Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[logical4u]

A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.

A tax on the carbon at the well head, mine, or dock. The tax to be then distributed equally to all citizens of voting age. That would not favor anyone but those that used less carbon emitting fuels than they recieved from the divident. The money from the fee could not be used for any other purpose than being distributed back to the citizens in equal shares.

Another advantage to this, it would not favor any particular alternative form of energy, the market would decide that.

This isn't "saving the world" from global warming, it is re-distribution of wealth. Every where it has been tried, it has failed or, is failing. Nice to see the real you.

 

[logical4u]

the climate is changing, so what? Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything. The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich. We need jobs not talk. The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike. By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.

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.

Nitrogen is approximately 78% of our atmosphere. Oxygen is approximately 21%. Did the percentage of CO2 increase to over 1%, yet? I don't believe it has. Your information is limited.

 

[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.

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.

Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. Something is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.

 

[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.

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?

I wasn't aware that all the scientists who are members of the IPCC had to turn in their political affiliation cards before being accepted. If so, I wonder if you have a link to that information.

 

[westwall]

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

No one denies the globe is warming, that began 11,000 years ago. The alarmists claim that all of the observed warming is mans fault and want to regulate the hell out of everyone for some effect that won't be noticed for 1000 years is the latest claim. And the alarmists want to destroy the way of life for hundreds of millions of people for no noticeable effect (by their own admission mind you) oh and enrich a very, very few to the tune of trillions.

Our counter point is this all part of a natural cycle, and lo and behold, whenever some alarmist claims that some event is the result of AGW we can point to an analog long in the past long before man could have had any impact at all. That supports us and not you.

That is the scientific principle called UNIFORMITARIANISM that you pseudo scientists repudiate on a daily basis. When you want to find anti science people look in the mirror.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...

You presently have all kinds of choices. What are you talking about? The fact that even nuclear power plants would not survive without the government subsidizing or at least guaranteeing loans for uranium extraction and enrichment, not to mention the actual physical plant construction certainly implies that private sector investors either can't or won't make the money available themselves.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...

Yes, and that certainly does prove that Wiki is fair, doesn't it... As for the link I provided, it was for the purpose of reviewing the book's content, period. Interesting that the purveyors of the hoax theory were the very ones who tried to convince the public that the perils of tobacco use was also a hoax. And yet, the left is supposed to be the ones with an "agenda."

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Where's your link that they relied on ONE person? That's such hogwash. The Andrill project (Andrill is the largest deep water drill in the world) has been drilling through Antarctic ice since 2006, with hundreds of scientists and engineers affiliated with the project to discover why Antarctic ice is melting.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I think it would be great if the free market took up producing energy all on its own. The question is can they and will they? It's certainly not up to me to decide. Why don't big money Wall Street investors put more energy (pun intended) into what WILL become the industry of the future, employing millions of people? Isn't that a better question? Why?

 

[logical4u]

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.

Let's compare him to the anti-Christian cults: Charles Manson, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Lenin, etc. Yes those Christians know how to wipe 'em out!

 

[westwall]

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.

Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. Something is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.

You might want to catch up on the Antarctic history as well. Way back in the 1820's there was an Antarctic explorer who was able to sail 500 miles further south than we can today.
Everything runs in cycles yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

There's that silly "agenda" thingie again. What "agenda"??? What possible PURPOSE could there be in tackling a KNOWN threat such as global warming, regardless whether it's man made or made entirely because of cow farts or a combination of many things? Why should the United States be the last super power to get on board and stop being simply REactive to warning signs rather than PROactive, which makes much more sense.

An "agenda"?? You people are so fucking gullible.

 

[westwall]

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.

I think it would be great if the free market took up producing energy all on its own. The question is can they and will they? It's certainly not up to me to decide. Why don't big money Wall Street investors put more energy (pun intended) into what WILL become the industry of the future, employing millions of people? Isn't that a better question? Why?

Because the likes of Goldman Sachs found that if you can get the government to regulate a gas that every living thing uses and expels you make trillions while producing nothing. It's the perfect scam, make bazillions of dollars for doing and producing nothing. You really should ask yourself a simple question why is it that no carbon trading scheme has any mechanism for reducing pollution. The companies can still pollute they just have to pay more for the priviledge and once again the taxpayer pays.

You r schemes all have one thing in common, taxpayers pay lots for nothing, no compaines are forced to reduce pollution, banking firms make bazillions of dollars for nothing. Sounds like a great deal if you're a banker.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

So what are your credentials? And why are you spending time chatting on a political message board?

 

[logical4u]

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.

Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. Something is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.

Are there farms on Antartica now? Antartica is a desert. If precipitation is down, the heighth of ice and snow covering it will also decrease.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Why is subsidizing green energy any different than subsidizing the oil and gas industry? T. Boone Pickens was ready to invest $1.5 billion of his own money in windmill technology, but has since decided to scale it down because he can't afford it. Maybe the Koch Brothers can help out.

 

[westwall]

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.

So what are your credentials? And why are you spending time chatting on a political message board?

I am a semi retired PhD geologist. My business is cleaning up environmental disasters left by mining companies of old. I got my start way back when with Dames and Moore the first environmental engineering company in the US if not the world. And I had open heart surgery 2 weeks ago so can't exactly move around very good!

 

[boedicca]

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...

Why do we need a Global Warming Solution in the first place?

Human history shows that humanity thrives when the global temps are warmer. There is more arable land and food production. A Little Ice Age would be devasting for the billions who live at the subsistence level around the world.

 

[MaggieMae]

A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.

A tax on the carbon at the well head, mine, or dock. The tax to be then distributed equally to all citizens of voting age. That would not favor anyone but those that used less carbon emitting fuels than they recieved from the divident. The money from the fee could not be used for any other purpose than being distributed back to the citizens in equal shares.

Another advantage to this, it would not favor any particular alternative form of energy, the market would decide that.

This isn't "saving the world" from global warming, it is re-distribution of wealth. Every where it has been tried, it has failed or, is failing. Nice to see the real you.

Off topic, but yes, redistribution of wealth HAS failed. Redistribution of wealth to the top 2% has meant the slow decline of the middle class.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

No one denies the globe is warming, that began 11,000 years ago. The alarmists claim that all of the observed warming is mans fault and want to regulate the hell out of everyone for some effect that won't be noticed for 1000 years is the latest claim. And the alarmists want to destroy the way of life for hundreds of millions of people for no noticeable effect (by their own admission mind you) oh and enrich a very, very few to the tune of trillions.

Our counter point is this all part of a natural cycle, and lo and behold, whenever some alarmist claims that some event is the result of AGW we can point to an analog long in the past long before man could have had any impact at all. That supports us and not you.

That is the scientific principle called UNIFORMITARIANISM that you pseudo scientists repudiate on a daily basis. When you want to find anti science people look in the mirror.

No, they don't.