Jim Inhofe Abandoned By Fellow Republicans In Anti-Earth Crusade

Washington Post:

It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, committed climate-change denier, found himself in just such a position Tuesday morning as the Senate environment committee, on which he is the ranking Republican, took up legislation on global warming. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was in talks with Democrats over a compromise bill -- the traitor! And as Inhofe listened, fellow Republicans on the committee -- turncoats! -- made it clear that they no longer share, if they ever did, Inhofe's view that man-made global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[fumes]

01:36 PM on 11/02/2009

for the better students:

how warm do you think the surface of the earth has to be..

to be giving off significant enough infrared radiation for CO2 to trap and scatter?

and a bonus q: what is the dew point of water?

[Publicola]

01:52 PM on 11/02/2009

For the more perceptive students:

why does fumes keep asking pointless questions?

[realpolitic]

02:34 PM on 11/02/2009

Fumes, the dog ate my homework! Your question is way over my head!

[fumes]

12:58 PM on 11/02/2009

bombshell from NASA's Shindell:
"We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

so much for CO2 lol..

[Publicola]

01:48 PM on 11/02/2009

* That study was published inspring from the same James Hansen-led NASA global warming research group that global warming deniers generally deride as practicing bad science.

* The results of that study are also in full agreement with IPCC estimates of global warming via aerosol forcing.

* That "bombshell" is also in agreement with the primary role that CO2 and other global warming greenhouse gas forcing agents including ozone have with respect to driving global warming. If the study's findings hold up to additional scrutiny what this means is that made-made global warming greenhouse gas forcing agents including increased atmospheric CO2 are still he dominant current global warming driver, and that man-made black carbon emissions - that is, a different man-made, major fossil fuel pollutant - play a more substantial secondary role in man-made global warming (though again said role is in agreement with IPCC estimates).

* The reason why Dr. Shindell is saying that we need to look at black carbon emissions with respect to the *arctic* in the next *few decades* is not because CO2 doesn't play a huge role with respect to global warming - it's instead because CO2 global warming forcing operates on a larger timescale than black carbon, and also because black carbon plays a more stronger role *in the arctic region* than globally.

lol.

[realpolitic]

02:34 PM on 11/02/2009

Excellent reply!

[Richard2]

10:21 AM on 11/02/2009

Perhaps the Senator has noted that 162 American physicists have sent a letter to the APS asking that organization to change its position on anthropogenic global warming.

"You can do physics without climate science, but you can't do climate science without physics."

[Publicola]

11:00 AM on 11/02/2009

According to you "162 American physicists" want to change the American Physical Society's official position that:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

If I were a global warming denier I'd want the APS to change their official position that man-made global warming is real too. Good luck on that one though - the APS has held that position for years and reaffirmed it again just last year.

Also do these "162 American physicists" have specific expertise in climate science? Here's what climate scientists say about man-made global warming:

----------------------------------------
University of Illinois at Chicago

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real ...

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

[realpolitic]

02:41 PM on 11/02/2009

R2, do you ever get new talking points besides the same tired two or three? The APS has over 47,000 members and you suggest letting 162 with energy industry ties change their robust policy on warming. In 2007, APS adopted an official statement on climate change:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes."

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

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

The physicists certainly agree that evidence of anthropogenic climate change is incontrovertible.

[Publicola]

09:47 AM on 11/01/2009

Exxon's global warming denier strategy, per a leaked 1998 internal Exxon "action plan" memo:

"Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom."

[fumes]

08:55 PM on 10/31/2009

scientists CANNOT be wrong (repeat three times)..

http://www.physorg.com/news176214864.html

[fumes]

11:42 AM on 10/31/2009

q2: how hot would it be at the equator w/o any CO2 whatsoever?

[MGhamma]

11:53 AM on 10/31/2009

q3: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I figured one meaningless "q" deserves another.

[Publicola]

01:00 PM on 10/31/2009

q4. how often do global warming deniers play the let's-ask-tons-of-pointless-questions game.

[fumes]

09:19 PM on 10/30/2009

q: when and where is water vapor not self-forcing?

[Publicola]

10:15 PM on 10/30/2009

What a "forcing agent" means in in the context of global warming is an agent that initiates, aka "drives," global warming. Water vapor does not and cannot do that - water vapor is instead a function of temperature.

When a global warming forcing agent - such as increased atmospheric CO2 - raises the mean global temperature that in turn induces higher water vapor concentrations, which, since water vapor too is a greenhouse gas, in turn induces still more warming and then still more water vapor in a positive feedback loop until thermal equilibrium is reached - which in a global sense won't happen while radiative forcing via global warming forcing agents continues to significant;y increase.

On the other hand if one takes away or reduces global warming forcing agents then water vapor concentrations, which again is not a global warming forcing agent but instead a function of temperature, will be reduced accordingly as well.

[fumes]

01:06 AM on 10/31/2009

''..that in turn induces higher water vapor concentrations, which, since water vapor too is a greenhouse gas, in turn induces still more warming and then still more water vapor in a positive feedback loop..''

[MGhamma]

11:46 AM on 10/31/2009

Fumes, are you incapable of understanding, or just unwilling to understand?

It's not really that hard, and I don't think you're that stupid.

I could be wrong.

[Watain]

06:04 PM on 10/29/2009

Al Gore's snake oil

[Pharos]

02:16 AM on 10/30/2009

When you have lost the argument, attack Al Gore. Not sure I understand what Al Gore has to do with Global Warming but your tactic seems to be pretty common.

[DocSkull]

04:15 PM on 10/30/2009

They hate "do-gooders" most of all.

[RomeoMD25]

03:22 PM on 10/29/2009

“Global warming” is more Scientology than science. It is an act of pure imagination. The only thing climate models have in common with real science is the word “science.” All the climate prophets are playing on public ignorance. If you confuse Scientology with science, you can confuse climate modeling with real science.

The key is that the science establishment, like any power class, wants to control the media narrative. That is why our Galileos today are told to shut up by hype peddlers like James Hansen and John Holdren.

Political establishments haven’t changed since Galileo. They don’t care if they are defending theology or secular ideology; they just want more and more power. Obama didn’t appoint our new “science czar” to ensure honesty and integrity in the climate debate. On the contrary, this guy was appointed for political loyalty, exactly the reason why the pope appointed Galileo’s inquisitor.

The very idea of a science czar is Stalinist.

[DocSkull]

04:26 PM on 10/29/2009

What an interesting hypothesis. Lets test it using the scientific method. Name a scientist who has gotten rich espousing AGW, demonstrate how her research was faked, and how she would have made less money by agreeing with energy companies.

[MGhamma]

12:11 PM on 10/30/2009

Don't hold your breath for a reply Doc. Romeo, like the rest of the resident deniers here, are just talking to themselves.

Rather pathetic.

[Publicola]

05:44 PM on 10/29/2009

29% of Americans do not understand that the Earth goes around the Sun (http://science.drvinson.net/polls). That 29% are unfortunately unlikely to understand the following, either:

1: Short-term statistical variability does not undermine the significance of long term statistical trends, and the long term statistical trend with respect to global warming is that global warming is in scientific *fact* real.

2: The past several years have all been amongst the warmest years since direct temperature measurements have been recorded .

3. The mean global temperature has also been increasing over this period.

[HSC55]

11:57 AM on 10/29/2009

I will say that our company is doing hand stands today because of the smart grid grant money made available by Pres. Obama. Anyone see the news conference where he stands in front of the big solar electric companies solar panel field and announces all the smart grid technology coming? That will save so much money for the consumer that pays attention to this new tech.

[HSC55]

11:54 AM on 10/29/2009

Our congresspeople are way behind the times, as usual. Our company is really pushing to 'go green' and we have been urging our congressman to vote for some of these bills so we can get some tax credits, grants etc to help us make the switch. But no....he is a republican and could care less that we are the largest employer in his district. He is voting NO on cap and trade because his party tells him too. It doesn't matter what we want...business wants...in his district.

[hip dibler]

09:02 AM on 10/29/2009

this guy is an inspiration.

if this guy can be a U.S. Senator then by God, anyone can!!

[RomeoMD25]

01:48 AM on 10/29/2009

Director of the University of Montana’s Climate Change Studies Program, and a co-author of a Nobel Prize winning report, says cap and trade legislation could ruin the US economy.

During a Wednesday morning interview with statewide radio talk show host Aaron Flint on “Voices of Montana,” Dr. Steve Running said any climate change solution needs to involve all nations.

Running is a co-author of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founder of the Climate Change Studies program at the University of Montana. He added, “If the US passed a cap and trade and other countries did not, it wouldn’t work. It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either.

[fredjernig]

07:46 AM on 10/29/2009

Not doing anything could ruin the US economy.
Smoking pot could ruin the US economy.
Unchecked healthcare costs could ruin the US economy.
Continued unchecked pollution and wasting of energy could ruin the US economy.
Waiting for others to act (while we are still the leading polluter) instead of leading by example could ruin the US economy.

What is your point?

[DocSkull]

07:46 AM on 10/29/2009

Did he say how it would further ruin the economy after the Bush administration's damage?

[RomeoMD25]

08:44 AM on 10/29/2009

Some of the globalist individuals and corporations who support the CO2 and Climate Change agenda:
The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization
David De Rothschild
Rothschild Bank
Barlcays Bank
JP Morgan Chase (jpmorganclimatecare . com)
David Rockefeller
Exxon/Mobil
Dupont
General Electric
Shell Oil
Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Abdalla Salem El-Badri, OPEC Secretary General
and of course, Al Gore, Generation Investment Management carbon credits company.

[NWBrunette]

01:33 AM on 10/29/2009

Wow, a w*ng n*t too extreme for repubs? Unbelievable. I really wasn't sure that was possible.

[fumes]

08:36 PM on 10/28/2009

did global warming deniers not notice this years april and september weather lol??

only global warming can force such extreme temperatures!

April 29th, 2009 Ranchers slog through snowy, chilly spring CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Snowy, soggy, chilly weather has taken a severe toll on sheep and cattle across the northern Great Plains this spring.
1st day of fall brings snow, cold to Colorado, freezing temperatures acros mountains in West

September 22nd, 2009 1st day of fall brings snow, cold to ColoradoVAIL, Colo. — The first day of fall feels more like the first day of winter for some of the mountain West, with light snow and chilly temperatures across Colorado and freeze warnings for higher elevations in New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah and Arizona.
http://blog.taragana.com/n/early-storm-dumps-snow-across-rockies-western-plains-70-accidents-reported-in-wyoming-210049/

[DocSkull]

02:41 AM on 10/29/2009

I see the dozens of times we've explained the difference between local and global, and long and short term patterns has completely gone to waste. Do you also think a particularly warm season somewhere in the world confirms global warming?

[fumes]

05:50 AM on 10/29/2009

it would help!

[Publicola]

12:43 PM on 10/29/2009

29% of Americans do not understand that the Earth goes around the Sun (http://science.drvinson.net/polls). That 29% are unfortunately unlikely to understand the following, either:

1: Short-term statistical variability does not undermine the significance of long term statistical trends.

2: The past several years have all been amongst the warmest years since direct temperature measurements have been recorded .

3. That mean global temperature has also been increasing over this period.

4. That increase in the mean global temperature means there is an
increased overall energy in the earth-atmosphere system, which can and
will manifest itself in more extreme weather, both hotter *and colder*.

5. By only looking at atmospheric temperatures one is ignoring 97% of
where the increased energy is going in the earth-atmosphere system: 90%
goes into the oceans, and 7% goes into melting ice. Related to that
during a La Nina the upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific
soaks up heat from the atmosphere.

More on point #5 here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true

[whatbox]

02:25 PM on 10/30/2009

One aspect of climate change that many DDOers (Deny, Delay, Obstruct) overlook is that the planet does not just become uniformly warmer. Instead, some areas get warmer, some may get cooler, but the overarching characteristic is that weather patterns become less predictable. Longer dry periods, punctuated by flash floods and extreme wind events make producing sufficient food to sustain current population levels unlikely.

For the past 10-20 thousand years we have enjoyed relatively stable & predictable weather patterns that have allowed us to develop our agriculture.

As climate change progresses weather patterns will most likely become more erratic, greatly diminishing humanity's ability to grow crops, and to successfully harvest those crops. The probable results will be widespread food shortages, and all that that entails.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080529-food-australia.html

Add to this the loss of agricultural land due to rising sea levels (much of the world's most fertile arable land is located in low-lying coastal areas), and the problem becomes even worse.

As the global production of food declines, humanity will be forced to convert more of our wild areas, including rain forests, to agricultural land, thereby exacerbating the problem by reducing systems involved in long term carbon sequestration.

Unfortunately many of the DDOers think that even if climate change occurs, it will just mean that they will get a few extra days by the pool each year. They do not fully appreciate the related problems that will accompany climate change.

[whatbox]

03:13 PM on 10/30/2009

Btw, great article in New Scientist. Thanks.