California Greenie Issues Ultimatum to Oklahoma

[Chicken Little]

I hate self-righteous crap.  It doesn't matter what side they're on.

Author Jane Smiley offers this at HuffPo:

quote: Do I Really Care about Oklahoma?

...In a democracy, the citizens are responsible. In the end, they can only plead that they were ignorant or misled or lied to or tricked for a few years. After that, it is their responsibility to get a clue and get rid of the officials who have been misleading them, or lying to them, or tricking them, and also the ones who are as dumb as a bag of hammers, as Senator Inhofe repeatedly reveals himself to be. All wounds, in a democracy, are ultimately self-inflicted...

I think Inhofe is a fool, too, that's not the point.  The point here is that she never cared about Oklahoma in the first place.  Now she's made us a convenient scapegoat.  Hey, California-lady, who pollutes more, your state or ours?  How many miles a year do you put on your car getting from sprawling suburb to sprawling suburb?  What's up with that Colorado River that you sucked dry in order to grow spinich in a semi-desert?

Does she know how we changed the way we manage our environment (decades ago) so that we'll never see another dust bowl?  Does she know that we are "recycling" old oil fields right this second, making our country a little more energy independent?  Does she know about our wind farms?

Sure, Inhofe's a joke, but he's not the problem.  California's the PROBLEM.

[Conan71]

I'm curious as to how many people who have taken this "global fever" thing hook, line, and sinker have really bothered to pour over the data from the opposing viewpoint, also by very credible scientists.  Inhoffe, has in fact, looked in-depth at both sides of the issue and is satisfied there is too much hype about global warming, as have many other people.  He claims to have originally been on board with the GW crowd until he really looked at the issue in-depth.

IMO- it's more political fear-mongering to win votes.  For some reason all politicians must think everyone votes based on fear.

The only reason I go to HuffPo is to look at Arriana's mug.  She's too pretty to be that liberal, well there again:

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I'm curious as to how many people who have taken this "global fever" thing hook, line, and sinker have really bothered to pour over the data from the opposing viewpoint, also by very credible scientists.  Inhoffe, has in fact, looked in-depth at both sides of the issue and is satisfied there is too much hype about global warming, as have many other people.  He claims to have originally been on board with the GW crowd until he really looked at the issue in-depth.

IMO- it's more political fear-mongering to win votes.  For some reason all politicians must think everyone votes based on fear.

The only reason I go to HuffPo is to look at Arriana's mug.  She's too pretty to be that liberal, well there again:

There's no "data" from the opposing viewpoint.  Global warming is happening because of us (well, California mostly), it's only the consequences of it that are in dispute.  It's ignorant for this lady to link recent droughts and wildfires to global warming.  

I particularly like how she projects her own state's water problems onto us.  The majority of the state has an abundance of water; that was an environmental management problem we figured out 80 years ago.  They're the ones trying to grow zoysia in a desert and we're the dumb-dumbs.  Nice.

[Conan71]

No data?  Huh?

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

This link is full of other links to data, take your pick.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

There's no "data" from the opposing viewpoint.  Global warming is happening because of us (well, California mostly), it's only the consequences of it that are in dispute.  It's ignorant for this lady to link recent droughts and wildfires to global warming.  
[/quote]

Look up "medieval Warm period" and you'll find plenty of opposition. Not to mention opposition to  the concept of "average planet temperature" and the glacier melting statements. The main reasons being the effects scientists are pointing out are being measured based on very small samples. Saying the ice caps are melting while only being able to sample 5% leaves room for criticism. There are no temperature probes placed evenly around the planet for the last 200 years and even the data supporting global warming shows it cooler now than 1998.

Supporting a viewpoint while denying the existence of the other viewpoint is extremely short-sighted. You can't support something when you don't know what you support.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

No data?  Huh?

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

This link is full of other links to data, take your pick.

Get with the program, man.  Inhofe was the chairman of the committee that pooped out that confused mess.  Human-caused global warming is happening, even your poo-page doesn't do much to dispel that.  Read it again.

The remaining question is, "So what?", that's the one that nobody can answer.  In my opinion, there's no good reason for us to continue to eff with mother nature for the next few centuries.  That doesn't mean I'm in a panic.  As important, the sooner we're off fossil fuels, the sooner we stop bankrolling crazy people around the world who want to blow us up.

I'm not particularly worried about droughts, hurricanes, or even sea levels.  I'd say there's a much clearer link between oil consumption and mad bombers.  That's reason enough to change our habits.

[Cubs]

She claims global warming is causing drought .... this is just wrong. Drought causes warming, warming doesn't cause drought.

And thats as far as I care to read of her article.

[waterboy]

I like the Huffington site. Read some of the five pages of responses to that piece following. Many of them from OK were much more enlightening than anything I've read in these parts. From both sides. We generally get one side in this region, the oil story.

Inhofe is a dolt who knows where the political money flows from in Northeast OK. Oil. He deserves the scorn of the rest of the country and afterall, we elected him by large margins over smarter, better candidates just because he is republican, so maybe we should shoulder some scorn also. You honestly think Inhofe ever cared about the environment Conan? Ask someone who was around the river during his mayoral administration here. It is reputed (from employees of the health dept. at that time) that he directly ordered the draining of acidic sludge pits into the river around riverparks just to save the oil companies from having to deal with it. What a guy.

And just pointing out that California has its own ignorance, which Smiley did also, is very little comfort.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

There's no "data" from the opposing viewpoint.  Global warming is happening because of us (well, California mostly), it's only the consequences of it that are in dispute.  It's ignorant for this lady to link recent droughts and wildfires to global warming.  

quote:Look up "medieval Warm period" and you'll find plenty of opposition. Not to mention opposition to  the concept of "average planet temperature" and the glacier melting statements. The main reasons being the effects scientists are pointing out are being measured based on very small samples. Saying the ice caps are melting while only being able to sample 5% leaves room for criticism. There are no temperature probes placed evenly around the planet for the last 200 years and even the data supporting global warming shows it cooler now than 1998.

Supporting a viewpoint while denying the existence of the other viewpoint is extremely short-sighted. You can't support something when you don't know what you support.

So, are you saying that we are not adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and that those gases are not trapping heat?  Please don't say, "I'm not sure", 'cause everybody but Inhofe is sure at this point.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

She claims global warming is causing drought .... this is just wrong. Drought causes warming, warming doesn't cause drought.

And thats as far as I care to read of her article.

I fully agree with the first part, but the better answer for the second part is that "Nobody can say, definitively, what the relationship between global warming and drought is."

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy


Inhofe is a dolt who knows where the political money flows from in Northeast OK. Oil. He deserves the scorn of the rest of the country and afterall, we elected him by large margins over smarter, better candidates just because he is republican, so maybe we should shoulder some scorn also. You honestly think Inhofe ever cared about the environment Conan? Ask someone who was around the river during his mayoral administration here. It is reputed (from employees of the health dept. at that time) that he directly ordered the draining of acidic sludge pits into the river around riverparks just to save the oil companies from having to deal with it. What a guy.

As opposed to Algore, who stands to profit via his investments in "global fever"- related investments?  Algore is of questionable integrity, a walking hypocrite, and poster-boy dolt for the far left.  He wouldn't be talking so loudly if he didn't stand to gain either financially or politically, that's been his proven M.O. for over 25 years.  He's hardly an altruist.  If he doesn't jump into the Democrat race for President, look for him to run as a Green Party candidate.

Inhoffe is trying to prevent the country from being dragged into a huge financial sink-hole over questionable science, which is what fully getting into bed with Kyoto would have done.

I seriously doubt, CL that you took time to read all the links which were provided in the article I posted, which was my original point.  Most people who have eaten the whole global warming scam haven't taken the time to properly analyze what the "other" scientists are saying about it.

I started out being alarmed about global warming, but the more I've read about it, the more I'm convinced the science used to support it is far from perfect and even deviates, in some cases, from common scientific and statistical protocol.

I will agree with you on one point, I'm tired of sucking off the left tit of the Middle East for our oil.  Far as I'm concerned, sell me an alt fuel vehicle that performs as my petroleum-based one does with the same reliability and they can bathe in their own oil as far as I'm concerned.

The folly in greenhouse gasses is that EPA-mandated catalytic converters convert CO to CO2.

[cannon_fodder]

Chicken little, there are many noted scientists that doubt the correlation of pollution and global warming.  The problem is, there is a witch hunt to shut them all up.  Any scientist that speaks out is labeled and removed from the 'top scientist' club.  If you pay attention, it happens all the time.

In fact, just last month the Chief Meteorologist of Oregon was fired for his views on global warming.  Saying global warming isn't proven now is like saying communism isn't all bad in the 1950's.

Even the most hardened global warming scientist cannot explain how the effects occur, the rate at which warming is taking place, nor if action will have any effects on the process.  The best guess has no correlation to actual effect man has had compared to natural climate change.  The Earth warms and cools all the time from variations in the level of radiation from the sun, slight tilts in orbit, volcanic eruptions and a host of other phenomenon.  

Does that mean global warming doesnt exist?  No, global warming certainly does exist.  For the last 11,000 years the Earth has trended up in temperature and CO2 levels in the air have risen.  Evidence suggests the Earth is 7-10 degrees warmer today than 11,000 years ago and aside from brief period (read 50-100 years) of cooler whether it has increased.

Further evidence suggests this process is becoming more rapid.  C02 buildup has accelerated in the last 150 years and the temperature appears to be rising more rapidly in the short term. We can only compare data from the time of 11,000 years ago to the mid 1800's and from the late 1800's to now.  Accurate climate data did not exist prior to the mid 1800's so it must be extrapolated and basically guessed from period prior to the mid 1600's.  So we are comparing long term trends for the first 12,000 years with relatively short term events in the last 400 years and most specifically with events in the last 200 years (such as the Little Ice Age).

Thus, we KNOW that in the last 150 years C02 has built up faster than the average rate for the last 12,000 years.  We also know that the short term temperature has climbed faster than the average for the last 12,000 years.  We can INFER that the two have something to do with each other based on a plausible green house effect.  However, assuming such as fact is drawing a conclusion where there is only a correlation.  

It is therefor wise to, and the scientific method demands that we allow dissension of the theory.  Such a requirement strengthens the premise as it is able to be revised (if no dissent is allowed it is essentially declare perfect and not subject to revision - the earth is flat) and people repeatedly fail to come up with a better explanation.  After enough review, revision, and failed attempts at better theories... the theory becomes a law until something better comes along or it is disproven (for instance, it took Newtons Gravitational Theory (Mechanics) nearly a century to be accepted as law, only to be replaced by Einsteins Theory of Relativity 150 years later).   Science must be open to dissent or it becomes religion.

Now, even IF global warming is accelerated by humans (which I suspect it is), the next question has to be what, if anything, can we do about it.  The current glut of Co2 has accumulated over the last 150 years and is accelerating. Even if the G8 nations stopped emitting industrial Co2 altogether the problem would persist as it took the earth millions if not billions of years to accumulate the Co2 in a  non-gaseous carbon state (or 6,000 years if you are a fundamentalist).    

The current talk is of stopping the acceleration of the damage.  But according to global warming alarmists the current levels of Co2 are more than enough to doom us.  Which leads to the daunting conclusion that we're screwed. So perhaps I will take that beach front property in Oklahoma.

- c_f

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

And just pointing out that California has its own ignorance, which Smiley did also, is very little comfort.

I ain't her whipping boy.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Chicken little, there are many noted scientists that doubt the correlation of pollution and global warming.  

Good point.  Let's tally:

Inhofe's scientists - 60
IPCC report scientists - 2500+

It's not exactly a coin toss, is it?

Gravity is a theory, too.  Where are the dissenters?  Why is it so hard for you all to accept what an overwhelming body of experts are accepting?

If you want a debate, there's plenty of room in the middle, i.e., what are the real effects of global warming?  That is all up in the air.  But there's no need to sit out there on the fringe with Inhofe and a few other oil industry hacks.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little


Gravity is a theory, too.  

Is not.