The esteemed climate scientist, Prof. Jim Inhofe, Ph.D., is pontificating again on his special area of research, global warming.
Inhofe, you see, knows all about global warming because he's an trained scientist. His degrees are impressive and his research is world-renowned. He's conducted dozens of climate studies and reviewed hundreds more. When he speaks, we know his words can be trusted.
Or not. As it happens, Sen. Inhofe doesn't know much of anything about global warming or climate change, he just thinks he does.
For Inhofe, this is good enough. As the saying goes, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
The details on Inhofe's latest climate comments are here. Needless to say, Oklahoma's senior senator has zero credibility on the topic.
14 comments:
I have to admit to being seriously amused. People are peeling off the global warming bandwagon left and right, desperately trying to avoid being the last person in the world to believe in that load of horsesqueeze, and you...
and you...
Lord have mercy, it's comical.
Can you name a few of these "peelers" and their credentials?
What is the source of your extreme certainty that you are correct, considering that the overwhelming majority of working scientists in that field disagree with you?
For a survey of current scientific thinking on the subject, I refer you to this article on Wikipedia:
Scientific opinion on climate change
There, you can read this from the New York Times as of 2007:
"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
And this from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, June, 2009:
"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."
The term 90+% probability admits a lack of absolute certainty. But again I ask, where does your certitude of the opposite opinion come from? Tell us why your opinion is more compelling than that of the world's leading climate scientists.
Oh, I have no intention of debating y'all. I don't think you can break free of your indoctrination. I just find you amusing, sometimes more so than others.
I take you about as seriously as I took this, back in the days when the scientific consensus was that we were heading for an ice age.
I took a look at your blog awhile back.
Seems you are a Young Earth Creationist and a Presuppositionalist.
You're right, there's very little basis for debate. The amusement is mutual. ;)
I'm sure that with your convictions, this won't "cut any ice," but Wikipedia has this to say about the global cooling conjecture of the 1970s to which you allude in your link:
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century."
Specifics about the 1975 Newsweek article referenced by your link.
A thousand pardons... Your link was not to the Newsweek cover in 1975, but to the Time cover in 1974. They usually did move in lockstep at that time. More about the Time issue:
Time Magazine's profitable use of climate change
You, MotW, are a perfect example of the, "I've made up my mind so don't try to confuse me with the facts".
The fact is, conservatives are trying to reframe the argument in the minds of the public. Attempting to make it look appear that it hasn't been clearly and repetitively stated that "climate change" will happen as a result of "global warming". Following rush's lead on the, well before it was global warming, now it's global climate change because it's cold.
BS. Every nightmare scenario ever laid out for global warming from the outset included cold increases in areas as the weather patterns change from the influx of heated air.
The other facts are, the vast majority of scientists in the field DO agree that global warming is real. Sure, you can go find a scientist to disagree. That's great. But hey, I can find a dissenting opinion of the theory of gravity, for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327160.100-due-gravity.html
Find me a single scientific theory EVER that has/had no dissenting opinion.
The majority is against you here, scientifically, but it's you who would rather walk away feeling like the big man with your condescending ignorance than face reality.
It's industries that contribute to the problem that want you to believe it's all a lie. You're just having too much fun disagreeing with everything lately to question anymore what you're compromising.
Like the smartass who walks outside on a cold day and goes, "That Al Gore, I tell you. So much for Global Warming, huh?! A-hilt-hilt!"
Well how fucking scientific of you there Mr. Climatologist!
Really like this blog site. Reality seems elusive these days and our discourse mostly mindless chatter.
A post here belittles those who understand Anthropogenic Global Warming as a viable and proven theory. Reference was made to a growing social rejection of such, implying validity of the "dissenters".
Let's be honest about this: If there where no legal and economic costs entailed, no one would care about the validity of AGW. This is a rejection of the current restrictions and mandates, using political propaganda and deceit as a mechanism to achieve non-compliance, plain and simple.
The "normal climate change" mantra was hatched AFTER it became impossible to continue denial. It, and all subsequent developments, were engineered by special interests who feel threatened by these obligations and restrictions.
Like it or not that IS the reality of this story.
And Steven hits the nail squarely on the head.
Agree that both of you make valid points. However, I believe that MotW says what he says for his own arcane reasons, along with a heaping helping of hubris.
Just checking in briefly. I told you then that the wheels were coming off, and no matter what, you would be determined to be the last aboard a sinking ship.
Go ahead, prove me right. You will, you know.
Wow, that was a late check-in, MotW!
Post a Comment