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.
If an estate planner is summarily disqualified from giving opinions about climate change, what exactly are Al Gore’s qualifications to do so?
Pogo, you continue to throw out the “eight ball” ad hominems. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Pogo,
Thanks for the nod of appreciation.
It would be even more appreciated if you could take some time to immerse yourself in the science. There is a whole world out here for you to learn about. i.e. How the salinity of water effects the temperature of it or how when ice melts below water it created more heat than when ice melts to air temp. etc. …
NOAA establishes ‘tipping points’ for sea level rise related flooding
Most of U.S. coast may see 30 or more days a year of floods up to 2 feet above
high tides
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141218_sealevelrise.html
Max and Inga, if winning the Turley blog post discussion involves furiously posting videos and links and throwing insults, you guys are number one!
Karen S, I appreciate how you are arguing your positions and trying to affect a change in the way the other side views the issue. If you enjoy that challenge then that is great but I suspect this is otherwise futile.
I keep coming back to the idea that especially with this issue it not a matter of science but of faith. Just as no scientific argument will shake the faith of a devout Christian/Jew, etc., no scientific argument is going to sway a believer in anthropogenic climate change. I quite intentionally use the word believe. It does not matter how flawed, fraudulent, hypocritical, impractical you may demonstrate things to be, the other side believes what they believe and therefore the ends justify the means.
In discussions I am often chided (mocked, ridiculed, etc.) because, as they put it, I do not believe in climate change or I’m a climate change denier. I’ll clarify that for them: No, I see no legitimate science demonstrating that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is correct. The next day they refer to me as a climate change denier. At some point you realize the other side has no interest in what you think.
Annie,
Tabaco, fossil fuels…
Tomato, tomata.
William Berry,
I heart you. I’ve been asking that for some time, myself.
Corporate money FROM the Fossil Fuel Industry, sheesh.
Here’s a good film explaining what is happening around the world…
PBS Global Warming The Signs and the Science
DBQ was a estate planner or some such thing, whatever, yet she feels better qualified to speak on climate change than Professor Turley and 99% of scientists and billions of realists around the world. I base anything I have to say on the subject on that group, the 99% of scientists and so does JT, I suspect.
Two-year-long sea level rise along N.J. coast an ‘extreme’ event, study says
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/two-year-long_sea_level_rise_along_nj_coast_an_ext.html
Funny how taking corporate money is dirty, except when Hillary, Al Gore, and Obama do it.
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.
OK I will be brave. Professor Turely is an attorney and very good one in his field. As an expert, in his field I would defer to his opinions in his area of expertise.
However…….He is not a scientist, a climatologist, or any other kind of “ist”. This is not his area of expertise. Therefore his opinion is just an opinion and one of many opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Unlike the indoctrinated climate change believers, I don’t call names and try to belittle people for having opinions that differ. Debate with facts and the willingness to examine both sides of the debate is the hallmark of an educated and intelligent person.
Global warming is still a theory and theories are always subject to change. There is no such thing as ‘settled science’. As new or conflicting facts appear theories change.
The documented FACT** that the data has been fudged, altered and faked to support the “theory” brings the entire premise into suspicion and question.
** I’m not about to Google for links to this. I’m busy. It is well known and anyone who is actually interested in learning anything can find the documentation. Here is a little help though. Google ” IPCC fake data” ” NSA faking data”
Annie,
It is the same set of “deliverables” the tobacco industry paid “scientists” for…
Of course people should question, but you folks are doing far more than questioning.
Because those taking money for talking points are… ?
His conclusions, he himself calls “deliverables”. Wow.
I wonder if Mike A still thinks that questioning climate science is accepted in society, after reading this thread.
See Pogo, you go trolling for attention.
Now that I’m here you bring in your homophobia for show!
Max-1 – talking about transgender is not homophobia. You, of all people, should realize that.