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.
It’s predictable that the problem of global warming involves the same solutions as global cooling previously had:
Total government control over every aspect of your personal lives, from the foods you eat to where you work to how you travel.
Socialists have a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.
Oh, and you’re the nail, to be pounded down.
Mike A.,
That was funny. It’s amusing that Inhofe and his ilk appear to be so proud of their ignorance.
This from the same state that wants to do away with AP history! I think Oklahoma and Texas should secede since Oklahoma fits so easily into the northeast corner of Texas and it could be a containment area for people who would like to return to the pre-enlightenment era.
old nurse – if I wrote the curriculum for AP History you would be screaming to have it stopped too. The new AP History is a leftist screed, not real history. The old AP History was neutral so regardless of the teacher in the classroom the exam took a middleground. Now the exam takes a leftest view of history, ignoring important parts of US History. OK is not the only state that is looking at it.
And yeah, I admit I DO have a big problem with having “less stuff” if the reason I have “less stuff” is because of fraud and deceit perpetrated and enabled by a bunch of socialists pretending to be dedicated to the purity of science and concerned about the environment.
Thank you Ed
Wow DBQ, that was fantastic.
The real fear of those who oppose consideration of anything that possibly implicates less reliance on fossil fuels is that we might have to make changes that result in some of us having less stuff.
This statement embodies the reason that many of us doubt the veracity of and the sincerity of those who propose sweeping sociological changes and overweening governmental control in the name of “global warming”
SOME of us. Not ALL of us Those who will be able to keep their “stuff” are already well know. The Gore’s and others who profit from selling of bogus carbon credits while using the so called lifetime allotment of carbon credits of hundreds of their fellow citizens. The subsidized ‘green’ energy companies that are failures and cause the cost of merely keeping warm in winter to rise beyond the means of the ordinary person. Keep cool…..Gore is warm.
Some suffer, while those who are the elites, who are connected, who have political pull….reap the benefits and get rich.
When those who think that they are exempt from the cutting begin actually acting like there is a crisis, when THEY give up their stuff instead of lording it over us as if they are superior and more entitled……THEN perhaps, we little peons might, just might consider that there is something to this. Until then….it is all just gaseous emissions from the bloviating piggies in charge who want everyone else to give up their stuff while they continue to jet around the world and live in their mansions.
It makes me want to go out and burn a tire or something. (joking….sort of) It is just like the eco-nazi retards in the cities who weep crocodille tears over the logging of trees and redwoods trees and the bad cattle industry destroying the environment……while sitting on their newly constructed redwood decks, sipping their wines and wearing expensive leather shoes or shoes made from petroleum products. Ok for them because they are special…..right?
Re Global Warming: Nevermind that the data is suspect, distorted, faked and fudged. Nevermind that the computer models are faulty and have been shown to be false predictors of the future. Nevermind that the world’s climate has swung wildly form much warmer than now to much much colder than now…..all without the benefit of human activity. Climate change is natural and a part of being an itty bitty planet orbiting a sun hurtling through the galaxy. Happened before and will happen again.
Seems to me I’ve heard this song before.
Mike Appleton, those who proclaim “the science is settled” aren’t really interested in the science either. The real fear of those who oppose taking a critical look at the science is that it might show climate change is not anthropogenic, the science of climate change is flawed, or the science of climate change is fraudulent. Any of the above could seriously impede their true agenda.
What’s interesting are not science deniers like Inhofe, that’s to be expected when members of Congress are largely bought by certain industries/interests (i.e. Inhofe and oil/natural gas) but rather what the powerful people that believe in global warming are doing about it. Worsening it. For example, Obama has spoken in Inhofe’s backyard about the vast increase in oil and natural gas production in the US (thus destroying the environment). This from a democratic president that believes in global warming. A president that is routinely praised (including by JT) for his apparent efforts to combat global warming.
No-way those poor and backwards people in Cuba, nomadic tribes in India and Canada, or aboriginal Australians could be as civilized, developed, and respected as us Americans though.
Ed, I have also pointed out the many aspects of global warming has in common w/ religion. The fact that many in this camp are atheists is not a coincidence. We all need to believe in something greater than us. It just should not be fat Al Gore.
Sensible steps such as recycling, driving more economical vehicles, walking/biking/skateboarding instead of driving[double benefit for your body as well] are all things I believe are good, and things I do. But, the people leading this religion do not. They fly in private jets, ride in limos, etc. Their cult followers live off the grid and are true believers. It is all so strange.
No reasonable person believes that climate science should not be subject to criticism or constant reassessment. That is what scientists do. People like Inhofe, however, are not really interested in the science. They approach every issue from the standpoint of ideology. The real fear of those who oppose consideration of anything that possibly implicates less reliance on fossil fuels is that we might have to make changes that result in some of us having less stuff.
Karen S, thank you for your efforts to point out so many of the problems in the “science” of climate change. Unfortunately those who most need to consider this information are likely to be unwilling to do so, as it would threaten their religious-like faith in the Church of Climate Change and belief that they need to save the planet (with anti-capitalist methods, naturally.)
In the words of the disgraced Pachoulis himself: ‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’
If this what you believe, fraudulent science is child’s play in the big picture and is just the means to an end.
What Sen, Inhofe is actually holding in his hand is a sample of brain tissue from the hominid species known as Oklahomensis ignoramus. It was once thought to be an endangered species, but has been reproducing rapidly in recent years.
Jim:
There are no carbon emissions? So what comes out of the millions and millions of cars and power-plants every day has no affect on the global environment? Makes sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2764323/China-US-India-push-world-carbon-emissions-up.html
Tell me, Jim, would you breathe what comes out of your tailpipe? It’s harmless, right?
Nick – my relative sent me a very exciting paper on how nuclear reactors can run on nuclear waste. Nuclear engineering was a dead field for so many years. Very few PhDs were awarded. All of a sudden, over the past few years, the field has been experiencing a Renaissance among young scientists. I’ll send it to you.
I have to admit, Fracking makes me nervous. I don’t like the idea of injecting chemicals into the ground, because the contamination of ground water is one of my most dear causes. It has been pointed out, however, that fracking takes place where there are pockets of oil and gas in the ground, which in and of itself make it unsuited for wells. The fossil fuel contamination of groundwater is what caused the legendary “Burning Springs” of Native Americans. I also acknowledge that fracking has become highly politicized.
But I supported the Keystone Pipeline. Canada is producing oil from tar sands no matter what. And we are buying that oil. Literally the only difference is whether we ship it via pipeline or by railroad and boat. The railroad is a net environmental negative compared with a pipeline, because it is more prone to accidents, human death and injury, explosions, and produces more pollution to transport. And we ALL know what happens when an oil tanker sinks. The pipeline would be vulnerable to sabotage and terrorism, much like the railroad, but less prone to explosions and accidents than a moving railway system or ship. And a pipeline is less disruptive and dangerous to wildlife (after it’s built) than a railroad. A spill is far easier to clean up on land than in the ocean. The pipeline would have actually reduced pollution and the risk of a spill. So, in this case, the environment is worse off without the pipeline.
It’s not like Canada will stop developing tar sands because of the loss of the pipeline, or that we will stop buying it. So it becomes a simple risk analysis comparison. Since I care about the environment, I support any means to reduce risk and pollution.
We are making strides to replacing fossil fuels, as we must with this finite resource. But we are not quite there yet. We’re still in the Beta test phase, and must be careful not to get over excited and make rash decisions that will actually harm our environment.
38% ??
Close enough!
https://shechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/close-enough-15.jpg
Make that..hell I can’t bench press 300 anymore. Bad example.
Karen, 38% sure is good enough for government work. I’m 38% sure I can still bench press 300lbs. like I did as a young man. No, I’m 12% sure.
Karen S,
Excellent posts.
But stop making sense and using dispassionate logic, it really messes up the narrative.
Pete – I was wondering if you were aware that NASA followed up that claim with the remark that they are only 38% sure of their conclusion?
“the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.”
In addition the BEST report, which relied on even more data, said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.
‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’
What is really sad is that very few of the people who deride skeptics are even aware of any of this. And that lies squarely at the feet of the Liberal media, who apparently have abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity.
Meanwhile, we continue to pollute the Earth, strip it of vegetation, and poison the oceans where most of our oxygen is produced. What could go wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html