Despite the fact that the Senate recently voted 98-1 that climate change is real and not a hoax, Sen. Jim Inhofe, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, was back on the floor mocking the notion of climate change this week. Inhofe voted for the earlier resolution but insists that man is not responsible for the changes. Those pushing for measures to combat climate change bring the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world to such debates as well as dozens of studies. Inhofe brought a snowball.
Inhofe tossed a snowball in the Senate chambers to mock the notion of climate change. He also showed pictures of an igloo his daughter’s family built during the snowstorm five years ago and noted that was the same tie that all “the hysteria on global warming” began. Addressing Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, Inhofe said “Do you know what this is? It’s a snowball. It’s just from outside here, so it’s very, very cold out, … very unseasonable.” He then said “Mr. President, Catch this” and threw the snowball. Wisely not trusting the coordination of his colleagues, he threw it to a page who caught the snowball with the skill of Ernie Banks.
As we have discussed, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last month that 2014 was the warmest year on record. However, climate change does not mean that you do not get extremely cold weather. Indeed, you can have wild fluctuations in weather patterns. Many scientists have documents not just colder temperatures over all but such intensifying patterns. It certainly does not mean that you will not get snow in Washington, D.C.
Yet, Inhofe insisted “We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, but now the script has flipped.
Of course, even before the GOP took over the Senate, there was little action on climate change. If history is any measure, any substantive legislation has about the changes of a snowball in . . . the Senate.
Here is a layman’s list of some of the ethical concerns at IPCC:
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Texas-suing-for-responsible-scientific-conclusions-1718744.php
Is this anti-science, or does it dispute that climate is or could change? No.
This also touches on the politicization and lack of accountability of the EPA, which is real concern for an organization that is supposed to be strictly unbiased. We must ensure the integrity of the EPA, and that it works in partnership with people. A member of my family is a very well-known, respected scientist who has given me examples of how the EPA and BLM and various other agencies can work with, rather than against, landowners to achieve environmental goals.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VPCVonzF_qE
“The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. “
Snow Job.
Oh, look, Pachoulis FINALLY resigned. Did anyone know that the head of the IPCC was not a scientist, but a railway engineer? And that he opposed the use of ice in drinks, and wanted higher taxes to to force people not to fly, all while he jetted around the world and lived like a pasha? He must get along great with Al Gore.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/25/pachauris-resignation-from-the-ipcc-was-at-least-five-years-overdue/
Fracking has put global warming folk into a panic. There is enough oil for many generations. When scientists come up w/ a better and CHEAPER alternative to oil, then the market will change to that better, cheaper and presumably cleaner alternative. This global warming panic by “scientists”, cooking the books, is a fraudulent way to expedite this transition. The problem is, the alternatives to date, are pretty much horseshit. The best alternative is nuclear but that is a nuclear topic. Then there are the politicians and cronies invested in these bad alternatives. They are posed to make billions. I hope they all lose their shirts.
Yes, let’s get back to the topic of Inhofe’s and Republicans idiocy regarding climate change. Issac, I wonder are they all demented or just Inhofe?
Here’s what people do not understand:
In the 70s they predicted an Ice Age, and advised us to warm up the Earth.
In the 90s the IPCC predicted Global Warming by apparently reversing the conclusions of the 1992 IPCC 3rd report.
When they thought we had the most active hurricane season in history, they blamed Global Warming.
When it turned out we had the most mild hurricane season in history, they blamed Climate Change.
They changed Global Warming to Climate Change.
When they said the Earth had warmed more than ever, it turned out the warming was within the margin of error, and meant literally nothing statistically.
Then it turned out that they homogenized the data and had lost the original data, so no one could check their work.
Then we discover that scientists trustingly based their work on data that had been tweaked to reverse a cooling trend, and removed an historic cooling period in Iceland.
The science has changed, and drastically, many times over the past decade alone. Now we are expected to believe that it’s suddenly immoral to question science. Has no one heard the science joke, “Hi! It’s my birthday today! Oh, yeah? Prove it!” Maintaining a constant state of scrutiny and saving original data is one of the cornerstones of science. Of course it is acceptable to question the science. Wait 5 minutes and science will change. That’s what’s so exciting about it.
Obviously we don’t want to pump limitless amounts of CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. At some point we will create a gas profile that is no longer optimal to mammalian life.
I have no idea if climate change is anthropogenic, because I have serious ethics problems with the behavior of the major scientists involved. So I cannot draw a conclusion from data that has been adjusted so alarmingly. And not a single one of our computer models has been accurate. The IPCC had originally stated that climate was too complex to accurately model. And yet, inexplicably, we are suddenly supposed to depend on the models for policy?
Climate Change has become a license for politicians to get access to endless tax and fee revenue. And they have an endless greed.
If our goal is to artificially “freeze” the Earth at today’s climate, we will fail. Because the Earth has always changed since it first gathered its gaseous envelope. We must be adaptive or we will go extinct. And why is today’s climate optimal? Many species went extinct when our current climate came to be. In fact, it is environmental change and pressure that drives evolution in the first place. Stop the rise of the oceans? Go to the beach and look at the ancient shoreline carved high up in the rocks. Visit ancient, dried seabeds far inland. There were no industrialized people then, in those times of high seas.
It frustrates me that we blow most of our time, money, and effort on Climate Change when we could be making the Earth a healthier place to live TODAY by focusing on pollutants. For instance, can you even see China from space with the toxic soup it produces, that wafts into the air we all breathe? We all subsidize that poison cloud when we buy the products they make irresponsibly. We’ve managed to contaminate the entire ocean with mercury, and other pollutants. The vast majority of our oxygen is produced by marine phytoplankton and algae. Does no one stop to think that, perhaps, cleaning up our oceans, and stopping deforestation and revegetation should be our top priorities? Who cares how much CO2 is in our atmosphere if we manage to kill or remove most of our oxygen factories?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Paul – Clearly the FAA didn’t want any funding trouble for the next fiscal year. Your average pilot pulling a stunt like that would be out of the business of flying an airplane for a very long time.
The true believers (and this is an issue of faith at this point) have been all-in on this (“the science is settled”) for quite a while now. There is no turning back and there will be no reconsideration of past “findings” or models that have not been accurate in their predictions. There will be no questioning of data “adjustments” (always old temps adjusted down, current temps adjusted up.)
The anti-capitalist agenda is what matters here, science is just the means to be used & abused to meet the desired ends.
Hijacked thread.
He’s getting ready for election season: practicing stupidity!
After this incident the good senator from Oklahoma lost all credibility.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/58644-senator-inhofe-lands-closed-runway.html
John G. – clearly the FAA thought he just needed a remedial course.
Jim22
When the head of the Senate committee on the environment uses a glass of water with ice cubes in it to refute the reality of ice melting and raising sea levels, yes he has, if he is lucky a third grade standing. He is an idiot. It is not that hard to understand. We’re not talking about ideology here. We are not talking about the 1% and if they should or shouldn’t be taxed more, or Obamacare, or anything else that even though one side or the other may be too far left or right and spark some testy dialogue. We are talking about the Republicans who placed this moron in a position that he is light years short of honoring, let alone functioning in.
The Republican party stands behind this guy when he makes a complete idiot of himself. This has nothing to do with ideology. This has to do with Inhofe’s dementia and his fellow Republicans ignorance of it, or some self destruct aspect of the party that allows this nonsense to represent their argument. They have got to have better than this. Jim, can you explain the ice melting-oceans rising interrelationship?
Still putting words in other’s mouths Jim, poor and lazy debate technique.
Inga – didn’t know that debate was a nursing course.
The global warming theory is such crap. It’s easy to prove. The surface area of the earth is 93 million sq miles. All the thermometers on earth don’t equal .00001% of the surface area. A sample size that small can tell you nothing about the global surface temperature. It only gets worse if you use atmospheric temperature because then it’s 3d problem.
Thermometer = signal
No thermometer = noise
You can learn nothing with a signal to noise greater than 10000x. In this instance it is 100000000x
Inga (Annie),
Oops I forgot to put the “I believe” in. So here it is again.
You are right, I believe global warming is the most important issue we face in the world.
Don’t be afraid to read this.
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2013/7/18/what-is-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time
issac,
So, people who agree with your ideology are smart and anyone who questions it only has a third grade understanding. How do you know this? Have you talked to him personally and pulled out 4th grade science text books? Now we know for a fact that there are 50 states, so where does that put the Democratic president? What grade level are the number of states taught. He gets a pass though because well, he’s one of those smart Democrats.
Planet Earth is warming up but small spots are not. Oklahoma is a good example. This Inhof guy is one of our Planet Gonad transplants which we on Remulak sent when he was born. We need wackos like this so as to keep Planet Earth in line and out of the line of reason. We have reasons for this which I cannot disclose. Earth has a purpose.
on 1, February 27, 2015 at 9:15 amJim22
Inga (Annie),
You are right, global warming is the most important issue we face in the world.
*****************************
Jim it’s not a good debating technique to put words in other’s mouths. Makes it look like you’ve lost the debate.