Inhofe: Global Warming Ppl, "The Third Reich"

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I could keep going, but I want to get out and enjoy my evening lol. Its Friday!!!! woo hooo[8D]

Just for fun and amusement, I'll take it up where you left off.

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey


5.  Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.

Scientists who work for and/or hold stock in the petroleum and coal industries are more inclined to deny that global warming is contributed to by  the actions of man than those that don't depend on petroleum and coal industries for income.

quote:
6.  And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years?  One degree.  That's it.  Just one degree.

Well, I gotta admit that it sounds pretty insignificant when you spin it like THAT. But the truth is that the biggest part of that increase came in the last few years of the last 100 years. You also ignore the fact that the rate of increase was (and will be) exponential due to the greenhouse effect. The increase for the last 100 years was one degree. The predicted increase for the NEXT 100 years (LESS than 100 years, actually) is between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees.

National Geographic

Do a little research and see what effect this will have on sea levels and what effect each foot in rise of sea levels will have on high population areas like the eastern seaboard.

quote:
7.  Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements.  So, what is their true goal?  Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?

Many of the people who are involved in denying man-made global warming are also involved in promoting the health and profit of big oil. They want to turn America into an aristocracy because they hate America like she is. (That sounds pretty absurd but it's no more ludicrous than your argument.

quote:
8.  The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0.  This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?

LOL! Yes, we all know that the Senate (and Congress in general) is ALWAYS INFORMED of all issues before they vote. [}:)]

In response to your spin about the vote being during the Clinton Administration, I won't bother to steal the thunder from your spin by pointing out that this was done by a REPUBLICAN Senate because many Democratic senators ALSO received large campaign donations from petroleum industry lobbyists.

quote:
9.  Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone!  China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.  Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?

If you didn't destroy your credibility with invalid points and spin, you reveal your true mentality with this "anti-American" bull crap. It takes a very arrogant and narrow-minded mental midget to ASSume that disagreeing with a right winger equates to being "anti-American". You wanna know what's "anti-American"? Crapping all over our children and grand children's future just so big oil can make obscene profits is "anti-American". Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

[LilMikey]

Some evolutionists put the earth's age ay millions of years.  Creationists, however, put the earth's age at between 5 and ten thousand.  Just for the sake of arguement let's assume the creationist theory is correct and the earth is only about ten thousand years old.  (Remember, this is only for an example.)

Out of ten thousand years, we have only had the technology to "detect" global warming for about 50 years (75 tops), that makes the above figures 50 in 10,000 (roughly putting the odds at 1 in 200).

Ain't it wonderful that we just happened to discover this technology just in the nick of time to avert a catastrophic demise?  (For those of you who couldn't figure it out, I am being sarcastic here.)

One creative person took my points and put
1.  Source?
2.  Source?
3.  Source?
4.  Source?
etc.  You get the idea.

For the sun getting warmer, I Googled "Is the Sun Getting Warmer?" What came up were literally thousands of websites (including NASA) each providing evidence that the sun is indeed getting warmer.

Furthermore, the current scientists conveniently forget that the earth has indeed warmed up tremendously BEFORE we had the technology.  Events like the Oklahoma Dustbowl occurred before we even knew what the greenhouse effect was.  

The science at best just seems a little too convenient, if not self-serving for personal political interests.

[rwarn17588]

Who's to say whether scientists have a political axe to grind?

Other than the Bush Administration being demonstrably hostile to science in general.

Never mind.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey

Some evolutionists put the earth's age ay millions of years.  Creationists, however, put the earth's age at between 5 and ten thousand.  Just for the sake of arguement let's assume the creationist theory is correct and the earth is only about ten thousand years old.  (Remember, this is only for an example.)

Out of ten thousand years, we have only had the technology to "detect" global warming for about 50 years (75 tops), that makes the above figures 50 in 10,000 (roughly putting the odds at 1 in 200).

LOL! Can you say "circular argument"? You base your argument on an assumption that most people do not accept and then use the assumption as evidence.

quote:
Ain't it wonderful that we just happened to discover this technology just in the nick of time to avert a catastrophic demise?  (For those of you who couldn't figure it out, I am being sarcastic here.)

You don't keep up with science much, do ya? This is not new technology.

quote:
One creative person took my points and put
1.  Source?
2.  Source?
3.  Source?
4.  Source?
etc.  You get the idea.

You seem to be about the only one that has yet to offer a single source.

quote:
For the sun getting warmer, I Googled "Is the Sun Getting Warmer?" What came up were literally thousands of websites (including NASA) each providing evidence that the sun is indeed getting warmer.

Already addressed. Already refuted.

quote:
Furthermore, the current scientists conveniently forget that the earth has indeed warmed up tremendously BEFORE we had the technology.  Events like the Oklahoma Dustbowl occurred before we even knew what the greenhouse effect was.  

Did you bother to read my post? Did you bother to read anyone's sources? Did you bother to read ANYTHING?

Ya know what? People used to believe that people with epilepsy were possessed by demons. How CONVENIENT that they discovered that demons WEREN'T the cause just in time to prevent some people from being locked up for demon possession. Coincidence? I don't THINK so!

The greenhouse effect was pretty mild in the dust bowl days. And NO one has said that there are not cyclic fluctuations. But the fact that some greenhouse gasses are 27% HIGHER than they've been in over a half million years (before which no one has yet been able to measure) suggests very strongly that this is a little more than a fluctuation.

quote:
The science at best just seems a little too convenient, if not self-serving for personal political interests.

Political interests? You mean political interests like oil company profits?

[aoxamaxoa]

More....off topic to some degree. Now our over the hill senator claims there is no nor will be civil war in Iraq. What a joke.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060805_Ne_A1_Inhof6004_0

[aoxamaxoa]

CODE BLUE
Could global warming melt the Republican majority?
http://www.slate.com/id/2146980/

Make okies look big across the nation by calling for Senator Inhofe's resignation.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060805_Ne_A1_Inhof6004_0
How does one go about removing a Senator from his high horse office?

Rummy too....

http://www.internetweekly.org/2006/08/cartoon_rummy_comics.html

[TheArtist]

Again,

 Yes the sun has been getting warmer.  But the percentage of that warming is not enough to account for the amount of warming that has been noticed.

  Also the warming (indicated by sunspot activity) has leveled off yet the earth has still been been getting even warmer.

 We KNOW what greenhouse gases do.  Just like we KNOW what the sun does.  More of either push it to be warmer. No matter what planet you are on.

If you could decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere you could make the earth colder despite the sun warming.  You could make venus colder than the earth if you removed enough greenhouse gases and Mars warmer than the earth if you added enough. Yes the sun has an effect but so do greenhouse gasses. And we are putting more into the atmosphere, Are we not?

 The real questions are.... Whats the extent or degree of the effect our greenhouse gases are having on the earth when ALSO considering natural and manmade cooling and heating effects? Aaand is this causing AND OR exacerbating what we have been seeing?


 The amount of increased warming from the sun is not enough to account for the warming thats been seen.

 I am not at the point where I know if the balance of all the natural and man made warming and cooling effects can prove that what we are doing is causing this recent warming trend.  But from the info I have seen, more and more the evidence keeps pointing in that direction.  Time, and more info, will tell.

[LilMikey]

Yes, Papaspot - this is relatively new technology.

Almost ALL major technology that we currently enjoy has only been in existance since the 1950's - - - 1930's at the earliest. The actual technology being used as sensory techniques as well as data storage is even newer.  If you can think of ANY technology we are using which was invented before the time frame I've mentioned, I would certainly be interested in hearing about it.  Again, using the creationist theory (and it is ONLY  a theory), we just developed this technology just in the nick of time . . .


And as far as using the creationist example, I was simply going by the youngest estimates.  If you use the oldest estimates, my point is even more vivid (the odds are much longer).

Before we ever invented the idea of global warming, the record high temperature ever recotred was in 1922 when the mercury climbed to 132 in Lybia  The highest ever recorded in the United States was in 1913 when it reached  134 in Death Valley.  Both records ocurred before the Chicken Little science was introduced, and since then we haven't come close to breaking the records.  (And for those who yell about my sources, use Google.  It will take you to a lot of sites like weather.com, NOAA and so forth.  But if you type in "global warming," most of what you will find are left-wing groups; very little science.)

Also, I know one other thing people love to yeall about is that our polar caps are melting.  Well, guess what.  The polar caps are also melting on Mars.  Global warming warming there too?  

And yes, some of the scientists have political agendas, too.  After all, most of them are in competition for government funding - the more doomsday forecasts their data can produce, the more money they can coax from the system.

One more thing, everytime we have a hurricane, someone blames it on global warming.  Harsh winters have been blamed on global warming.  Too much rain has been blamed on global warming.  Not enough rain has been blamed on global warming.  Too many tornadoes - global warming.  So many claims, and the believability factor completely falls out of site.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey

Yes, Papaspot - this is relatively new technology.

Almost ALL major technology that we currently enjoy has only been in existance since the 1950's - - - 1930's at the earliest. The actual technology being used as sensory techniques as well as data storage is even newer.  If you can think of ANY technology we are using which was invented before the time frame I've mentioned, I would certainly be interested in hearing about it.  Again, using the creationist theory (and it is ONLY  a theory), we just developed this technology just in the nick of time . . .

1930s? LOL! You DON'T keep up with going on in science. I would hardly call a scientific technology from the 1930s NEW.

quote:
And as far as using the creationist example, I was simply going by the youngest estimates.  If you use the oldest estimates, my point is even more vivid (the odds are much longer).

You like to ignore the fact that the technology and studies can determine greenhouse gas levels up to 600,000 years ago. Where did you ever get the idea that they have only been able to determine the composition of the atmosphere back to the 1930s?

quote:
Before we ever invented the idea of global warming, the record high temperature ever recotred was in 1922 when the mercury climbed to 132 in Lybia  The highest ever recorded in the United States was in 1913 when it reached  134 in Death Valley.  Both records ocurred before the Chicken Little science was introduced, and since then we haven't come close to breaking the records.

I see that you know little about scientific method. Temperature readings from a single day tell nothing except the temperature on that single day. I could cite just as many records from the last couple of years. Single day records mean nothing.

quote:
(And for those who yell about my sources, use Google.  It will take you to a lot of sites like weather.com, NOAA and so forth.  But if you type in "global warming," most of what you will find are left-wing groups; very little science.)

Just as I thought. You're winging it. (Right-winging it, I would say.)

quote:
Also, I know one other thing people love to yeall about is that our polar caps are melting.  Well, guess what.  The polar caps are also melting on Mars.  Global warming warming there too?  

Again, this has already been addressed. It's not my fault if you don't read the posts. I know that the Republican Party has had pretty good luck with making lies stick by repeating them over and over but that doesn't work very well here.

quote:
And yes, some of the scientists have political agendas, too.  After all, most of them are in competition for government funding - the more doomsday forecasts their data can produce, the more money they can coax from the system.

OR...the more they can keep regulations away from oil companies, the more money they make.

quote:
One more thing, everytime we have a hurricane, someone blames it on global warming.  Harsh winters have been blamed on global warming.  Too much rain has been blamed on global warming.  Not enough rain has been blamed on global warming.  Too many tornadoes - global warming.  So many claims, and the believability factor completely falls out of site.

Was there a point to this? Some things can be linked to global warming and some can't. The fact that some people may try to link some things to global warming that can't be linked doesn't mean jack.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey



Also, I know one other thing people love to yeall about is that our polar caps are melting.  Well, guess what.  The polar caps are also melting on Mars.  Global warming warming there too?  

 I have answered this one and all your other contentions in my previous posts.  Wish you would read them, we read yours.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

[TheArtist]

Just in the news today, has some interesting tidbits.

http://www.physorg.com/news74359045.html

[AVERAGE JOE]

Just called time & temperature a minute ago, and it said the temperature was 108.

I thought that had to be way off, so I turned on channel 53... it said 108 as well.

The websites for channels 6 and 8 disagree though... they say it's only 103.

At 7pm.

Wake me when it's October. [V]

[tshane250]

You know, we are just one catastrophic volcanic eruption away from an ice age or at least a cool snap.  All we really need to do to ease the warming trend is pump a lot of dust into the atmosphere to effectively block solar radiation (the human volcano effect).  Our efforts over the past few decades to reduce particulate matter while ignoring the amount of CO2 that we allow into the atmosphere has only worsened the effect of global warming.  That is if you agree that the recent increase in global temperatures is caused by one (or a few) of the myriad factors that affect climate (i.e. increases of CO2 in the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels).  

For me the cause is still up in the air.  Is what we are seeing a natural phenomenon or are we to blame?  We certainly cannot tell from weather records, as they do not go back far enough in time.  You can use dendrochronology or ice core samples, but frankly they do not reveal temperature, just growth favorability or possibly atmospheric gas content (you can certainly make inferences, however).  I am certain that the greed of man can cause all kinds of calamity; however, I am still not absolutely positive what we are seeing is solely because of us.  Nevertheless, I think we would be wise to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, not only because of their polluting nature, but because they are non-renewable.  

[april racer]

Whether you believe that humans have an impact on global warming or not , what is the harm in respecting the planet?

[Chicken Little]

Exactly, AR.  And what's the harm in developing some energy alternatives to decrease our dependence on foreign oil?