperatures in air and water, winds and numbers of storms might just say otherwise. In my short time on this earth I have witnessed glaciers which have been present for thousands of years either partially or completely melt away. Pine beetles are infesting the local trees here in British Columbia and within the next eight years we may have not a single pine tree left. The cold weather used to quell these infestations...Our local river level was at a record low only one month ago. No scientific proof...denial ain't just a river.
it was very chilly on Dec. 6.
That was just the reaction to his ignorant remarks.
at least for some of them. What struck me was this:
Let's let God work his thing, keep the cycles going . . .
I think this is a faith thing for Inhofe. If we admit that human beings have the power to make significant changes to global climate, or that the climate will go to hell in a handbasket unless we act to prevent it, then we implicitly denigrate God's ability to keep the whole thing running smoothly despite our puny efforts to the contrary. It makes us more powerful than God, and Inhofe can't stomach that. His faith demands that God be fully in control at all times. (And we all know by now what happens when faith drives policy.)
That's the same reason they oppose stem cell research and the teaching of evolution. They know, on a subconscious level perhaps, that science is the enemy of their dogma. The more we learn about the way the universe works, the harder it is to prop up their fairy tales.
By the way, my father's favorite quip was "Illegitimi Non Carborundum."
" The more we learn about the way the universe works, the harder it is to prop up their fairy tales. "
I went to the wikipedia description of global warming and clicked on various graphs they used (including the same one mmfa used in this article). There was one in particular that interested me, the "ice age temperature changes". Every hundred thousand years (or so) there is a huge temperature change. We are in that cyclical time frame now. Does that mean that a hundred thousand years ago they had another global warming problem? Is that "how the universe works"? The fact remains that liberals choose not to believe the "God" theory and conservatives refuse to believe the "science" theory. Can both be correct? Why NOT?!? Why can't science be right that there is global warming further enhanced by the industrial revolution? Why can't God be right that this happens all the time in cycles?
[link to en.wikipedia.org] and [link to en.wikipedia.org] You can click on any graph and read more about each one's meaning.
no one denies the cycles. but again it's pick and choose with you guys. quote the science of past changes and then deny what science is saying now about the effects of man made pollution. it's not a chinese menu. no choice from column a and one from column b.
" quote the science of past changes and then deny what science is saying now about the effects of man made pollution. "
I don't deny that man-made pollutants are increasing a naturally occuring event. Perhaps even enough to never let it cycle back down. At which point, we are stuck...aren't we? What you propose is that we stop making man-made pollutants, right? Isn't that your eventual requirement? Or, do you just want to slow down the problem and NOT fix it? I sure hope it isn't the latter, then I could say you're the typical liberal....complain about, but don't fix the problem.
you are babbling the same line. i'm complaining about the problem, but not talking about fixing it. there is no doubt that man is going to leave a significant imprint on this planet. i have suggested many ways to help slow down the effects, including rechargables, energy effecient appliances, mileage standards. but since none of these reach your desired goal of "no pollution" then they're worthless.
No, not worthless. Just ineffective. Where is the scientific research to allow my ideas to happen? We only see ideas to "slow" things down. We need other ideas. Again, what does it matter if the next generation pays for our negligence or if the generation after that does. Either way, future generations are in danger unless my (or similar) ideas are explored and perfected. The denial of that reality is going to continue our path to ultimate destruction. I want future generations to live, you seem to want only the next generation to live not the ones after that.
i got up this morning, looked myself in the mirror while brushing my teeth and said what can i do to ensure that only the next generation lives. please show me one thing i have said that would suggest i don't want long term solutions. your theory is can't have the whole loaf now, so why do anything. you can waltz all over the place, bu that's what you're saying.
" as for the computer, sure it's a problem of disposal, so you make sure it goes to the proper place for recycling. "
You're saying just place the dangerous pieces deep in the ground and let the future generations deal with them. That's what I'm against...burying hazardous waste just to get it out of sight. I'm sure the future generations will thank you for taking away land that they need to grow food in.
Me first...you seem to be the only one, here, that has a grip on reality. And I appreciate your concern. The dangers are out there and everyone needs to work together to get them solved. Try to understand that I'm not against your ideas, I think they need to be expanded and that isn't happening from either side. My feeling is that reduction isn't the "answer". Sure it makes everyone feel better that they've done something to save the world, but the facts are more needs to be done.
So, I'll try my bit of humor. I'll give a a dollar raise each year for the next 100 years. Inflation goes up 10 dollars each year for the next 100 years. Would that be sufficient to live on?
did i say just place the dangerous pieces of the computer in the ground? do you understand the difference between disposal and recycle? that's what i said. and there are lots of good posts on here besides mine.
You're just being unreasonable, now. There are some parts that just aren't "recyclable". What are you going to do with them...suspend them in mid air till they disintegrate? When your moniter goes out it can't be recycled, it has to be dumped. When your on/off button goes out, you can take the wires out and re-use some of them. You must know there are parts that aren't recyclable, but have to be disposed of. But, maybe you don't know that.
You might as well recycle your batteries, now. Since everything made is always re-usable. Don't worry about the chemicals inside, just rebuild them and make them work again. Now, we won't have that pile of battery problem. Sheesh
it can't be recycled, it has to be dumped." tell it to the state of maine. they have a law, along with many other jurisdictions, that says monitors can't be dumped. they must be..........recycled. google recycling of computer monitors and you will find any number of companies that do it. do you ever get tired of being wrong?
I did that and this is what I found on the first listing. That when the moniter pieces aren't broken they are not exposed to the environment. It DOES NOT say they aren't buried somewhere!
[link to www.spectrumwest.com] When the monitor is sent to a landfill, heavy equipment is used to compact the waste. This crushing and smashing of the waste causes the hazardous materials to be released into the surrounding area, and a leaching process occurs as a result of this CRT breakage. These toxic materials will eventually find their way into our water supply. When the glass is crushed by trash facilities, the lead-bearing particles become an airborne hazard.
Located within a CRT monitor are five toxic substances. Lead, mercury and barium are the most toxic substances of the five within the CRT. The other toxins which are located within the CRT are cadmium and phosphorous. If improperly managed, the health risks associated with human contact to these five toxic substances within the CRT can be deadly.
WHAT ARE THE HEALTH RISKS OF IMPROPER DISPOSAL? The health risks associated with inhalation of the lead-bearing particles can be deadly. The dangers with involved with contact to the toxic materials within the CRT can include respritory, pneumonitis, and neuropsychiatric problems.
HOW SHOULD I HANDLE THE REST OF THE COMPUTER? Although the CRT units contain hazardous material, virtually an entire computer can be recycled. Our policy is to REUSE as much as we can, and recyle the rest. Everything from the glass in the monitor, to the plastic in the case, to the copper in the power supply, and even the processor can be recycled.
you could not look more foolish. in case you missed it, how i don't know because you're quoting it, here it is : "virtually an entire computer can be recycled." you said it had to be dumped, i said it could be recycled. you-wrong. me-right. i'll follow up in the morning. my advice? get some rest. you're delirious.
" you could not look more foolish.... here it is : "virtually an entire computer can be recycled." you said it had to be dumped, i said it could be recycled. you-wrong. me-right. "
Likewise, it says "virtually". What did they say they do with the actual dangerous pieces? What do ANY of those recyclers do with the dangerous pieces? You know the parts that are dangerous (even deadly) to our health...lead, mercury, barium, (the most toxic substances) cadmium and phosphorous. Maybe I missed it, being so foolish and all, what do they do with those parts??
You hit the nail on the head. I have no issue with any faith, just the people that twist it into a bastardized version that suites them.
Just for fun lets he is right. What harm would it do to reduce emissions? Why fight it so furiously?
Because the CEO of Exxon might have to settle for a 10,000 square foot cottage in Nantucket istead of that 12,000 square foot chateau in the French Alps...or a 55 foot yacht instead of a 65 foot yacht...or a 6-car garage instead of an 8-car garage. That's why.
And that would be just awful.
You're probably more right than you expect:
[link to thinkprogress.org]
I'm curious what happens though if global warming escalates, though. Since one well-known effect of this would be flooding, what would these people say? We already had a great flood, and the rainbow was the promise that God would never send another one.
Perhaps that's the mindset here, that God won't flood us again...or maybe Inhofe is building an ark in his backyard...
Inhofe lives in Oklahoma, probably 500 ft or more above sea level. If all ice caps and glaciers melted, sea level would only rise 360'. Ergo, not to worry.
The IPCC has reduced the UPPER limit (of which they have the least confidence) from 34" to 17" over the next 100 years.
Those suggesting the building of Noah-like arks would be well advised to attach pirogues.
significant rise.
I was just being sarcastic about the ark, of course. Still, 17 feet would do a lot of damage.
I'm curious what's in store after the next 100 years though. I know it won't affect me personally, but still I care. Crazy, huh?
17 inches. but that is still a significant rise. in this country we would lose wetlands all along the coast. the everglades would be underwater, as would large sections of coastal louisiana, the cheasapeake bay, and texas. some low lying island chains are already having major problems.
While we disagree...you at least have a grasp of the basic scope of the argument...unlike some of the more pedantic intellectects that espouse uninformed opinions.
17 feet...sweet fancy moses...what next, a 100 degree rise in global temperatures?....ROFLOL
My error, I misread. It doesn't happen too often, so get your inane cackling in while you can :)
[i]I'm curious what happens though if global warming escalates, though.[/i] Gore's film shows the hard cold numbers. The climate change is in full flow.
Also do not let yourself be fooled by the 'global warming'. It is missused/-interpreted to mean 'it must get warmer everywhere'. What it means is that the current worldwide weather system is being changed through the effects of the world tempatures rising. This might not have warmer effects in all regions of the world.
I'm sure it is in full flow, but that doesn't mean steps couldn't be taken to alleviate the escalation. It probably won't happen anytime soon, but I recognized the possibility and so didn't state the alternative as a certainty.
Why is environmentalism generally seen as a "left wing" cause? Shouldn't we ALL be about the environment since we all live here? I never understood this, but then again when you have people like this joker, essentially ignoring all of the scientific facts out there about this, and when you have Coulter talking about the Earth is ours, we should rape it, and take what we want... It's sad. Really sad. And the whole profits making thing, it's more or less a falacy. I heard a report, can't remember where, about how in England they have tightened up their environmental controls because of Kyoto, and actually made their restrictions tighter, more stringent than what they promised. What happened? Businesses who made those changes are seeing increased profits through better efficiency in their processes now because they had to make them better, and less polluting. And this was only what? A 6 year turn around or so on investment?
Bean counters have to stop looking at the extreme bottom line, and look ahead. If we invest this amount of money now, we'll become more efficient later, and therefore more profitable. Unfortunately, methinks they don't do this, but just yell and scream about how much it is going to cost them for upgrades, retrofits, and things like that.
The environment, guess what? We all need it, and we all should protect it. That this guy was the chair of an environmental committee is laughable, and dangerous.
In every survey since the '70's, over 90% of Americans want either the same level of environmental protection or strengthened protection. I think the key is that the backers of the repub party (the ultra rich and corporations) are the 7% who want less environmental protection and they always get what they want out of the repub politicians. Your average republican citizen, I think, would not want less environmental protection if asked (as the surveys consistantly show), but it is not as high a priority for them as abortion or prayer in schools or smaller government or the military industrial complex, etc. so they allow the repub politicians to carve away at environmental laws at the behest of their corporate masters.
Those that help finance these dolts are making easy money on selling oil. Also the middle men and regimes (we know which ones I am talking about) profit from them. Every time someone coughs the oil price rises and they make even more money. Why do you think Bush&Co are so against the OPEC, because the money is not fully flowing into their pockets. Now the oil is running out and they stand to earn a lot more. And when all the oil is gone, their pockets will be lined with cash and they can switch to other source & rinse & repeat. While we will be forced to go along every step of the way.
And yes you are correct about england. Did you know that brazil has nearly completely cut off their dependance of external oil by switching to ethanol?
People think green means doing stupid stuff but think of it this way. No foreign oil, money stays in country. Ethanol to power cars can be grown by US farmers. US companies can make solar panels and wind generators. Green means using the earths resources without having the waste not living off knitted underwear.
But if the US does not act now, they will lose any chance of catching up and then they will have to liscense from foreigners.
To give you an idea, watch the part in Gore's film about the emission rates. In 10 years californias new (then at least) emission regulation laws will finally overtake todays china (who is last among the powerfull nations). Europe and Japan are fighting for first place.
...as long as we get to keep our monstrous homes and our second homes and our vacation condo!
After all, Jesus said, "Suffer the children."
So, leaving a legacy of drought and sunken cities and decimated ecosystems and lost biological diversity is just what Jesus would do.
Jesus also said "the poor will always be with you, but I am with you only a short while"
What's your point?
could slap you in the face and you would be oblivious. the "point" is that we should think about future generations, not just ourselves. and that would be in line with so called christian principles. got the point?
Whereas Jesus rebuked those disciples who kept the children at bay with, "Suffer the children," I flipped the meaning into "Let the children suffer," which is what will happen at current rates of consumption. Suffering is coming for our children and their children.
As far as the quote about the poor always being with us, I think Jesus meant that every person has an opportunity to follow in His footsteps by caring for the poor and thus be a Christian.
Republichater, I love that you car pool. I love that urge the development of less-destructive transportation technologies.
" ...as long as we get to keep our monstrous homes and our second homes and our vacation condo! "
How big is the kennedy home site? How many boats/vacation homes do the kennedy's own? Are you saying only republicans are rich and only they are causing this problem?
as in all of us. i did not see the word republican in the post you're replying to.
No, but the inferance is just drooling all over the post.
You don't know Holly. There is nothing drooling from her post except her sincere concern. You'll find that Holly doesn't blame just one side, nor does she suffer fools gladly, from the left, right or center. She speaks her mind but only when she's speaking from a studied position. You'll find that she is tough but fair and always civil. We could all learn from Holly.
I don't need to know holly, just as I don't need to know you. I've read your posts before and I know what side of the fence you sit on, and I've read holly's. I made a comment in response to her derisive statement made toward the "legacy" leaving rich folk. Everyone knows who holly meant. The shoes don't fit so well when they are on the other foot, do they?
Holly, I apologize to you. I didn't mean to come as being cold to your suggestion. I should have waited for YOUR explanation, instead of listening to those other people.
Now that was a comment just dripping with something. Holly was being civil and humorous. I pointed out to you that you should get to know her before you jump on her. Then you respond by jumping on me, Holly and "Those other people". I've tried to be civil, as have a lot of others. Some have not been so civil. I've responded to you and in the past you've been polite and civil. I'm not sure what your trying to accomplish now, but if if you're just going to paint us all with a very wide brush, I'm done.
I just want to chat and whereas backslapping with one's ideological equivalents can be reassuring from time to time, the work is reaching across the rift.
Of course, I try to manifest my ideals. I walk A LOT. My car will sometimes sit for weeks. I have never bought a new appliance in my life. I live in a small house. And so on.
And, of course, in other ways, I'm also a hypocrite, saying one thing and doing another.
Aren't we all?
I think you're swell too.
Truly.
I think the Kennedy compound is a sin, from a Christian perspective. It is antithetical to the Christ's life. Lots of liberals flaunt wealth and buy multiple homes and cars and jet here and there. I don't frame conservatives as bad and liberals as good. I think there are hypocrites everywhere and when espouses caring for the Earth and lives in a mansion, which gobbles fossil fuel for heating and cooling, which further global warming, and consumes monstrous amounts of other resources, then one's hypocrisy is especially acute.
But I'm worried about you, republichater. You seem angry in your posts. Always angry. Are you? You accused me a few days ago of undergoing abortions every 30 seconds. To the contrary, I've never had an abortion and have spent decades caring for unwanted kids. Although, the biomechanics of perpetually aborting, with the prerequisite for prepetual insemination, do intrigue and disgust me.
Overwhelmingly, scientists say that man is significantly contributing to global warming. Yet Fox overwhelmingly gives word to the few scientists that state differently.
i mean for the person who is going to come on here and talk about that time article back in the 70's about global cooling, which was basically speculation. and it is quite possible that there was a cooling trend beginning to develop, but that it was simply overwhelmed by man made pollution. all these deniers act like no one believes that trends have fluctuated. we are more than happy to accept the science. they are not. they use it at their convenience, but then deny the conclusions those same scientists come to. inhofe says "let god do his thing", which is further proof that fundamentalism and right wing politics usually go hand in hand. 20 years ago these nuts were the fringe. now they sit in the u s senate.
guy removed from chairmanship.
I'm going to go start an anti-Oklahoma Senator lobby and pay him to defame and smear himself. I have no doubt he would do it if the price was right. What a prostitute.
A republican in charge of the Senate or House Environmental committee. Last year, he said that global warming was "a hoax." What was his reason? Emissions were higher back then in the 1970s when temperatures were colder. Well, he didn't take into account that the long term effects of higher emissions did not kick in yet. Taking care of the environment is always about the long term.
global warming really started accelerating in the 70's with the advent of really partisan politics and got an uptick in the late 80s-early90s with the explosion of talk radio All the hot air out of WA DC and across the airwaves of America have done nothing to ease the problem.
The non believers as well as the believers will go down with the ship. No one will be spaired whether one has a bomb shelter or not... or one believes the oil industry is the the golden god. What I cannot understand is the fact that the recognition of such a problem seems irrelevant for now. THis only gives me more credence to believe alternative energys are more significant than ever..
a univeristy of texas biologist, released a study a few weeks ago reporting that 70 species of frogs have gone extinct. the reason is that they lived on mountain tops around the world and as the climate has heated up, they have had nowhere to go because they were adapted to living in a cool climate on that particular mountain. just more of god doing his thing, presumably.
I thought liberals were firm believers in "darwin's" theory? Why would choices that God makes be a bad thing? If that's what you meant.
- Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year. - UK Telegraph
- The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent. - UK Telegraph
- The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in. - UK Telegraph
- Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming. - UK Telegraph
I am not suggesting that global warming is a myth or that human activity plays no part in climate change.
I am pointing out the trend of global warming alarmists...consistently they have had to keep revising DOWNWARD the threat of global warming.
The debate will and should rage on...but the ironclad concensus continually promoted by mmfa is cracking.
a consensus on how dramatic the effects would be. but it's the conservatives who have denied any effect at all. i've said that the left is always willing to listen to the science. the only question is if it's going to be bad or really bad. if the general consensus was that it would be no problem, i'd just go read the sunday paper now. you and your ilk are the ones that have been in denial.
- We can't...turn our backs on the overwhelming scientific evidence and opinion. - Boxer
The FAO has issued a report that says...Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Ye Gods, will the bad news ever end? Hold steady Boxer...stiff upper lip...the challenge is daunting...those darn cows!