Inhofe: Global Warming Ppl, "The Third Reich"

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

So it isn't viable for AEP-PSO to put up those wind turbines in the western part of the state?

Funny ... you'd think if it wasn't viable, they wouldn't be doing it.

Do your research.  Possibility and viability shouldn't be confused.  Look at the numbers and you will see that to make a significant dent in the current energy climate you need far more wind turbines than we would be willing to put up with.  Not to mention the enviro freaks already on the warpath complaining of aesthetic and environmental damage.

Even if wind power was the answer it does nothing to solve our current energy crisis over vehicle fuel as they pertain to two different energy needs.

Chicken Little:

I am 100% on the alternative fuel bandwagon.  I just don't happen to think solar and wind are the way to go when you look at the statistics.  I think E85 and biodiesel are wonderful and if Brazil can make it happen so can we.

[Cubs]

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

Inhofe not smart man. Global warming God's truth. Being punished for sins of liberals. [:O]

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

Like your ball team..... loser.
It's about keeping the house clean for the future... do you poop where you eat?

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

I'm curious how many other people, especially Oklahoman's, believe Inhofe and support his ultra-conservative drivel?  You obviously do, may I ask why?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Oh, no more on Iraq please, I beg you.  I hate to tell you but I can't also cite to numerous experts who say that the human factor in global warming tenuous if not bogus.  Comes down to dueling experts, nothing more, but to say no scientific debate exists is a lie.  Just because one side of the debate declares it finished doesn't mean it's so.

quote:
If a few million windmills and solar panels can kill two birds with one stone, I'm all for it.

It won't.  Nuclear is the only viable alternative, but it won't solve our vehicle fuel issue as the two are distinct problems.

I'd be really interested in seeing a list of some of the experts that say that we're not in a state of global warming. And I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly types. I'm talking about credentialed physical scientists, meteorologists, etc. Can ya get us a list, iplaw?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

I'm curious how many other people, especially Oklahoman's, believe Inhofe and support his ultra-conservative drivel?  You obviously do, may I ask why?

There have been Republican politicians that I've been able to respect. I like McCain--I even agree with him a lot of the time. I disagreed with a lot of Bob Dole's politics but I doubt that there have been very many to walk the halls of Congress who had his kind of integrity. But Jim Inhofe is one of the sleaziest people that the good people of Oklahoma have ever been fool enough to re-elect.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

Global warming is not a lie; its real.  The world does go through cycles, but over 900 scientists at the ISCC agree that we are currently contributing to global warming.  Nobody knows if the current warming trend is entirely man-made, or if we are in fact just adding to a natural cycle.  Either way, is that an excuse to bury our heads in the sand?  'Cause that's what Inhofe seems to want us to do.  Ignore it.  I wonder why he'd advocate a strategy like that? Hmmm...

I'm sure that this moral man wouldn't be swayed by any of these contributors:

1 Oil & Gas $311,208
2 Electric Utilities $180,907
3 Retired $145,771
4 General Contractors $116,611
5 Leadership PACs $100,347
6 Lobbyists $99,741
7 Lawyers/Law Firms $95,372
8 Commercial Banks $79,925
9 Health Professionals $77,550
10 Building Materials & Equipment $75,267
11 Air Transport $75,069
12 Insurance $72,171
13 Automotive $63,250
14 Misc Finance $61,500
15 Defense Aerospace $60,500
16 Real Estate $58,555
17 Business Services $53,766
18 Mining $52,600
19 Pro-Israel $49,300
20 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $47,010

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.

Global warming is not a lie; its real.  The world does go through cycles, but over 900 scientists at the ISCC agree that we are currently contributing to global warming.  Nobody knows if the current warming trend is entirely man-made, or if we are in fact just adding to a natural cycle.  Either way, is that an excuse to bury our heads in the sand?  'Cause that's what Inhofe seems to want us to do.  Ignore it.  I wonder why he'd advocate a strategy like that? Hmmm...

I'm sure that this moral man wouldn't be swayed by any of these contributors:

1 Oil & Gas $311,208
2 Electric Utilities $180,907
3 Retired $145,771
4 General Contractors $116,611
5 Leadership PACs $100,347
6 Lobbyists $99,741
7 Lawyers/Law Firms $95,372
8 Commercial Banks $79,925
9 Health Professionals $77,550
10 Building Materials & Equipment $75,267
11 Air Transport $75,069
12 Insurance $72,171
13 Automotive $63,250
14 Misc Finance $61,500
15 Defense Aerospace $60,500
16 Real Estate $58,555
17 Business Services $53,766
18 Mining $52,600
19 Pro-Israel $49,300
20 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $47,010

If that doesn't show you the ulterior motives behind Inhofe's agenda and the Republican Party in general you are blind and/or naive.  Supporting an organization that supports rampant corruption and environmental degradation while also promoting "family (Christian) values" is hypocrisy at its best.

[iplaw]

I sure can.  Just give me a bit papaspot. And BTW, was that a jab at me? Just curious.

[iplaw]

Here are a few:

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia

Ross McKitrick (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago... [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."

William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air's increased greenhouse gas content."

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project: has changed his position from "The earth is not warming significantly" (paraphrase) to "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it"

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. Dr. Carter says, "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Dr. Patterson states, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa, writes: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005

Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."

Here is a link that lists some of these experts and more:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm

I only list these individuals to show that we can do the dance of dueling experts all day long.  There is no consensus.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

From the Tulsa World:

quote:  ...Is U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who believes that manmade global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," losing the public relations battle on that issue?

The Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee concedes that those on the other side of the global warming debate have dominated the air waves lately, but he remains confident that his side will be proved right in the end...  

-----------------

The article is just your normal Oklahoma Senatorial lunacy, but the really fun stuff is the lib comments at thinkprogress.org. Somebody calls him Senator Blutarsky, as in, "Zero. Point. Zero."

Holy crap, there's some grade-A snark there (over 150 posts!):

------
"Senator, you are a dolt and an idiot.
As Earth becomes Hell, watch & learn.
You may have the perfect family, but all is naught when you decide most of the people I created are beneath you. I don't recall appointing you anyone's personal Ayatollah of Ethics, including he with the name of vegetation.  Beware! I am an angry God, & right now I'm really p*ssed at you.
See you Sunday,"
------
"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA!!!!!!!!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA!!!!!!!!
Citizens of Oklahoma, I beg of you, please just use some common sense next time you go to the polls. Both senators from your state are a national security threat."
------
"Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the water in Oklahoma?!?! This is a serious question. I demand answers!!!"
------

These same enviromental wack jobs believed in global cooling around 30 years ago,they even claimed there was evidence on temperatures lowering.Now these same scumbag anti-american enviromentalist nutjobs claim there is all this global warming and it's man's fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.


Jim Inhofe must have not smoked his brain cells away with heavy drug use considering the fact he still remembers the global cooling nonsense by the enviromentalist wack jobs

[iplaw]

Shhhh.  They don't want you to remember about global cooling.

[rwarn17588]

I'm going to add fodder to the debate. Cecil Adams, the respected science columnist for the Chicago Reader and other newspapers, weighed in about global warming a few weeks ago.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html

[aoxamaxoa]

http://www.internetweekly.org/2006/07/cartoon_senator_inhofe_vs_the_babes.html