Powered by TypePad

« Novak - Hayden Won't Say If Plame Is "Covert" Under IIPA | Main | Get Gonzo, Get Gitmo »

March 22, 2007

Comments

windansea

Fred Thompson

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

Rachel

If you look at the end of the 2003 Inhofe speech you linked to, there is the following parargraph: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man- made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."

That sounds to me to be in accord with how Milbank characterized Inhofe's statement.

Jeff

"Catastrophic" global warming is the hoax - fears are exaggerated.

Hmm. Here's how Inhofe closed his speech:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.

He says is sounds to him that man-made global warming (just as such) is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people because of the hysteria, the fear, the phony science. He is not saying only catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax, but man-made global warming sounds like a reality to him.

Wanna try again?

Syl

Jeff

It is a distinction without a difference. One cannot think of the words 'global warming' without its associated hype, hysteria, and proposed 'solutions'. In other words the words 'global warming' itself imply 'catastrophic! We MUST do something NOW or we are all doomed!'

And THAT is the hoax.

boris

the anthropogenic theory of catastrophic global warming.

Once this theory has been established as the context for discussion it should not be required that the entire phrase needs to be used at every mention in order to forstall accusations of denial.

"Man made global warming" is a reasonable identifier of the idea.

Lew Clark

The earth does get warmer, then the earth gets cooler. It has done so for billions of years. And there is little to nothing Algore and the gang can do about it. But, they can really make my life miserable trying.
Hell, I'm still mad at them for taking away my asbestos brakes and freon by overstating "good" science and turning it into politically correct bad science.

Jeff

It is a distinction without a difference.

if that's the case, then Tom has nothing to complain about in Milbank's treatment of Inhofe's remarks either.

But really your point falls apart because of that.

Lew Clark

Jeff has fired up the circular reasoning machine again. I'm getting dizzy. Can I get off now?

PeterUK

The word "hoax" is probably wrong,the word should be "scam".

SPQR

He explains his main idea in greater detail in the body, summarizes and oversimplifies his points in a conclusion, and Jeff thinks its fair to only quote the oversimplification?

Try again yourself, Jeff.

mryan

no offense, but i don't really "care" what your position, or any other commentators positiion is on global warming. not because i don't like you, or think your dumb, but because your not qualified to have a tryuly informed opinion. but, then, neither am i. it seems to me we look to science to provide these answers, but in the case of global warming, the science has been so politicized, that its hard to know what to believe. for what its worth (i know, "not much") i don't think there is significant man made global warming and the science sounds like alot of hocus pocus.

Lew Clark

I've been in a greenhouse and I was comfortable. I've been above the Arctic Circle in winter and was not comfortable. I've been to Greenland in the summer and was not comfortable. I have not been to Antarctica, but know people who have, and they were not comfortable.
My answer to man-made global warming.
Bring it on baby!

Nick Kasoff
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he said in March, "I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."

That could go a long way in explaining the UN's failure to find WMDs in Iraq. Hey, perhaps it's time to tell Gore that The Day After Tomorrow was just a movie.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Rick Ballard

"Can I get off now?"

No. Not until you admit that recursive examination of every jot and tittle within both speech and later clarification justifies placing the first above the second in terms of both meaning and importance.

Don't you understand the absolute paramount importance attached to the exclusion of an adjective?

Stay and watch Jeff explain it interminably (ad nauseum, if you will). The WaPo hires only the finest pseudojournalists and Dana Milbank is certainly among them and is fully capable of jerking a quote out and using it without ever referring to the clarification. After all, that's what makes a great pseudojournalist.

cathyf
Is global warming causing more extreme weather events of greater intensity...?
Every global warming theorist that I have seen claims that global warming causes more warming at the poles than at the equator. Very basic baby physics says that weather is fundamentally caused by the temprature difference between the equator and poles -- the astonishing energy that drives weather comes from heat running downhill from equator to poles.

So global warming may be, on balance, terrible, but it still will cause weather to be less intense rather than more.

PeterUK

It is no use making light of this Mr Ballard,but it is incontrovertible that the biggest cause of the people is the human race.

Robert Speirs

I took a walk the other day, here in Tallahassee, Florida. My fingers almost froze. Then I thought, global warming advocates say the Earth needs to be colder. Hey, I need those fingers!

What, are they selling snow shovels?

MikeS


I'm very interested in climate science. I don't understand how denigrating any scientist who disagrees with Al Gore advances the science.

I would be really excited if someone could prove a theory that explained past variations in the 'earth temperature'.

PeterUK

S.C.A.M.

Jeff

the finest pseudojournalists and Dana Milbank is certainly among them

I can't stand Milbank's brand of whatever it is he does. But on this one, he's right and it's actually Inhofe's restrospective restatement that, for understandable reasons, tries to mislead not just about what he said but about what he meant. So it's actually TM in this case who owes the correction, not all the lefties who cite Inhofe more accurately than he subsequently cited himself.

Extraneus

Anyone else notice how lame the criticisms were of the Russian who cited the correlation between Earth and Mars warming?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Speaking of scientists, I was half hoping Inhofe would voir dire the Goracle with a few questions about where he went to school, what he studied, how his grades were, etc., before getting into the meat of the carbon-offset pledge, but I haven't read that he did. Who would be more deserving of such a cheap shot?

ajacksonian

Global warming? Are we going to go back up 14 degrees celsius to get to those balmy temperatures of 70 million years ago...

We are in an inter-glacial period in which rapid temperature swings over short periods of time are the norm, not the unusual. The greatest problem has been, for that 70 million years, the last supercontinent break-up and the increased speed of plate tectonics draining vast, shallow seas that were over the Americas, Africa, Europe and Asia. Antarctica also slipped into the south pole region thus making it a permanent place of deep chill, further cooling the planet. With the speed of drift came increased volcanism, which tend to put more particulates out on a regular basis and cause fluctuations in global temperature and with the megavolcanos some widespread species loss. Increased mountain formation at terrestrial plate to plate boundaries that were moving towards each other changed global wind patterns, like the Himalayas which are still heading upwards. Carbon dioxide also started to drop, but it turns out that has little to do with global temperature as it has been dropping far longer than the last 70 million years and we are at or near historic lows for concentration in the atmosphere, which once ranged up in the 7,000 ppm range. It seems that global temperature has more to do with continental configuration, lack of mountain building, lack of large shallow seas, and volcanic activity than anything else like carbon dioxide or methane. The early reducing atmosphere of the planet was mostly carbon dioxide and methane with water vapor and the entire planet went snowball a few times.

But then, when you need to look at long term temperature and climactic changes across the globe over time, you talk to geologists, not meteorologists. You know, the people who *study* the climactic history of the third rock from the star Sol.

Tom

Inhofe is an idiot.

If he's right, we've still got big problems.

If he's wrong, and we do, little if anything, we're screwed.

I side with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world who agree with Gore.

Tom

Sorry, I think I have an extra comma in there. (Global typing error)

boris

restrospective restatement that, for understandable reasons, tries to mislead

Since you're usually very fussy about details you get an opportunity to back this up. In 2003 Inhofe said "I would like to discuss an important body of scientific research that refutes the anthropogenic theory of catastrophic global warming".

Based on the date of that you appear to be wrong about "restrospective restatement".

MikeS

If Al Gore is right about rising sea levels, we don't have time to worry about the size of our feet.
The only sensible course of action is to rush to the coast and start building sea walls.

Cecil Turner

If he's wrong, and we do little if anything, we're screwed.

Well, I support the concept of reduced GhG emissions, even though the science on causation of global warming is thin at best. When y'all get concerned enough to make some realistic proposals (e.g., "build more nuclear powerplants"), I'll believe you're more interested in the reality than the politics. (Though there's very little Al could do at this point to convince me he was sincere.)

Whitehall

Team,

Let's follow the money.

My theory is that big winners in the imposition of economic measures to "control" GW will be the Russians, specifically Gazprom.

The Russian intelligence agencies (KGB and now FSB) have a long history of deliberate disinformation efforts to undermine the West and enhance Russian state power. Think Comintern, depleted uranium, nuclear freeze, etc.

Didn't KGB have that Green Party member who was German foreign minister on the payroll? Didn't Schroder join Gazprom after he left office? Didn't Putin just nationalize (51% control) the Sakhalin Island LNG projects?

There are other winners of course but Putin has the ways, the means, and the motive to play. He has certainly shown that he understands the power of energy under his control.

And I say this as a nuclear engineer who stands to gain personally from GW measures - don't do it.

Three cheers for Senator Inhofe!

Sua Sponte

I read a book once, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions: And the Madness of Crowds". It kept me from getting involved in the disco craze back when the biggest trendy threat to the world was the "coming ice age".

Tom

The Russkies are behind global warming?

Duh.

Davebo
Inhofe's actual statement was a bit more defensible and (dare we say it) nuanced:

Correction. Inhofe's recollection of the statement is a bit more defensible. Perhaps if you can provide a link to his actual statement, rather than a link to his comments on the statement after the fact, you could support your assertion a little better.

I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.

It's quite interesting how such an attention to detail guy could miss such an obvious thing.

Tom

Sua Sponte,
So is your point that there is no reason the deal with the potential results of global warming...because it's really nothing more than a delusion of the masses?

Lew Clark

OK, Tom has presented his bona fides. Can we get anyone to admit they side with Rosie O'Donnell and the vast majority of left-handed gay midgets that agree with her. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

boris

Inhofe's recollection of the statement is a bit more defensible. Perhaps if you can provide a link to his actual statement

What is there about his 2003 speech which uses the term "anthropogenic theory of catastrophic global warming" that confuses you and Jeff?

Davebo
Well, I support the concept of reduced GhG emissions, even though the science on causation of global warming is thin at best. When y'all get concerned enough to make some realistic proposals (e.g., "build more nuclear powerplants"), I'll believe you're more interested in the reality than the politics.

I'm with you 100% Cecil. Lets build us some nuke power plants.

However I think you'll disgree with another suggestion.

When we get ready to build those new nukes, we should not do as we've done in the past and re-engineer the wheel for every nuke plant built. I'd prefer to see a standard design arrived at and then updated over time as technology and ideas change.

You know, like the French did. Hard to say it didn't work great for them both in costs and efficiency.

International experience demonstrates the benefits of standardization. The French nuclear program is based on standardized nuclear plant designs. Over nearly two decades, France built 34 standardized 900 MWe (megawatts of electric power) reactors and 20 1,300 MWe reactors, which now supply about 75 percent of that country’s electricity.

The use of standardized designs and modularized building techniques has reduced construction times of plants built abroad. For example, in France, the first reactors in the 900 MWe series took about seven years to build; the last reactors, only five years. Because of standardization, the cost of nuclear power plants in France is among the lowest in the world.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=186

boris

no reason the deal with the potential results of global warming

Straw dummy.

Dealing with the result of natural global warming is exactly what has been proposed.

Tom

Lew Clark,
Say what???

Davebo
What is there about his 2003 speech which uses the term "anthropogenic theory of catastrophic global warming" that confuses you and Jeff?

Nothing at all. Can't speak for Jeff of course.

Tom

boris,
So it's more of "natural" problem than "human?"

Davebo

What could be more natural than humans?

boris

Lets build us some nuke power plants

So you promote false exaggeration and hysterical "science" to get more nukes?

Would prefer the pro-nuke group avoid that nonsense and it's proponents.

Lew Clark

Sorry Tom, I was channeling Jeff. But I'm feeling much better now.

boris

it's more of "natural" problem than "human?"

The planet is getting warmer regardless.

Who says it's a problem?

Sua Sponte

Not at all Tom, I will deal with global warming the same way I dealt with the coming ice age and disco. YMMV.

Sue

I do not believe that man is causing global warming. You can spit on me and call me a heretic, but the faith needed to believe global warming is manmade is not in me.

Syl

Jeff

if that's the case, then Tom has nothing to complain about in Milbank's treatment of Inhofe's remarks either.

But really your point falls apart because of that.

Wrong. Because Milbank implies a distinction and calls him on it.

Tom

boris,
Are you actually saying that the latest report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is nothing more than "hysterical science?"

Great Banana

I hope, hope, hope, that this democrat-majority congress proposes and votes for some legislation that adopts Kyoto like measures to rectify "man-made" global warming.

With such economic killing ideas, conservatives would win and hold the majorities in both houses for the next 50 years.

Davebo
So you promote false exaggeration and hysterical "science" to get more nukes?

I have no idea what you are talking about, and suspect you don't either.

But hey, if you'd rather spend 30% more money and up to 30% more time per plant to get reduced efficiency AND safety, build it in your backyard.

Me, I think that building an astonishing 54 new nuclear power plants in only twenty years which supply almost 80% of your country's electricity needs is pretty cool.

And seriously, I'll leave the hysterical science to the base of your party. If they want to teach their children that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church I'm all for it.

I apologize if you count yourself among that group of useful fools in advance.

Tom

boris: "Who says it's a problem?"

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An overwhelming majority of scientists througout the world.

Other than that...nobody.

Rick Ballard

Sue,

Envirofaith is a gift of Gaia. Don't feel badly about not being gifted because I believe that she restricts it to those at the -1SD IQ level.

Tom

Davebo: BRAVO...and...DITTO.

Great Banana

Let's assume for a moment that global warming is real and is significantly man-made.

Let's next assume that it is a threat - that sea levels will rise a few inches, etc.

there is nothing that can be done short of unilateral suicide, b/c the greatest current polluters (china, india, developing nations) are not going to agree to your solutions.

So, what the left is asking the U.S. to do, is commit economic suicide to no purpose.

Sue

Are you actually saying that the latest report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is nothing more than "hysterical science?"

I don't know if that is what he is saying, but I am.

Semanticleo

"So, what the left is asking the U.S. to do, is commit economic suicide to no purpose."

Is that a capitulation to our status as
'Leader of the Free World', or is my definition of leadership taken from the wrong dictionary?

Extraneus

But isn't that the idea, GB?

Sue

Envirofaith is a gift of Gaia.

I know. And I really don't feel bad.

Sue

If they want to teach their children that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church I'm all for it.

How cute. Adam and Eve did not have dinosaurs, just for the record.

boris

"Who says it's a problem?"

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Then quote where they say natural warming is a "problem" or ever has been in the past.

Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs

What's with the bible bashing? Is this really a religious conflict for your side?

Syl

OT

I can't believe the chickens around here. Look at the results of the latest vizu poll top right. LOL

Am I the only one who would date someone just to get a ride in a neat car?

Guess so.

Joe Gloor

From this website:
http://www.sepp.org/index.html
which is the Science & Environmental Policy Project
From the "quote of the week"
“The fact that climate change is so uncertain and so expensive is exactly why collectivists have swarmed to the cause. The scope of the problem can never be identified, its cost never quantified, and complete solutions will never be found. The perfect issue for people whose primary goal is the expansion of government control." ---Anon.

Cecil Turner

However I think you'll disgree with another suggestion.

Why d'you think that? I think we're about 25 years late (and counting) with the next one built . . . I'm having a hard time getting excited about individual plant (or cookie-cutter) design details.

Am I the only one who would date someone just to get a ride in a neat car?

No, you're just the only one who'll admit it in an online poll.

Sua Sponte

"Am I the only one who would date someone just to get a ride in a neat car?"

I'm wondering about the folks who said they weren't sure. Does that mean it depends on the car? Isn't that a yes?

boris

Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider:

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Kinda says it all.

Southside

The real problem is the science so far is extremely shoddy. Historical records are being "adjusted" to fall in line with the Hockey Stick, data access is denied to those who want to verify models, statistics are used poorly, and peer review has turned into a pat on the back. There may indeed be AGW, but the way it has been researched so far leaves not only questions, but also gives science a bad rap. I strongly urge anyone who's interested to go to Steve McIntyre's
ClimateAudit
The science can get a bit difficult, but it's not impossible to get a good idea of the work he and a number of other people are doing. For the record he tries to keep politics out of it, and will close comments if they wander too far in that direction.

Terrye

Tom:

I do think a great deal of it is nonsense. I really do. Even the UN is getting in on the act. And needless to say if we just come up with some nice carbon swappping thingee they can run it for us. Or better yet some carbon tax they could take control of {like they did the Oil for Food Program} and then they could use the resources to save Planet Earth. gag me.

Just because Al Gore and his followers do not want to acknowledge the scientists brave enough to commit heresy and say there is something to debate here....does not mean that everything has been settled.

My parents were kids during the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma back in the dirty 30's. A quarter of a million people were displaced. Hundreds of thousands were destitute and hungry. Dirt from the Plains was being dumped on ships 300 miles out to sea...it was the greatest weather disaster in the history of the United States and most of the people forced to leave their homes did not even have electricity. I can not imagine the hysterical reaction to something like that today. There was bad weather before the SUV.

One of the reasons the dark ages ended, was global warming and the increased food production and population that came with it.

So it seems to me that there are two main components to the global warming hysteria: one is that until there were cars and clothes dryers the weather was always good and everybody even the butterflies were happy....and global warming is always bad.

The truth is a drop of temperature would be a lot more dangerous to people than a rise in temperatures

But you know what? If it is so important to the Democrats..then they should drag out that old Kyoto Protocol thing and vote on it. The last time they had a chance the voted 95-0 for Byrd and Hagel's bill which killed it, but what the hell...why just preen and posture, vote again.

BTW, this old world has been through a lot of changes. Maybe the truth is that there is no normal.

PeterUK

"Are you actually saying that the latest report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is nothing more than "hysterical science?""

Not at all - the report is a FRAUD,the science was trimmed to fit the political conclusions made by the Panel BEFORE the scientific reports were made.Anything that contradicted the preconceived party line of the panel was fudged or omitted.
Surely the word "Intergovernmental" give you a clue to the political basis of the report?

Gary Maxwell

OK while not a scientist I have read a lot about this recently and despite what some want to claim, there is no consensus at all about anything other than the fact that very recently in the Earth history we have seen a rise in Earth's average temperature about about .6 degree Celcius.

It is not the overwhelming consensus of scientists that "anthropologist" ( read man made ) global warming is even a significant factor. It is even less widely held that man is the most signifcant or only factor.

Then of course as others have said there is the question of what the results of any man made global warming might be, and finally there is the major question as to whether there is much that we can do about it and at what cost.

My take on the whole is we need a lot more data and a lot less hype and hysteria. And then I want to see studies which would cost out the current solutions versus costs to adapt to the new normal. Somehow, I have a current sense that this will be the ultimate approach. And when some of the hysteria mongers start pushing nuclear power, I will have a larger inclination to listen to them as it is truly carbon neutral. Somehow that is never the solution proposed however.

BarbaraS

What I find fascinating about leftys is the solid adherence to the e-mails they get from moveon.org every day. They never deviate from the theme of the day. They quote in lock-step the same meme never even changing the format no matter if its Bush bashing, global warming, environmentalism or Scooter Libby. All leftys join in and argue with the same words. Utterly fascinating. Or maybe just sheep driven from one pasture to another.

PeterUK

On the coattails of Global Warming come

PeterUK

the extermination camps


Joe Gloor

PeterUK -
Standard "Western" dialogue right before the
"Injuns" attack:

Cowboy 1) "Sure is quiet."

Cowboy 2) "Too quiet."

MikeS

I think now is the time for the introduction of a bill to finance the construction of sea walls in the low lying areas of the U.S. that might be affected by the inundation.

Sen. James Inhofe could introduce it. I would like to see who votes for the Inundation Adaptation and Protection Act.

Jadegold
From this website: http://www.sepp.org/index.html which is the Science & Environmental Policy Project

I guess the words "science" and "environmental" in the organization's name fooled you into believing said organization has a shred of credibility.

Joe Gloor

MikeS I think now is the time for the introduction of a bill to finance the construction of sea walls in the low lying areas of the U.S. that might be affected by the inundation.

They'd only need to be 2-3 feet tall, though, right?

Joe Gloor

Jadegold I guess the words "science" and "environmental" in the organization's name fooled you into believing said organization has a shred of credibility.

Well at least this guy has some credentials.

S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute (Oakland, CA). He served as the founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and was Vice Chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. He is the author of Hot Talk, Cold Science, and his most recent book Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years is on the New York Times bestseller list.

What are yours?

Rick Ballard

Peter,

Dammit man, those are nature preserves. We're never gonna get Greenfleece™©® (pat. pend.) off the ground using that kind of marketing. Don't forget - the free visits to the preserves after they buy a Indigene Carbon Offset Policy are so cheap because the tickets are solo andante.

BTW - Utah is a no go, Greenland offered some great tax incentives.

MikeS

They'd only need to be 2-3 feet tall, though, right?

That would have to be decided in committee. I think it would be much more entertaining than the current round of ludicrous inquisitions

Gary Maxwell

OT but damn funny

when you have lost Lou Dobbs, you have sunk to lows the Democrats have not plumbed recently. Read this, ignor the Bush bashing it is standard Dobbs fare, he cant help it. But feel the contempt for Congress and its new landlords and just imagine what the average
American is feeling! Might be one of the shortest reigns in history.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/21/dobbs.March22/index.html>Dobbs Rant

Semanticleo

"What I find fascinating about leftys is the solid adherence to the e-mails they get from moveon.org every day. They never deviate from the theme of the day."

There is some good to be found in
Rightism. They're excellent teachers.

Charlie (Colorado)

The greatest problem has been, for that 70 million years, the last supercontinent break-up and the increased speed of plate tectonics draining vast, shallow seas that were over the Americas, Africa, Europe and Asia.

Right!

Re-unite Gondwandaland!

Charlie (Colorado)

I side with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world who agree with Gore.

Tom, there's only two problems with this:

(1) it's less than clear that the "overwhelming majority" or scientists actually agree with Gore. In fact, even among the strongest proponents of the AGW theory, there are a lot who don't agree with Gore. As was noted in the hearings, even the IPCC doesn't agree with Gore at a quantitative level to within an order of magnitude. (For example, 23 inches vs 20 feet.)

(2) Science isn't done by majority rule anyway.

Whitehall

As a proud member of the nuclear power industry I can say that I would not feel right about a mandate to build new plants because of GW.

I am very skeptical of the motives of the GW camp. They want power, first and foremost. I suspect that they are funded in part by FSB.

Can someone do a search of registered foreign agents in the US of Gazprom?

PeterUK

Rick,
That one isn't mine.
I put Semanticleo on eBay,up to $2.75 after only six days.A middle eastern gentleman,who described himself as a "collector", did offer a Buy It Now for $3.50,but he was put off by her cranial yeast infection.
The "Save The Planet,donate your carbon to Gaia" campaign is going well.

windansea

London - An American Airlines pilot arrested at an airport security check-in after reportedly arriving for duty drunk was found not guilty by a British court yesterday after telling a jury that he must have consumed a third of a bottle of Irish whiskey in his sleep. James Yates, 46, was found to be almost eight times over the legal limit to fly an aircraft shortly before he was scheduled to take the controls of a Boeing 767 carrying 181 passengers from Manchester in northern England to the US city of Chicago in February last year.

Sue

was found not guilty by a British court yesterday after telling a jury that he must have consumed a third of a bottle of Irish whiskey in his sleep.

Libby should have spoken with that pilot before testifying.

takenaway

Semanticleo
That was really lame

Extraneus

I'm on board with Cecil and Gary and others. Anyone who wails about Global Warming and doesn't also advocate nuclear energy is simply a fraud.

How about Dr. S. Fred? Is he a big nuclear energy proponent?

ed

Hmmm.

Frankly I think one of the driving forces in the whole global warming nonsense is the tendency of liberals to believe that they have control where they actually don't.

Look at "forest management". Seriously. Does anyone anywhere really manage forests?

Or recycling, which is generally a money losing effort. But separating bottles from cans makes people, particularly baby-boomers, think they're actually accomplishing something. Even if someone simply dumps two separate loads of bottles and cans into a landfill later on.

Rick Ballard

Now Ed, recycling is a religious rite. It's an act of penance and contrition in order to mitigate the very close to intolerable sin of existence.

You must be an agaiaist.

Tom Maguire

if that's the case, then Tom has nothing to complain about in Milbank's treatment of Inhofe's remarks either.

But really your point falls apart because of that.

It is a distinction without a difference *in the context of that speech* - I have included in an UPDATE a couple of extra paragraphs from his conclusion, repeated here:

[Dr. Seitz says that] There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earthʼs atmosphere and disruption of the Earthʼs climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.

Inhofe certainly believes that the notion of a man-made catastrophe is a hoax.

He may also believe that we are witnessing a mainly non-man-made non-catastrophe, although he seems to have acknowledged the possibility of some human role (just not a dominant one).

Javani

Inhofe said,

"the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"

Which is wrong.

It may "become" the greatest hoax but is not now because its purposes have yet to be enacted in the United States. Arguably it is the greatest hoax in European history because the motivational purposes have been realized there: carbon market trading systems. Ya know, the ones Enron advocated.

I had a discussion today with a Gore believer. When I denied carbon-derived man made global warming he stared at me and stated whether I believe the earth is warming or not. I said yes - which terribly confused him.

I did score points asking him why Gore talks so little about getting us off oil and converting vehicles to electricity, nat gas and/or hydrogen. He nodded and said, "I noticed that."

I said I'll tell him the financial reasons why tomorrow. ;)

Javani

"although he seems to have acknowledged the possibility of some human role"

Here's a question,

If AGW temps have increased at a steady rate the last thirty years,

The same for CO2,

But methane increases stopped about 10 years ago,

and methane is about 10x more effective as a GHG than CO2,

why is this not reflected in the temps?

Answer:

Something else is involved.


Tom Maguire

Anyway, my official editorial rhetorical question is this:

it is crystal clear from Inhofe's 2003 speech and his 2005 characterization of it that he believs talk of a man-made global warming catastrophe is a hoax. It is far from clear whether he holds the more extreme view that all talk of a man-made role in global warming is a hoax. In his 2003 speech he talks about the uncertainty in estimating the human impact, but I didn't notice a killer quote where he says, in effect, since there is uncertainty about the human impact I conclude there is zero human impact.

So why insist on imputing to him the extreme, easily caricatured view?

Like I said, a rhetorical question.

Jadegold
Well at least this guy has some credentials.

Credentials aren't the issue; credibility is.

Singer has none.

Singer (and his family) has eked out a nice career defending various corporations and industries WRT their negative externalities in return for money.

Problem is, he has often been caught--how shall we say this nicely---not always telling the truth about his ties to such industries and the financial arragements. Here is a small summary of Singer's...ummm...difficulties with the truth.

boris

Credentials aren't the issue;

Yes they are. What are yours?

Tom Maguire

So it's actually TM in this case who owes the correction

Hell will freeze. And if it does, try to square *that* with global warming.

As to Inhofe's beliefs about whether it is man-made, this is in his second paragraph:

But anyone who pays even cursory attention to the issue understands that scientists vigorously disagree over whether human activities are responsible for global warming, or whether those activities will precipitate apocalyptic natural disasters.

Not exactly saying "there is no man-made component".

boris

Tom Maguire

I side with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world who agree with Gore.

Well, agreeing that there is a man-made phenomena is only the first step - do the overwhelming majority of scientists also agree with Al about policy prescriptions?

And what is it about the study of, say, climatology that uniquely qualifies a practicioner to opine on the cost/benefits of more nukes, or a greater investment in malaria prevention as alternatives to some of the more expensive ways of reducing carbon emissions?

boris

Even if the man made component was 50-50, what is the argument that the natural 50 is good and the man made 50 is bad?

If that argument is bogus then so is the hysteria.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame