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.
Pogo, LOL!
I am an evangelical global warming cultist and I say 147% of scientists believe in global warming. I am the TRUEST believer.
Come on Max-1, we all know ISIL are just extremists that have nothing to do with religion.
“YOU need to read the comments for what they actually say and not what you want them to say.”
But then she wouldn’t be Inga.
Actually DBQ this is what you said.
on 1, February 27, 2015 at 4:11 pmDust Bunny Queen
“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.”
**************************
I suspect he bases his opinions on climate change on the same group I do. That 99% of scientists that say it is real.
Also to be clear, while I am an old nurse, I am not the commenter named “old nurse”.
Annie,
“Cultist” is pc lingo for whacko…
I’m laughing so hard @ the flailing that a little pee just came out. Last May, our Undertaker, err Sec. of State, John Kerry, gave a speech claiming “97% of scientists believe in climate change.” The Wall Street Journal did a piece, the following week, on 5/26/14. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer eviscerated that meme. Then, just minutes ago, doubling down on hyperbole, the ante was raised to “99% of scientist.” Folklore and propaganda merging. New fire and brimstone “factoids” from climate cultists
she’s not at all disqualified, neither is Professor Turley whom SHE disqualifies. Don’t people read all the comments before commenting?
I did not disqualify anyone’s opinion. I said.—> Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If that opinion is in the area of expertise of that person I would tive it more credence. Professor Turely’s opinions in the legal field carry great weight, just as Pogo’s in the medical field As an estate planner, financial advisor, stock broker my opinion on Global Warming and my opinion on the quality of evidence presented, is just as valid as that of Professor Turely or even some “old nurse”.
YOU need to read the comments for what they actually say and not what you want them to say.
Hmmmm, actually I think she may have been a stock broker.
Max,
And we knew who would be the first to use the “cultist” label, lol.
Ed,
Annie is holding up the estate planners mirror to the estate planner’s face.
Annie,
Watch for it. Soon we’ll be compared to ISIL.
It’s just like religion…
“These are a few of the similarities between religion and climate cultists.”
ZOMG! Professor Turley is a cultist too according to Spinelli!
https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/571328825704845315
Ed, she’s not at all disqualified, neither is Professor Turley whom SHE disqualifies. Don’t people read all the comments before commenting?
I’ve done this before but some teachers don’t know how to take notes. These are a few of the similarities between religion and climate cultists. Much of this is from a speech Michael Crichton gave before he died.
Both religion and climate cultists have a paradise. For religion it was Eden. For climate cultists it was before man, when there was no footprint from us sinners.
Then there is the fall from grace. In religion, Adam eating the forbidden fruit. For cultists, man and the industrial age.
In religion, there is the fact that we are all sinners and must seek salvation by repenting. For climate cultists, we carbon sinners must seek salvation by recycling and practicing sustainability.
There is the fire and brimstone preachers in religion, talking about God striking down sinners w/ thunder and lightning. For climate cultists, there is the booming voice of Fat Albert Gore scaring the sinners w/ an Inconvenient Truth, showing melting glaciers and rising oceans.
In religion, the wealthy hypocrites can buy indulgences from the Pope. In climate cult, carbon credits. Billionaire perverts can buy carbon credits so they and their hound dog buddy,, Bill Clinton can fly on private 747’s boinking 17 year olds.
There are more similarities. Now bookmark this, or take notes so I don’t have to do it again.
Ed, I guess 99% of scientists are just climate change worshipers.
You can’t understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It’s the whole, or it’s nothing. In this illuminating talk, he explains how he studies the big picture of climate change with mesmerizing models that illustrate the endlessly complex interactions of small-scale environmental events.
The emergent patterns of climate change
https://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?language=en#