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.
Annie,
Two great minds… I brought an interview. 😛
‘Climate change’ is quite a lot like transgender.
A form of magical thinking.
Annie,
Of course they are… smh.
Max, lol, I posted that at 3:33, but it’s good to repeat it!
http://youtu.be/8E11v7DY4UM
Max, that’s hilarious. Thanks.
Al Gore and Inhofe are both buffoons. I trust the scientists not in the govt. pocket.
Max, I bet they’ll say Penn State’s and the U of M’s data is incorrect because they’re “public” schools.
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1
According to Inhoff and denialist crew…
… Having lunch disproves world hunger!
Interaction of ocean oscillations caused ‘false pause’ in global warming
http://news.psu.edu/story/346448/2015/02/26/research/interaction-ocean-oscillations-caused-false-pause-global-warming
That is why you always look at the data and methodology. It doesn’t matter who funds what, as long as the science is clean. Was there interference in the conclusions? Were grants awarded based on coming to particular conclusions?
How often, for example, do scientists who question climate change receive grants?
In industry, pharmaceutical companies obviously want a positive result from their clinical trials. They’ve invested years of effort, wasted money on failed investigational new drugs, and millions of dollars to develop a drug and put it through the fantastically expensive FDA trial. They are heavily based. However, the clinical trials are made to be unbiased. And if a company is caught tweaking the results, or manipulating the conclusions, they become a trial lawyer’s dream.
You get what you get in the lab, regardless of what your boss wants. Sometimes you don’t get the result you want, and that’s sad, but you don’t change the results to suit your boss, because the company would be sued out of existence.
Pogo, that may be so, but it’s true. I trust Professor Turley’s judgment far above and beyond the indoctrinated right in these comments sections when it comes to climate change. You may try to insult others here for recognizing the reality of man made climate change, but you’ll have to be brave and include JT in this group.
People like Al Gore, and many of the scientists involved in Climate Research, unfortunately benefit financially. They either get grants as long as they support climate change, or they own interests in companies that benefit from Climate Change policies.
Governments have also interfered with Climate Change reports to suit their own interests. Governments collect absolutely huge amounts of revenue through Climate Change legislation, fines, Cap & Trade, Carbon credits, etc.
How difficult is it to find research that receives absolutely unbiased funding? Pretty difficult – as there is a huge financial machine behind climate change support. Who has the money to fund research when there is astronomical money to be gained from Climate Change legislation?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614097/Top-climate-experts-sensational-claim-government-meddling-crucial-UN-report.html
” He also cited NOAA and NASA’s claim that 2014 was the hottest on record.”
Inga’s Magic 8-Ball says: Appeal to authority, logical error. Please try again.
“What are they teaching in public schools today?”
I guess Professor Turley must be in that group you speak of Karen. He also cited NOAA and NASA’s claim that 2014 was the hottest on record.
I do not blame most of the scientists. They are all basing their conclusions, either on questionably manipulated original data, or on the conclusions of other scientists. Their belief and concern are sincere.
I would like to introduce the concepts of GDP and GLP to climate science, however. Those industry standards, alone, would have prevented most of these problems.
Mike A:
“No reasonable person believes that climate science should not be subject to criticism or constant reassessment.”
You are wrong, unfortunately. Surely you are aware of the epithets like “Flat Earther” or “Skeptic” or “Climate Change Denier” made against reasonable people, like myself, who do exactly that. Literally any criticism or concern raised is met with extreme backlash.
Take a look at what I have written, for example. I have not denied anthropogenic climate change; I have merely stated that I have serious concerns about the data manipulation, and the behavior of those involved, that prevent me from being able to come to a conclusion. Have my remarks been met with respect and consideration?
I wish you were right, but you should do a perusal of the media on this topic to see that you are not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher.
“But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.”
We’ve already posted links where NASA and BEST admitted that their conclusions, so fondly repeated round the globe, that 2014 was the hottest year on record were actually far below the margin of error, and so were statistically meaningless.
And yet, people keep reposting that “2014 was the hottest year on record” nugget, clearly without any understanding of the statistics or data analysis involved. Or that the people on whose work this charge was made admitted as such.
What are they teaching in public schools today?