Inhofe

[joiei]

Senator Inhofe speaking in Congress

quote: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who has compared people who raise awareness about the climate crisis to the Third Reich, lied about former colleague Al Gore on the Senate floor today. He claimed that "everything" in An Inconvenient Truth — Vice President Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on climate change — has "been refuted many times" by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

[FOTD]

There is an existing thread further testifying to this man's lack of integrity and shameful behavior. These comments pale in comparrison to Malarkey's use of our vets for political purposes. His flip flop at the last minute on Sen. Webb's recent GI Bill was nothing but a stroke of betrayal to American Troops and those supporting Malarkey's war mongoring.

http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9545

Andrew Rice for Senate!

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by joiei

Senator Inhofe speaking in Congress

quote: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who has compared people who raise awareness about the climate crisis to the Third Reich, lied about former colleague Al Gore on the Senate floor today. He claimed that "everything" in An Inconvenient Truth — Vice President Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on climate change — has "been refuted many times" by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

You're right that is a lie!  Only 32 of the 36 claims made in his book were questioned by the UNIPCC.  The other two were only exaggerated!   In the end the UNIPCC accepted his claims regardless of any evidence or evidence to the contrary.

The US courts however did not.  Teachers showing the film must now provide this statement to their students:


In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Truth is not necessary for a Nobel prize, only support of policies that limit the power of nations and support socialist agendas.

[Conan71]

You know when you people are sitting around in 20 years wondering why the U.S. government is taking 70% of your income in direct and indirect taxes, you might come around to less government control and programs.

Algore is a charlatan.  Footage from another movie containing styrofoam in a pool on a back lot in Hollywood to represent iceberg calving in a "documentary"?  Talk about scare tactics.

[FOTD]

When you are in the pay of Oil companies, you have to suspend belief in things like fact, evidence, researched concurrance, et cetera.


Problem with this--too many repukes believe these morons. Look at all the comments at the above thinkprogress link......

"Memo to Senator Tired Bitter Old White Guy: Go away. Go far away."

[iplaw]

quote:When you are in the pay of Oil companies

Which is nothing like being "in the pay" of government led agencies.  I guess it's okay if it's a government agency and not an oil company.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:When you are in the pay of Oil companies

Which is nothing like being "in the pay" of government led agencies.  I guess it's okay if it's a government agency and not an oil company.

Oh, quit playing stupid. Then, do you believe we should nationalize the oil companies? Do you think the government is behind global warming or are part of the big lie? Just what are you trying to say?

[cannon_fodder]

FOTD, without getting in to the actual discussion - it is possible to have very meaningful discussions about "Climate Change," it's existence or severity, and man kinds impact and/or ability to limit or reverse any damages.  Both sides can make entirely valid points and show evidence to their end.

However, the movie in question does nothing of the sort.  It exaggerates one side of the argument, shows blatantly wrong footage, and even invents story lines for certain events that have no basis in reality (in spite of Katrina, there were far fewer storms in 2007 than average years).  

If an oil company made a similar film filled with equally unsupported contentions, misleads, and false imagery it would be internationally mocked - and rightfully so.  But so long as we are trying to save the planet or it is for the children, then it's OK to spew BS.  One sided propaganda from any source just stymies the discussion and causes the other side to dig in deeper.

And, as IP pointed out - why is science as advocacy from one side better than science as advocacy from the other?  Just as surely as someone working for Exxon is hoping to prove that oil is not bad, someone working for the EPA, the wind energy coalition, or Al Gore wants to prove that it is totally evil.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

FOTD, without getting in to the actual discussion - it is possible to have very meaningful discussions about "Climate Change," it's existence or severity, and man kinds impact and/or ability to limit or reverse any damages.  Both sides can make entirely valid points and show evidence to their end.

However, the movie in question does nothing of the sort.  It exaggerates one side of the argument, shows blatantly wrong footage, and even invents story lines for certain events that have no basis in reality (in spite of Katrina, there were far fewer storms in 2007 than average years).  

If an oil company made a similar film filled with equally unsupported contentions, misleads, and false imagery it would be internationally mocked - and rightfully so.  But so long as we are trying to save the planet or it is for the children, then it's OK to spew BS.  One sided propaganda from any source just stymies the discussion and causes the other side to dig in deeper.

And, as IP pointed out - why is science as advocacy from one side better than science as advocacy from the other?  Just as surely as someone working for Exxon is hoping to prove that oil is not bad, someone working for the EPA, the wind energy coalition, or Al Gore wants to prove that it is totally evil.

More cluster bombs. Someone working for the EPA?
Oil is not evil. These advocates for a cleaner policy do not say that. They say our dependency on oil is evil. Heroin is not evil. But it's abuse sure as hell is. And science is science unless you are inserting god into the logic or using it for your own means aka oil companies. Last I looked the EPA did not need to use false claims for their own purposes. They work for the public good... Yada yada yada to your bombs about the movie.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:When you are in the pay of Oil companies

Which is nothing like being "in the pay" of government led agencies.  I guess it's okay if it's a government agency and not an oil company.

Oh, quit playing stupid. Then, do you believe we should nationalize the oil companies? Do you think the government is behind global warming or are part of the big lie? Just what are you trying to say?

I think my post was abundantly clear.  You accused Inhofe of taking oil money as if he really doesn't believe what he says but is just a mouthpiece for "big oil", but you simultaneously fail to appreciate that most proponents of AGW who further the hype take money from government agencies and directly or indirectly profit off of AGW.  

Look no further than your buddy Algore who is setting himself up nicely to profit off of AGW hype with his hedge fund which will reap profits from companies benefiting from massive governmental regulations.

[cannon_fodder]

I write short posts for you.

Movie bad.  Only give one side.  Not good to talk about.

Both side have points.  Can make in good ways.  Should talk.  Not be stupid.  That do no good.
- - -

Could you follow that?  If you have trouble following coherent and literate posts I can certainly try breaking it down to subject/verb statements for you.  I assume raising related issues, logic, and using examples is just flying over your head.

[iplaw]

quote:Last I looked the EPA did not need to use false claims for their own purposes. They work for the public good...

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinking liberal.  The government never does anything for its own purposes, they only work for the public good...

[xx(]

Welcome to Obamaville, where the answer to everything is more governmental regulation please!

[Gaspar]

I think it was scarier back when it was Global Warming.  Climate change is just something we deal with every day here in Oklahoma.  

I'v read that they are going to change it again to "Global Crisis".  

That way they can start to include elements outside of climate, such as medical anomalies.

I think this hobgoblin is nearly dead!  


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. – H.L. Mencken

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Last I looked the EPA did not need to use false claims for their own purposes. They work for the public good...

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinking liberal.  The government never does anything for its own purposes, they only work for the public good...

[xx(]

Welcome to Obamaville, where the answer to everything is more governmental regulation please!

Well, better more efficient government regulation is the answer. When the dust settles on all the missed over sight by Bushco, everyone will be in shock at what went on......Enronesque. Hopefully, our economy will survive the loosening that went on through the last 8 years. But not without a lot of struggle to close the gap on a 13 TRILLION dollar debt crisis created by the Repiglican Party leadership..

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FauxTurD
Well, better more efficient government regulation is the answer.

I can only hope that this the platform that Obama runs on.  

You do realize that terms "efficiency" and "government" are mutually exclusive?

Are you going to respond to my previous post or are you going to move on to another topic like usual?