Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[skookerasbil]

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

Hold up, Westy....I think he is 200 years old.

His high school field trip was the Gold Rush.

I see you've been going to Nasty School. Does that mean we can expect more insults and fewer one-sided history lessons?

History is history sweets.............except to the k00ks. It doesnt exist!! This knucklehead Old Rocks on here thinks storms and hurricanes started in 1998!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

Hold up, Westy....I think he is 200 years old.

His high school field trip was the Gold Rush.

I see you've been going to Nasty School. Does that mean we can expect more insults and fewer one-sided history lessons?

Both.

 

[westwall]

I wonder if that sailor could go no further because he hit an ice shelf that went five miles deep?

NO one is saying that cycles aren't involved. NO ONE. What they ARE saying is that the warming cycle is being fast-tracked BECAUSE OF the addition of man-made emissions.

And there is not one iota of empirical data to support you. Not one. All of your claims are based on computer models. Computer models that are so bad they can't recreate what we know occured five days ago. There is a huge difference between computer models and the real world. Clmatologists though, havn't figured that out yet.

Okay then, to discount climate change/global warming as being a hoax, what if not computer models do those folks use?

As far as dismissing computer models, I don't think we'd have space exploration or hundreds of satellites above us without computer models, so that argument is silly.

Human Space Flight (HSF) - Realtime Data

Computer models come in many varieties. Some are fantastically good (think computational fluid dynamics used by supercomputers to determine aerodynamic effects of race cars or aircraft). Some are average. None of the climate models rate better than poor. They ignore vast amounts of information in the pursuit of vilifying CO2 which is one of the few variables they use.

For a computer model to be effective it has to be able to recreate what is observed (CFD for example uses wind tunnel data to confirm its findings) to date no climate CM has ever even tried to determine a base line of reliability or reality. None. It's as if they are afraid to find out what they don't know. That is not science, that is hand waving.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

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.

Good point. It should all be ended and let the profitable forms of energy proliferate, while the failures go away. Any bets on what would be ended?

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Yeah, Goldman Sachs is at fault. You obviously don't understand the purpose behind cap and trade, which was to limit the amount of emissions. But it's a moot point anyway, because it's off the table. I didn't object to the purpose, but I didn't think it would ever work because such a tradeoff would be subject to manipulation.

No... Goldman Sachs is doing precisely the type of trick liberals hate: Profiteering by scam off of hundreds of million of innocent people based on a frauduent crisis created for the purpose of increasing government control and taxes.

Thank God the scam of the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsed.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest his money because he figured the governement would help him by regulation. They didn't so he tried it on his own the problem is he's a realist and figured for wind power to be viable the price of natural gas had to be around 9 dollars per million BTU's(wind costs around 7 to 8 bucks per MBTU). With government regulation he was hoping to push the price up to 11 dollars per MBTU thus netting a nice profit.

Unfortunately for T. Boone Pickens, the government didn't regulate like he wanted and the price of gas dropped to 4 bucks per MBTU. In fact today it is 3.43 dollars per MBTU and analysts see that level being maintained for the next 17 years. So now T.Boone is foisting off his very expensive wind turbines on the Canadians who have to take them.

As far as any corporate subsidy, there shouldn't be any. The oil companies don't get as much as you think they do but they shouldn't rcieve even that.

This is a classical example of the worst sides of free market and government intervention: Using the system to force a false market and protect profits by unfair laws. That's what T. Boone was after. Unfair profits.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Yes... they do. Konnie and Crockiepoo prove that one right here in this thread.

 

[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.

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?

Well, how about we drop the out of control regulation through the EPA, over the top taxation, silly leasing system for petrochem and all subsidies in one fell swoop?

Used to be that way... maybe it's time to return to tried and true methods of generating energy by getting government out of the way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.

 

[edthecynic]

Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal.

The "new" normal.

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

He's a kid........and easily gets caught up in all the PC shit going on. That is one thing the global warming FAITHERS have going for them = the brainwashed youngin's. Been pouring all the PC crap down their throats for 20 years now.......they never think outside the box, just like a fcukking homeless person. This asshole Sallow is a perfect example.....you see his posts in other forums. Its called epic sheepness..........these people would buy a bag of dog shit for $1,000 a pop if it were packaged just right!!


Anyway.........I live a stones throw from NYC and while it certainly was nice today at around 50 degree's, I failed to see people out on benches sunning themselves. NOBODY was walking around in short sleeves.............meathead makes it look like NYC was in a heat wave.

It was 59F at the Jersey shore and I was in my short sleeve tee shirt picking up the fallen branches in my yard exposed by the melted snow and I was sweating.
Supposed to get over 60F on wednesday.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

OMG...you can't be serious...
The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.

Here goes:

May 27, 2008
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagreeFiled under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science — tadcronn @ 12:50 am
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
Get Energy Active - Value of Electricity - Supply and Demand - Climate Change - Use Electricity Wisely - Diverse Fuel - Ways to Save Energy Costs - Smart Energy Use




"Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report constitutes a “consensus” among scientists that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
Not only have many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. The petition states, in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.

Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.

Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.

In fact, 70 percent of the Earth’s warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanity’s industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen 0.2 Celsius.
Robinson notes that the U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference."
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree « Tad Cronn

"Why do you prefer to look dumb?"

I've looked at Tad Cronn's "reports" based on the petition by Professor Robinson, found the list of categories and some of the names, but I'm wondering if that data was ever collected in a single volume, because your links to that blogsite have no such animal. I did find it interesting in the second link, in the comments section, that Tad Cronn "defends" Robinson as follows:

[Q]Source Watch has a particularly negative view of the list. Who the heck to believe!

[A]Well, OK, let me put it in starkest possible terms for you:

Arthur Robinson, who started the petition project, is a right-wing crank who wanted to throw a wrench in the spokes of the global warming bicycle (really a corn-fueled private jet at this point, but metaphor, metaphor …). He has never pretended to be otherwise, and his methods are all spelled out on his web site for the world to see. His project was simply to gather names of people with scientific training who agree with him that man-made global warming is bunk.

Got any better evidence than that flimsy stuff? You've got a list of 31,000 who may or may not have any "scientific" background in climatology, trying to "prove" that just because they say so that 2,500 members of the IPCC plus thousands of experts who are not members must be wrong. Got it.

And we get the standard Chicken Little response: That's not credible!

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

Yep, ol' Walleyes claims that January's anamoly of -0.01 puts it the same as 1979. Yet looking at the graph, we can see that the most of the temps before 1997 were lower than Januarys.

But there are enough dumb asses that will just parrot Walleyes nonsense that he feels safe in stating such lies.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.

Not to mention someone to be able give me data as to why mankind's contribution of less than 0.6% of 0.039% of atmospheric composition is threat to all life on this planet?

 

[westwall]

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.

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

Yep, ol' Walleyes claims that January's anamoly of -0.01 puts it the same as 1979. Yet looking at the graph, we can see that the most of the temps before 1997 were lower than Januarys.

But there are enough dumb asses that will just parrot Walleyes nonsense that he feels safe in stating such lies.

According to your bullcrap theory we shouldn't even be CLOSE to the temps from 1979, yet there we are......

You fail.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.

Yep, ol' Walleyes claims that January's anamoly of -0.01 puts it the same as 1979. Yet looking at the graph, we can see that the most of the temps before 1997 were lower than Januarys.

But there are enough dumb asses that will just parrot Walleyes nonsense that he feels safe in stating such lies.

According to your bullcrap theory we shouldn't even be CLOSE to the temps from 1979, yet there we are......

You fail.

There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth that I never said. The fact that we are warming will not change the fact that there is a lot of natural variation. However, let's look at that graph again.

Note the low of January 2008. Now that was not near as strong of a La Nina as the present one was at it's depth. Yet we had nine months in the negative on that La Nina. By the looks of what February has thrown at us thus far, it looks to me like February, 2011, will be warmer than January. In spite of the very much stronger La Nina we just experianced.

Oh, I know, the La Nina is now fading. But just a few threads ago you fellows were argueing that it takes six months for the full effect of an Enso event to be felt. So why is January only -0.01 anamoly? Shouldn't that be at least -0.3? Not about 30 times less than it was on a weaker La Nina in 2008.

Seems to me that the graph is a very strong arguement for the acceleration of AGW. A record El Nino in 1998 produces the hotest year on record. A run of the mill El Nino in 2010 matchs that year. Now a very strong La Nina cannot even match to low of a less strong La Nina in 2008. You brought up the January temperature, and it proves how very wrong you are. All one has to do is look at the graph.

 

[MaggieMae]

Worst Freeze Since 1957 in Mexico.

Get ready for more food inflation that the government will refuse to recognize.

Mexico’s biggest freeze since 1957 means US produce price will skyrocket | Watts Up With That?

What do you want the government to do? Issue more food stamps?

 

[MaggieMae]

And there is not one iota of empirical data to support you. Not one. All of your claims are based on computer models. Computer models that are so bad they can't recreate what we know occured five days ago. There is a huge difference between computer models and the real world. Clmatologists though, havn't figured that out yet.

Okay then, to discount climate change/global warming as being a hoax, what if not computer models do those folks use?

As far as dismissing computer models, I don't think we'd have space exploration or hundreds of satellites above us without computer models, so that argument is silly.

Human Space Flight (HSF) - Realtime Data

Computer models come in many varieties. Some are fantastically good (think computational fluid dynamics used by supercomputers to determine aerodynamic effects of race cars or aircraft). Some are average. None of the climate models rate better than poor. They ignore vast amounts of information in the pursuit of vilifying CO2 which is one of the few variables they use.

For a computer model to be effective it has to be able to recreate what is observed (CFD for example uses wind tunnel data to confirm its findings) to date no climate CM has ever even tried to determine a base line of reliability or reality. None. It's as if they are afraid to find out what they don't know. That is not science, that is hand waving.

So to that, I'll again ask what "models" are used by those who pooh-pooh the unconfirmed evidence in order to arrive at their opinions/conclusions??

All I'm suggesting is that with reports that CAN be confirmed like the following, there's cause to worry and to be proactive.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
Global Highlights

For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.

In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.

Trying to figure out what caused the dramatic el Niño shouldn't be discounted as a bunch of "liberal" scientists who are making stuff up just to maintain government funding.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Good point. It should all be ended and let the profitable forms of energy proliferate, while the failures go away. Any bets on what would be ended?

Frankly, I don't care who funds alternative energy, just so long as the addiction to oil starts at least winding down. I don't think wind power is the answer, although it may work in specified locations for local power just as nuclear power provides a good percentage in certain areas. But that's the problem: Developing what will work best needs to happen, but right now it's all talk and no action, or at best developed (in this country, anyway) only in spurts. Geothermal is a very real possibility, but who's even talking about that, other than in scientific journals?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Yeah, Goldman Sachs is at fault. You obviously don't understand the purpose behind cap and trade, which was to limit the amount of emissions. But it's a moot point anyway, because it's off the table. I didn't object to the purpose, but I didn't think it would ever work because such a tradeoff would be subject to manipulation.

No... Goldman Sachs is doing precisely the type of trick liberals hate: Profiteering by scam off of hundreds of million of innocent people based on a frauduent crisis created for the purpose of increasing government control and taxes.

Thank God the scam of the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsed.

I'm unaware of any participation by Goldman-Sachs in the energy regulation business. If you're talking about the big investment firm scams in the housing industry, GS was only one of several.