Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax!

Posted 2 years ago on March 10, 2012, 6:03 p.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I have long held that global warming denialists fall squarely in to two groups, those that work for the oil/fracking companies, and the faith-head fundies how actually believe that jebus is soon to return, so no worries mate. Inhofe shows that there is some overlap with these two groups, go figure.

"Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired. Promoting his book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe told interviewer Vic Eliason on Wednesday that only God can change the climate, and the idea that manmade pollution could affect the seasons is “arrogance“ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Link; http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/

164 Comments

164 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Jerry Farwell has for many years said that man can’t break what God made.

[-] 7 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

There is no invisible man in the sky.

[-] 9 points by shadz66 (17898) 2 years ago

There is alas, a rather overwhelming international scientific agreement in the actuality of rising temperatures. Even if the US Govt. wishes not to accept or acknowledge the science of major US scientific institutions, such as The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) etc., internationally the scientists have known for well over a decade that 'something' is afoot.

'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!!

That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

The atmosphere is but a film above us like cling-film on a water melon. It's easy to assume that we can have no effect on the vastness of the atmosphere but this is not true. As the atmosphere warms, the dynamic and apparently chaotic but actually relatively ordered 'Climate System', has 'more energy' and will operate at a higher energetic level. Thus, 'The Climate' will be seemingly more chaotic to our perception. We are already witnessing weather records being taken to new levels throughout the world and this matter is not really up for debate - unless there is a truly vast international conspiracy of scientists at all levels !

Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing', that something is different now to how things were but we may choose to behave like the proverbial 'frog in a pan on a stove' &/or as a 'rabbit caught in a bright light' !!

Sadly, I don't really think that we will stop either our behaviour or its results in the short or even medium terms. It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That "The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites" [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and Less Of Us !!!

The above is compounded by 'Militant Pro-Industrialism' as well as by Religious Nutters - who IF they have belief in 'Biblical End Times' (ie some Jews, Christians and Muslims !!!) do not think human action can possibly affect The Earth's Climate as only 'God' could do that AND when compounded by the ignorant, those in denial and those who know but just don't give a shit ... well, we have quite a recipe for forthcoming perturbations, to say the least ...

~*~

fiat lux ...

[-] 6 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Very well put. Hear, hear!

I am coming to the conclusion that the denialists have nothing, of any use, what so ever, to offer. They are unwilling (or more likely unable) to defend their position with any factual material, and only keep pointing to oil-industry PR claims that have all long since been shown to be disingenuous or completely fictitious.

[-] 7 points by shadz66 (17898) 2 years ago

Thanx 'jph' and I agree with your point. Increasingly the professional 'Corporate PR Denialists' and their surrogates are trying to appeal to 'psychology' (and indeed perhaps 'psychopathology'!) in order to further their selfish, nefarious objectives.

Further to my post above, please also find the following links :

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle ;

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere ;

c) The Excellent 2007 Australian Doc. Film "Crude" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVIl3CcmgzE [NB : Audio Kicks In At 3:30!]

d) Pick & Choose from 'Pro & Anti' Docs. @ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/environment/ ;

e) For posterity and for the interested : "Beyond the Brink -- A Climate Change Investigation" :

~*~

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

It is very refreshing to see that there are still intelligent forms of life out there that truly comprehend just how detrimental we humans are to our environment when we refuse to acknowledge that there are consequences to given acts or recurring actions that are "proven" to have toxic effects upon the human, animal and ecologic condition. How this does not translate into injurious manmade destruction of our environment is beyond me. What Sen. Inhofe needs to do is go to that river in the midwest where the Oil companies spilled some of that new Canadian Tar Sands Oil into the river (which doesn't float, it sinks to the riverbed and churns below the surface of the water), and tell him that he needs to get all his drinking water from that river from now on, and then tell us that we humans have no impact on our environment.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17898) 2 years ago

'mia' : Thanx for your comment and points. Intrigued by your given 'moniker', I clicked the link and read your back story. I was more than a little shocked at what I read.

I can only offer 'Solidarity' and my very best wishes as well as a heads up to this rather revealing post : http://occupywallst.org/forum/welfare-and-workers-rights-in-norway/ for your interest and information as well as this lovely piece of music : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFsAnGzaDQ0&feature=related .

I wish you and yours, grace and goodness & may peace and protection be over your home and hearth.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Agreed. There is no free ride.

I would only add that we can see and measure the changes this extra thermal energy we are capturing daily has on the oceans. The oceans cover 70% of the earths surface and are a very, very important aspect of the global climatic system.

Recent oceanographic research shows that deep ocean currents are heating up faster than the atmosphere as a whole. These warmer currents are bringing new species to the polar regions that were never found there before.

Ocean acidification due to the vast quantities of CO2 being pumped into our system, creating carbonic acid, despite the increased warming which should drive gaseous CO2 into the atmosphere, has increased measurably.

The Northwest Passage which has been ice bound for all of human history is now open all year round.

We know that the CO2 bringing these changes about are due to human activity based on isotopic identification. 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from anthropogenic activity. Again objective, measurable facts.

~g

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Blame for our current state of inaction, can be shared by many people. Remember that in the words of Ralph Nader in 2000, there was no significant difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

I still hear this today, so those that truly believe that a President Gore would have carried out basically the same policies as did President Bush, well I think that sort of thinking causes us a lot of problems.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And if there is, would He be laughing or crying ?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

maybe I shoud have added... but he keeps trying..(Farwell that is)...

as far as a man in sky, can somebody tell me why he talked to a whole bunch of different people a long time ago, and don't talk to anybody anymore, cause everything we need to know is in their letters and such, well to me that don't make sense..

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Is there good n evil in this world? Do you have a soul? Do you know... there is no God?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

We can use the words 'good' and 'evil' to describe the actions of people; good action are uplifting, beneficial, and selfless, whereas evil actions are denigrating, harmful, and selfish. However these are just descriptions of the actions of people.

We are all creatures that have risen from the dust of this planet, we are an expression of it's life-force. Where this force comes from and what drives it, is unknown. We all are a part of this life-force, and therefor have a window into the soul as a whole. You could call it a soul however, the word has so much baggage from old dead religions, that it seems corrupted from its origins. Soul just means existence/life. All the universe has soul, living animals, trees, and the weather, everything you experience is the soul of the universe. We are individually just a part of that one soul.

If 'god', being omnipotent and omnipresent, allows evil to take place, does that make 'god' evil?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

QUESTION: If 'god', being omnipotent and omnipresent, allows evil to take place, does that make 'god' evil?

No, it makes your concept of God useless.

It's the same question about if GOD is perfect,

why if God is perfect than why have we not find any perfection anywhere in the Universe.

Also, what the hell is nothing, and where is it, where can we find that?

Welcome to the Mystery my friend, enjoy it, you'll never figure this out. God is the Mystery.

Acceptance. The stupefied religions failed horribly because they never answered anything, they just made up a pack of interweaving lies.

Try reason. This will bear fruit. Be pragmatic.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

My concept of god is that there is no Invisible-Man-in-the-Sky.

'god' is a lame attempt by silly people to personify the infinite. Most then claim divine 'knowledge' and work to control followers to get money and sex from them.

There is plenty of perfection in the universe, I see it every day.

Nothing is the absence of anything, look in space for it.

I think I have a good handle on it, figured out quite a lot actually.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

The vacuum of space contains numerous particles. It's something.

Ever see a perfect snowflake? A perfect circle? There's plenty of ideas of perfection just like God, but no actuality. Ideals, Platos Forms, all abstract thoughts but not objective. Not an object that can be reay observed. In other words you can not hand me perfection, it does not exist.

Keep thinking your on the right track. Just beware of those who claim THE ANSWER.

A good quote to keep in mind: We believe that which we wish for earnestly.


This quote will follow you for the rest of your days on this planet. Keep it close and believe as you wish, just make it a good one, work for it, defend it, it's all we got.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 2 years ago

The life-force came from the organization of energy and what is driving it is Gibbs energy (mostly sunlight but a little bit of geothermal and radioactive energy). The ultimate purpose is to see if consciousness will discover the Truth about its origin.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

nice ;)

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 2 years ago

Substitute energy for 'god' and assertions about omnipotent and omnipresent energy can become very scientific assertions about our universe: evil existing does not make energy evil. It is actually truly remarkable how abundant (potentially available) energy is everywhere we look! This turns into: It is actually truly remarkable how abundant (potentially available) 'god' is everywhere we look! This can pass pretty well as a religious assertion.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

It seems god/energy is available unevenly in space-time then, don't it? Omnipresent seems to imply a more even distribution. Godhead appears somewhat evil, in the predictable results of such an uneven distribution of energy. Most of space is so cold and empty, where is the god/energy.

Then again without the dark the light is meaningless.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 2 years ago

Space is never empty... There is the cosmic background microwave radiation -- the trailing off of Godhead's creative act. It left the signature of the Word of creation in the 360 1-degree of separation that you can observe all around you. Godhead speaks with visible and invisible 'lights'; microwave radiation being just one kind. Remember the rainbow put in the sky after Noah's flood?

The contrast of light and dark is necessary for providing Gibbs energy for the life-force. The dark provides the sink for the light so work can be extracted.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

free will... good n evil....

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

sort of like a God made U235 atom ?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I useto split'em for a living, P239 too but we made that, my moto was:

What God puts together, we break apart.

That was before Farwell sopke his genius thoughts, I don't read much Bible myself, but I don't remember it being so sure fired that mankind couldn't make any mistakes.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Thank GOD this fundamentalist creep Jerry Falwell started his rot on May 15, 2007 and we won't have to hear from him anymore.

His firebrand doesn't sell anymore.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

IActually hadn't noted his passing. Guess that's why I haven't seen him for a while, didn't miss him any. (Farwell that is).

Puzzlin, I don’t think we’ve met, good morning, thanks for stopping by.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

My pleasure!

[-] 4 points by WatTyler (263) 2 years ago

Yes, but Senator, God made rednecks stupid so they could do it for him!

[-] -2 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

I love rednecks, they got that way from farming... What do you eat asshole?

[-] 2 points by WatTyler (263) 2 years ago

I've known plenty of farmers, and most weren't rednecks. And plenty of rednecks, and most weren't farmers. Sorry if my remark struck too close to home.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Its cool, I'm an asshole too lol

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

He is such an ass hat.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

NASA Satellite Destroys Assumptions Underlying UN Global Warming Computer Model

Even as Barack Obama has moved to shut down NASA, including key weather satellites, new NASA satellite data have struck a devastating blow to the entire global warming fraud perpetrated by the President among others. According to an article published in the journal Remote Sensing, NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than United Nations and other Green computer models have predicted. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than claimed by Green ideologues.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into Green computer models.

The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than Green climate models show, Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than Green computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

Green computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which traps heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the Greeen computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing as predicted by Green computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than Green computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than Green computer models have predicted.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What exactly are these 'Green computer models' that 'have predicted' you continue to speak of? Seven times no less, is it some attempt at voodoo?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, I do believe that the "Green computer models" are an attempt at "voodoo".

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You act as though there is some monolithic "Green computer model" that the scientific community worships, and gets all data from, this is hardly the case. Many people develop equations and simulations, for many different purposes, there exists no unified single model. The fact is that the vast majority of serious simulations and equations present a unified view that global warming is quite real and happening now. Fringe elements aside, there is little debate about this.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I wouldn't call NASA a "fringe element" by any means.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Well NASA is not fringe, it does have individuals that have worked there with rather fringe theories.

Your quoted Dr. Roy Spencer is also a 'creationist' who rejects evolution! He seems to be fronting a 'climate sensitivity' theory, that the earth 'can just take it' what ever we throw at it,. He is also on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute a conservative think tank that has in the past "lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." Yup just another faith-head wishing for the end-times when Jubus comes to take him and the chosen few back to haven to meet his daddy, or some such sht. While profiting off the sheeple. Anyway the point is, rather fringe indeed..,

Logic and reason, not faith and superstitions, are paths to truth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I am confident that NASA is, overall, pursuing enquiries that are both logical and reasonable.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You keep dropping NASA,. however your quoting a single climatologist who 'once worked for NASA', and in no way speaks for them,. Dr. Roy Spencer is shilling for the anti-science creationist cultists. Wake the hell up.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

This isn't just about one article, but the fact that the Global Warming paradigm is not universally accepted as some like to insist.

I think that unfortunately at least some of our economic crisis is due to the discouragement of economic development projects by environmentalist policies.

And if you study the background of the environmentalist movement, much of it comes from Eugenics which was associated with Nazism. To know more, just go to Google and search "Nazism environmentalism".

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

No, sane people insist that the facts are true; that the vast overwhelming majority of scientist agree (~98%) on the basics, global warming is real and is happening now, and it is due to human made changes to an established order, out planets environment.

There is vastly more work needed to replace the old systems that run on coal, oil, and 'fracking' gas. I would 'discourage' any development projects that do not make changes in the needed directions. The 'economic crisis' is completely made up, our 'economic system' is a joke. A rigged casino, with a gulag baker.

"the environmentalist movement, much of it comes from" we, all people, live in an environment, and many of us think shting in your own house is sorta' a stupid move,. alas, you don't agree?

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Of course I think it is important to have a clean environment, but that this is to be done by improving, not eliminating technology.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Well duh! Who ever mentioned "eliminating technology"? Only you, just now it seems.

We all need to face reality and stop listening to politically/theologically motivated misleading creationists, and oil corp. PR hacks. That is the only way to make any improvements. This constant denial of the facts is just plan counter productive. The solutions are legion, with many already underway, if you would stop presenting nonsense arguments like "environmentalists are Nazi eugenics pushing anti-tech pink-o-commies we could discuss some of them. This type if sht is not only a lie and asinine stupidity, it just make you looks real kooky.

We need to use appropriate levels of sustainable technology, not corporate mega-mono-crops of destructive tech. that provides nothing but sort term profit$ for the few, while robbing and oppressing the many. We need to democratize the system. Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc. the solutions are already here!

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Frank Uekoetter, from Chapter 1, "The Nazis and the Environment: A Relevant Topic?" in The Green and the Brown:

Uekötter's book is the product of a lengthy investigation, which led him to discover that the major activists of the Green/Environmentalist movement of post-World War II were also active, conscious, and in some cases, high-ranking members of the Nazi Party. How did that happen? Why did the environmentalists in Germany support Nazism? A follow-up question would be: What is the significance of the fact that the Nazis were part of the environmentalist movement? A third question might be: What was the flaw in their view of man whereby the average Green could look the other way while the Nazis did their dirty work?

Conservationism/environmentalism began, just like today, as a British geopolitical operation to destroy the industrial cultures that were being developed in both the United States and Germany in the period following the U.S. Civil War. Charles Darwin's controller, Thomas Huxley, and others began the fight with their famous propaganda piece, The Origin of Species. To get the full meaning, consider that the full original title of Darwin's infamous work was: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You live in a BIZARO land. The Nazi's carried out a 'green agenda'? In what alternate history is an invasion rampage green? Although, it does actually point to modern times, only in reality, it is the powers that currently control the USA military, that seem to be, very much on an invasion/occupation rampage. Perhaps you need to look to facts, and not so much baseless conjecture, historical dressed or not .

Darwin's paper is about 'races', as in, classification of flora and fauna, not some human cultural phenomenon.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I can not reply to the krautrock day dreams of 'arturo',. seems this forum bottoms out. I have no interest in your play-by-play of German internal propaganda, thanks. I know environmentalists here in america, and I really do not see a Nazi conspiracy. Like I have said, I think you need to try focusing on the current military-corporate-fascist-establishment, if you are looking for folks emulating Nazi party type tactics. Invasions and occupations, rising police state, shutting down rights, limiting freedom etc.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Avowed neo-Nazis in the midst of the environmentalist political leadership

On November 15, 1981, Holger Borner, Governor of the West German state of Hessen, warned in an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that the "environmentalist" movement was taking a direct fascist form in West Germany.

The fascist hooligan tactics already being used by Die Grünen and its allies in the environmentalist movement against any supporters of nuclear power and technological growth, bear more than a sociological resemblance to the Hitlerites of the 1930s. From its very beginning, Die Grünen, the environmentalist party of West Germany founded in 1979, has been directly connected to right-wing extremist organizations, and has been guided by fascist ideologues.

Right-wing terrorism

In 1978, in the state of Hessen, the environmentalist slate received the active support of the Volkssozialistische Deutsche Partei (VSDP), a right-wing extremist group. The VSDP is closely connected to the Volkssozialistische Bewegung Deutschlands-Partei der Arbeit (VSBD-PDA), an openly terrorist group some of whose members were killed in a shootout with police in Munich in September 1981. That same month, UdQ. Reinhardt, a candidate for the Die Grünen-backed electoral slate in Hannover, the Griine-Alternative-Biirger Liste, (GABL) was exposed as being a member of another right-extremist sect linked to the VSBD-PDA. After some deliberation, the governing board of GABL decided that Reinhardt would remain their candidate in the election.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

In reality, Inhofe is the one exhibiting arrogance. My advice? Never argue with crazy people. It's an exercise in futility.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This Senator brought to you by the makers of Brawny and Quilted Northern. Be sure to tune in next time when Senator Inhofe declares evolution an outrage and demands that humans return to the sea where God put them! But now stay tuned for "Date Rape!" with David Vitter and tonight's special guest, Larry "wide-stance" Craig.

[fade music]

[and star wipe]

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

There are fences blown down all over my area,. not tornadoes but still, this I have not seen in any springs that I can recall.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

inhofe works for koch

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"He has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries."

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I' d love to know your souce fro the $90,950 number please PM me

[-] -1 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Let US retire that guy...

[-] -1 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

he works for cock, what?

[-] 2 points by therepublicanpartier (3) 2 years ago

I agree. I wondered if the religious right think destroying the Earth will hurry up the rapture. That would actually make alot of sense. It seems like Christian Conservatives are the most vocal critics of climate change. WHICH SEEMS IRONIC

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Like most religious cults, Christians have that same suicide itch. The just don't mind taking everything with them! Asshatery that.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Don't forget that the Bible foretells of the second coming of Christ, which is brought about by - drum roll, please - "the apocalypse" aka a war of complete anhiliation in the middle east. Some would love to see this war come about soon, tho I' am not among them.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Some Christians believe that the apocalypse was just an accurate description of the collapse process of the Roman empire. And since the imperial economy of today is collapsing, it would naturally have some resemblance to the previous collapse of an empire.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

There are all kinds of Christians, and some of them probably do think the way you describe.

But there are others that aren't really anti-environmentalist, they believe man's relationship to nature should be that of a cultivator, a farmer. And I mean the family farmer type, not a corporate farmer.

Such a person would pursue policies beneficial to smaller scale family farms, and would have an interest in improving the land, including a healthy proportion of wild areas.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Guys most Christians I know are against the wars, for the protection of the environment, conservation, don't back prejudice, or two faced politicians, and are continually sponsoring volunteer projects. where do you guys go to church? The bad guys are at the bars snorting coke, with their whores, masonic music, big cars,big money, and partying with the rest of the worldly mongrel horde, who's motto is fuck it anything goes if you got the money...LMFAO

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You don't see the problem with a cult that preaches that paradise is in the NEXT life? The biblical 'Christ' seemed to take some moral stances then when on to talk a lot about wait till my daddy gets back gibberish.

I have interacted with many avoided 'Christians' who would screw over anyone not 'of the faith', and still pretend to be righteous. How is it that every warmongering R in gov. is a Christian of some sect? I find it more than a little bit hypocritical to be against abortion but pro-war, as these guys all are. I guess life is only valuable for a time??

I suppose I am just sick of all these faith-heads and their nonsense,. so, at times, I can come across a tad insensitive to religion, and that is because I positively have a big mean-nasty hate on for all of it. Let us embrace reason and logic all else is cults and superstition.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

There were also, however, times when Christians founded schools and hospitals for the poor, out of charity, which is what established the foundation for the modern western world to emerge.

If people want to call themselves Christians, I think they have to work for these kinds of objectives. It would probably be quite a rare breed these days.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Just try to keep an open mind, it can be easy to make generalizations, and there's some merit to stereotypes etc. Italians like pasta n red wine, Black folks like chicken n waffles, Australians drink fosters and fuck sheep...lol just kidding... But any stereo type, does not preclude giving someone a chance to show you what they are about, or really made of...I went to highschool a bit in NYC and we had alot of diversity there, we embraced it, and kidded each other alot.... We definitely were not trying to be politically correct.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Sure enough, people are judged on there actions, and words.

I am just through tolerating silly cults, and their nonsensical anti-reason. If you have a point, make it with actual reality, not some dead mythology or dogma. If you can not provide proof, or at least reasoning for a claim, it is a just a thought or dream. Not a reality.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

There's wisdom in those books... Read more less techno... got it homes.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"Read more less techno" sorry don't fallow,. .

Wisdom comes from knowledge not myth.

[-] -1 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

What did your father teach you, and his before that? Do you realize that Wisdom and Intelligence are 2 different stats? Check your player's handbook player...

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Yes, myth is knowledge but the wrong kind. Ever here of critical thinking. Free thinkers.

By the way, wisdom and intelligence go hand in hand. Ever observe a wise moron. Give me a break!!!

Your not too bright, are you?

Think science is mythology don't you?

No, you can't answer the questions, I get it, just like your repugnant party friends.

Your ignorance will always precede you!

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Bite my bag, you got me all wrong... I like organic chem, n charles darwin, jesus, n peace in the middleast, freedom n free thinking, cowboys and indians, peyote n pussy.... Church and holyday partys, far from ingnorant, only slightly byassed, And an independant ty!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Ok, just checking. You'll do fine. We all live in this duality of life. Welcome to the big Mystery where those who pretend to have real answers are DELUSIONAL.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

This is why we now have to realize the Earth we once knew is dying. And the deniers are more than glad to see our beloved Earth DIE.

We will some day soon wake up to world that is no longer is beautiful and hospitable. It will be a world fashioned after our darkest thoughts devoid of loving and caring but rather hate, ignorance, and APATHY.

Come Together NOW, before it's too LATE

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

"Well, thanks for clearing that up Senator. You know I was a little worried for a while there, but now that you've told me how wrong I was, I can get back to screwing up the water in The Gulf of Mexico!"

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I AM THE GLOBE
God made ME as the center of the universe
And I know - jimmy inhofe is a hoax

[-] 1 points by Shule (1548) 2 years ago

Hey, God rides a Harley. Imagine all that global warming stuff coming out of those pipes....

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I'm going to take a different approach and say that Inhofe's statement is completely irreligious blasphemy. I wish other God-fearing Christians would do the same.

God put people in charge of the Earth to take care of it. Sin comes from human's desire to be like God. We have created great machines to destroy the Earth in many ways and poison the weak and vulnerable. WHY would be outrageous, biblically, that we could not destroy ourselves completely? Remember that you are but ashes and to ashes you shall return, Mr. Inhofe.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, this is my problem with all these cults, they teach a fear of knowledge, while pushing silly myths. Knowledge and reason win every time.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

There are other types of arguments than logical. Logically arguments usually are considered to be the weakest, in fact. There's really nothing wrong with moral/ religious arguments, especially considering his audience. The term for the argument I'm using is called "creation care." It's strongly backed up by the Bible and it will win an argument with a religious person every time. No matter if they doubt in human made global warming, they know its their job to make sure it doesn't happen-just in case. Burning fossil fuels also hurts the environment in many other ways. It's a winner.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

God apparently says many things, too bad he's invisible and inaudible (we can't get any clarification) :)

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Somehow, I just don't believe him.

Guess he should have taped the conversation.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a horax

all horax must be destroyed to defeat Voldemort

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

A horax is a horcrux that must be destroyed to defeat the thorax lorax

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Horcrux is the word you are looking for.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

oh yeah

sorry

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Inhofe is the real hoax, and the hoax is in his flawed thinking.

Is there a (R)epelican't that doesn't display flawed thinking?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-great-lakes-ice-weather-climate-change,0,2259584.story.

let's hear the deniers 'splain it away.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Another Pharacie? (Holding the truth and interpreting it for the people)

The problem with that tactic today is it will not work if people are willing to look for themselves. The truth is so much more available for the looking in our world of today.

But it does take those willing to look.

More and more people are beginning to look rather than trust that someone else has their best interest at heart.

We will move forward together in the growth of individual awareness and uniting in common cause. For health and prosperity for All.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

What would really be scary, would be to find out how many people actually believe Inhofe.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

What are the current US government plans to combat this most serious crisis?

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Why would anyone care what the 1% and their lackies are planing to do about it? The problem is people giving control to power structures that are unaccountable and clearly corrupt.

[-] 0 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

God says global warming is NOT a hoax! How is Inhofe's words more credible than mines?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"God says" is not a fact, it is an opinion (, of small mined people clinging to childish modes of thought). Instituting public policy on silly cult systems of beliefs is just unacceptable. We need people to be operating on a reality basis, logic and reason, if we are to ever change this broken order, not a fantasy dream world they hold as truth.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

I agree and strongly believe in the separation of church and state.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

with our country populated by idiots who believe this kind of crap,
I'm pleasantly surprised that He hasn't used a do-over
Maybe He will strike on 12/21/12 ?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

I do not work for an oil company, I am not a religious fundamentalist. Global warming/climate change , is a fraud.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

why do you think this? you have no powers of observation? you don't think the overwhelming majority of people who make their life-work studying elements of the natural world have any clue as to what they are doing at all? what is it that makes you call an observable fact a fraud?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

The climate of earth ( 5.6 billion years old) has always had NATURAL changes. The Little Ice Age went on for over 400 hundred years,......1300 -1870. Not many gas fueled machines then, and a much smaller population. They "scientists" falsified their " science".

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, the climate changes naturally, people are natural, and we change the climate.

'They "scientists" falsified their " science".' Who? Where? When? There have been many "reports" from the right-wing bubble, that made many claims of falsified science, each and all have been shown to be disingenuous and completely bogus. [ see; http://climatecrocks.com/ ]

Besides, science is not a top down system, having even a cursory understanding of 'science' would help you understand that falsifying a result is a short term prospect. Science is based on the principle that if you discover something, you write up your findings, and share them with the world. The scientific community then checks your findings independently, and likely all over the world, as any others studying the same field will want to understand your findings and take the results further.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

Things that change the weather,.......volcanic eruptions, solar storms,el nino, but none are permanent. that's weather i am talking about , not climate. The only thing that can change climate is the sun. www.prisonplanet.com/climate-change-lies-are-exposed.html townhall.com/.../01/04/climate_change_hoax_inconvienent_lies_exposed www.express.co.uk/posts/new/196642

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Just because you read somewhere that 'climate change is a lie', does not make it so. A basic understanding of how science is done would help to alleviate your fears. Scientist publish their findings for other to independently verify, if mistakes are made, they are also corrected, in such a system. So many people on the right are duped by easily check-able claims, however they never seem to check them!

Try a site that does not only deal in 'conservative' bubble-speak. This one shows just how disingenuous these claims are; http://climatecrocks.com/

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

climate change/global warming is scam. always has been. it plays on (phoney ) fears and it's all about separating you from your money.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Calling something a 'scam' that I can see, and find loads of research and data on is a tab silly. Do you have some new information? Do you have some way to explain the numbers? Do you not even see the world around you??

How does global warming 'separate me from my money' ?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

by raising the price you pay for energy and everything thats connected to it,...........and everything iS connected to it. according to the GAO , there are 641 programs in 130 federal agencies to prop up windmill technology and underwrite solar panel manufacturers. who do you think is paying for this? who payed for the known solyndra debacle? who paid for the electric car ( volt) that is a failure? the taxpayers . global warming/climate change is a scam

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

So, you don't want to deal the consequences of burning the fuel, AND you want to keep being subsidized to burn it? Current the oil industry is subsidized hugely. All the historically stored carbon energy, will run out. We need to be using the bits we have left intelligently, to build sustainable systems that can continue to function when the oil/gas/coal is too far gone, and too expensive. This is a simple fact.

Solundra was a tinny percent of the government stimulus, perhaps some corrupt individuals where gaming the system in that case, they should be dealt with. Other wise it is an exception to the rule. http://www.teslamotors.com/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

true

we owe more in debt than the money that is circulated for resources and services

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by beenthereonce (-13) 2 years ago

Global warming is a sham

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Have any point to make, or a way to back up your 'faith' with something like a fact??

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Wow, really? Do you guys ever get out of 'the bubble'? This is the disingenuous drivel I am talking about! The silly claims in your "stolen emails" video have all been shown to be false, or just terribly bad understandings of what is really there.

http://climatecrocks.com/

Specifically look here; http://climatecrocks.com/overview/ Watch the videos under the heading 'Climate email Hack non-story (aka “Climategate”)'

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I will not click any more links you post unless to tell what they are for or supposed to indicate. I am sure these are just as dated and thoroughly disprove as the previous one. Do you not notice the source of the denilist claims? They are all oil corporations, or otherwise only interested in maintaining the status quo. A status quo that is not working.

[-] 1 points by beenthereonce (-13) 2 years ago

There is thousands upon thousands of links pertaining to the same thing. Poor Al Gore and before this hoax / scandal broke, he was starting production on mansion #5

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=9061

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/fox-news-admits-the-facts-back-man-made-global-warming-video.html

http://commieblaster.com/climategate/index.html

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Again with the Al Gore attacks, he is one guy,. an individual with an opinion. What does this one guy have to do with Global Warming? You seem fixated.

Your second link is about FOX admitting on air that the scientist conspiracy is the real hoax;

"What has really happened here is that Fox has fact-checked the notion that data-manipulating scientists are behind the consensus theory that human activity is causing the planet to warm -- and determined that notion to be false."

But only AFTER letting all the republican primary candidates claim otherwise.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

You are a sham to the human race.

[+] -5 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

This is why you do not here to much from Al Gore anymore since Global warming has been debunked. Should hang him upside down by his nutsack at the North pole

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"since Global warming has been debunked"

Well that is only true in the right-wing anti-reality bubble. In actual reality, we all get to see the effects of global warming most days now, crazy winds storm, violent freak weather events, drought, massive fires, floods, species invasions, and migrations, ice sheets collapsing, snow-less winters, etc.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

If what you say is true then why have two new dinosaurs remains discovered in Antarctica.

Apparently Antarctica was warm at one time - do you believe that or are these findings a hoax?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

God put those there to test your faith.

The south pole wasn't always in Antarctica. Procession of the equinoxes.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Very true but again global warming does happen from time to time regardless of who's living on the plantet. So, unless it can be proven that what's happening today is not a result of the "natural evolution of earth" then I don't see any reason to get in a tizzie.

Besides, gasoline consumption is down 10% in the United States so i am sure that has to have some effect on the evniornment in helping it to cool down, don't you think?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It has been proven definitively. Other cycles were natural, but this one isn't, and will permanently change the planet if not averted. Rational people get "in a fizzle" when they understand that their children and children's children will not have a planet with abundant food, or half the wildlife we currently enjoy, that their lives will be harder in ways we can hardly imagine as a result. Sure, the planet will eventually recover in a billion years or so with new species and new ecosystems, but I guess I just can't take that kind of long view.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/#more-370

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.T11-l7ZuFLs

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.pics.uvic.ca/index.php

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

No the environment will get warmer. It is a natural cycle. It is also because of human interference. It is not one or the other. Many things cause it, but in response we humans are taking actual gasoline and figuratively throwing it on a metaphorical fire, literally warming the planet. Got that?

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Steve CO2 is a green house gas bud got it, we burn carbon we get CO2, and we burn a lot of if every year...

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So if you want to get rid of "green house gas" I can tell you how - it's plain and simple.

Stop buying all plastic products - I mean all plastic products including but not limited to cell phones, Ipods, Ipads, Laptops, Desktops, Flat screen televisions, gaming devices, sneekers, pvc piping, plastic bags, and anything else that uses fossel fuel energy to produce these products.

Stop driving cars

Stop using electricity and that includes any type of electrical transportation. That also pollutes - buy a bicycle instead - that way you can also lose weight while at the same time being efficient.

Then you can start living like it it was prior to the 60's - everyone back then had 1 telephone in their house that was connected to a party line.

Now comes the ecological conservatism fun part.

Buy land and start living off the land. Start farming - have farm animals - build shelters from trees - grow crops - and get your water from a stream.

Start making candles from animal fat, stack up a supply of wood for the winter to be used to heat the house with a built in fireplace that can provide some light at night along with all the candles you make.

Dig a hugh hole in the ground and use it for you root cellar. If you are a meat eater, slaughter your own livestock, cure the meat, store it to have food for the winter time.

If you are a vegiterian, cann all your vegetables during the summertime so that you will have food for the winter time.

So there you have it listed above are just a few options and I am sure if need be I can find more to help you reduce "green house gas".

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"Apparently Antarctica was warm at one time"

Well yes, this is a well known fact, all the continents where actually one at some point, if you look far enough back in earths history. But the more interesting question is why are you digging for ways that global warming 'must not be true'? Yes change is often unsettling, however the change from the oil economy, to something new, is an inevitable outcome. Why fight against reality? It is much more useful if you embrace reality, and we all work together, on keeping this planet alive, so it can keep us alive. We rose from the dust of this particular rock, and we are responsible for it.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I'm not saying global warming is not true just saying that it has happened in the past when we weren't around to cause. So, it must be a "natural" thing, don't you think?

I mean way back when there were a lot more "hot gasses" being spewed into the atmosphere by volcanoes then will ever compare to what we are putting into the atmosphere. And after that, mother nature seemed to take care of it

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

'mother nature seemed to take care of it', I like that! You do realize you are talking about bits of history that are many billions of years, and all of human history goes back how far? A few hundred thousand, perhaps.

The rise of the hairless monkeys has been swift, and the effects we have wrought are apparent for anyone looking around. Pretending we have not changed the world in our short span is patiently silly. Just think of the things you have seen; forests cleared, fisheries collapsed, species extincted, oil and other resources depleted, the vast spread of roads, factories, and power plants, mostly coal still by the way. And on and on, how you can possible think that we have not modified our environment to the extent that it has reacted and changed baffles me.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Look, I don't want to get into a debate with you about when man first stood upright or when he built his first fire.

All I am saying is that the earth has warmed in the past and will do so again in the future.

The only reason I see that these people out there are making an issue about global warming is because they need a job.

I live in the southeast around the Atlanta area and about 8 years ago for about two or three years in a row the temps in the summer were over 100 degrees. Since then the highest has been around 95.

Outside the Atlanta area the temps were lower. So, what does that tell you - concrete and steel along with a with lots of cars, air coiditioning units and metal have an effect on temperature - but only temporarily.

For if that was not the case, every summer in atlanta would be over 100 degrees.

And I am sure this can be applied to any big city in the country.

How about if all temperature readings were taken out in the country near forrests and farmland. Do you really think there would be higher then normal temps there then in the big cities?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

These 'past' and 'futures' that the oil-money PR people keep talking about, are BILLIONS of years not like in the case of man-made global warming less than a single 100 years! Apples and Oranges used as misdirection.

The bigger question is WHY do you want to not see the reality of it?? So far, every case of this denialism that I have seen, comes from religion/faith, coupled with a fear of change, and inability to imagine a better world.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

In answer to your question, yes. Yes I would.

Here's a look at a larger system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-great-lakes-ice-weather-climate-change,0,2259584.story

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Ok so we have a 40 year snapshot. I remember when I was growing up the winters were freezing cold. Ok so it has changed - but how can it be proven that we are causing global warming?

There are too many variables to determine if this is true Look at weather forcasting - how accurate is that - even with todays technology they are half right if that.

So you are willing to agree that we can make a determination based on what is going on today what will happen to our envionrnment 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 or 100 years from now?

I don't think so - we are not that technologically advanced. We can't even keep gasoline prices down or balance the governmental budget let alone try to figure out if the world is warming.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Weather prediction i.e. 'will it rain next Monday?' is more art than science, it is attempting to predict a small subset, of a huge turbulent atmospheric system, changes is wind patterns. Global warming is, ah, GLOBAL, it is not about predicting a small subset of a larger very chaotic one, it is predicting a trend based on measurements of that system. The two are hardly related.

You do get the idea of the greenhouse effect, that light trapped in atmosphere, by reflections? It is not a theory just an observable fact, see; a green house. (or a car parked in the sun!) People are not just guessing or supposing what will happen they are reporting observable trends, and using mathematical models that give actual results. Global warming is not wealth, although it does clearly effect the weather. All this growing violent wealth is a result of a hotter more turbulent atmosphere, just like a pot of water as it comes to a boil.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well let me ask - when lots of volcanos were active and there were all kinds of gasses in the air - did the earth go through global warming and if it did what kind of an effect did it have?

What happened afterwards - did it go away or did it stay around - if it stayed around we would be breathing it today. So, Nature does clean up - it may take time but Nature will make changes to compensate for things that happen. Trust me.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

What you are describing happened from around 360 million years ago to about 300 million years ago. It was known as the Carboniferous Period. The earth had very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, wetlands and forests were in abundance. It was the time of greatest carbon fixing in the entire Geologic Record.

Almost all of our high quality coal, oil, and gas comes from this time period. Through natural processes that carbon was removed from the atmosphere over the course of 60 million years to create those fossil fuel reserves.... 60 million years to stabilize.

We now take 1 kilo of this coal that may have taken 1 million years to specifically create, and release all of that carbon back into the atmosphere over the course of a few hours. That is a huge imbalance.

As a result the oceans today have been heating up faster than predicted, and ocean acidity due to carbonic acid from CO2 absorption, is lowering the pH of the oceans faster than at any time in the past 300 Million years of our Geologic history.

So the real question is due you believe in a free ride? The physical Universe does not believe in a free ride. Equations have to balance, and they will forcefully if the imbalance is large.

Releasing all of this carbon back into the atmosphere at rates unheard of in Geologic history is creating a huge imbalance that will forcibly be reconciled. We can measure the changes taking place now.

Remember, there are no free rides. Perhaps looking up the Permian Extinction might help. 96% of all oceanic life vanished from Global Warming back then. Trust that.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4024) 2 years ago

Hi Geo, Good post. Best Regards

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

As I have stated above there is a fix for this and a good one for getting rid of greenhouse gases. Read it, believe it and follow through with it and just maybe things will change.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

First of all, from reading your posts, you have very little understanding of basic concepts involved with AGW. So why would I trust what you say about a fix for getting rid of GHG's?

"Ok so we have a 40 year snapshot. I remember when I was growing up the winters were freezing cold. Ok so it has changed - but how can it be proven that we are causing global warming?"

We have more than a 40 year snapshot. We have a 300 million year snapshot at the least.

"There are too many variables to determine if this is true Look at weather forcasting - how accurate is that - even with todays technology they are half right if that."

Weather forecasting and Climate Change simulations as far as modeling goes have nothing in common. We have a very good handle on the variables that are in play.

I am not a fan of modeling, but as a geologist, I focus on the historical and more of a systems approach to understand what we are experiencing. The key is the balance of energy, or earths solar energy budget. The earth is in the positive for accumulating the equivalent of 100w per sq/meter of heat energy for every sq meter on the planet. This is thermal radiation that is not sent off into space, but is being accumulated in the oceans and land surface.

Measurable, objective facts. Not blogosphere talking points. I don't know if we can even change what is going on. But I do know that we are responsible for it (again measurable and traceable).

You state that plastic has a lifespan of 15 years. Nice cherry picking of data. Tell me what the lifespan of polystyrene is, a very widely used plastic? It's on the order of 100,000 years. Not all plastics by any means have short life spans. Only the more recent biodegradable ones.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Like I stated there is a way to deal with it and I will post it again for you.

So if you want to get rid of "green house gas" I can tell you how - it's plain and simple.

Stop buying all plastic products - I mean all plastic products including but not limited to cell phones, Ipods, Ipads, Laptops, Desktops, Flat screen televisions, gaming devices, sneekers, pvc piping, plastic bags, and anything else that uses fossel fuel energy to produce these products.

Stop driving cars

Stop using electricity and that includes any type of electrical transportation. That also pollutes - buy a bicycle instead - that way you can also lose weight while at the same time being efficient.

Then you can start living like it it was prior to the 60's - everyone back then had 1 telephone in their house that was connected to a party line.

Now comes the ecological conservatism fun part.

Buy land and start living off the land. Start farming - have farm animals - build shelters from trees - grow crops - and get your water from a stream.

Start making candles from animal fat, stack up a supply of wood for the winter to be used to heat the house with a built in fireplace that can provide some light at night along with all the candles you make.

Dig a hugh hole in the ground and use it for you root cellar. If you are a meat eater, slaughter your own livestock, cure the meat, store it to have food for the winter time.

If you are a vegiterian, cann all your vegetables during the summertime so that you will have food for the winter time.

So there you have it listed above are just a few options and I am sure if need be I can find more to help you reduce "green house gas".

Now, everyone complains about global warming and everyone comes up with lots of reasons for doing something about it but nobody does so, it's a "mute" issue.

Nobody wants to stop using their plastic products nor do they want to stop driving their vehicles - even if they are electric they were still made using fossle fuel. Nobody wants to stop using their air conditioning nor do they want to stop heating their house in the winter time.

Again, you can provide all kind of data but until the use of "fossle fuel" is stopped completely to prove that that's the problem it won't matter.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Just, wow!
Do some basic reading!
Ok,. yes you are right, nature will "make changes to compensate for things that happen", (lol you are too funny!) People are suffering on mass due to the destabilization we have caused to the normal systems here. It is just basic logic and reasoning to learn where you are and what the effects of your actions are having, no?

Why not learn and understand the systems we live in, and work to keep those working? Self preservation is normally the first impulse of living creatures,. .

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Basic reading? I am a geochemist.

" It is just basic logic and reasoning to learn where you are and what the effects of your actions are having, no? "

Concrete manufacturing plants are one of the biggest contributers of CO2 to the atmosphere. How can I personally address that? Industry is responsible for much of the problems. I personally don't burn coal, but the utilities do.

People should take personal responsibility, change their lifestyles to the best of their ability to help out... I believe that thoroughly. But a we live in an interconnected society that limits how much effective change we can make. All of society has to cooperate.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Sorry, I was responding to SteveKJR who I quoted in my reply, I must have hit the wrong reply link.

I agree with your posts they are clear and well informed. Thank you for adding to the actual information base.

Unlike SteveKJR who posts drivel like; "we are not that technologically advanced.. ..to figure out if the world is warming." Lol, get that kid a thermometer!

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

No problem....

Come to think of it, I was wondering why you sounded rational one minute then posted that towards me...lol

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

What do you think about thorium reactors? Sounds like a great potential solution to some of our problems. Liquid transportation fuel, more complicated. Alcohol fuels (like butanol) sound nice, electric or hybrid cars, but we talk about this stuff & it never happens. With concrete, isn't it the calcination process that produces most of the CO2? I'm not sure what we can do about that (besides finding some alternative to concrete), but concrete is in many ways a great compound (so it won't be easy to replace).

Unfortunately, the physical structure of America (large homes, population dispersed in suburbs, etc.) sort of builds in very large energy requirements (and individual efforts at conservation might be able to chip away at the fringes, but it won't do anything substantial).

In my view, this requires massive public investment (and regulation), but that won't happen in our current political system without deep reforms (assuming reform is even possible at this point).

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thorium reactors look good on paper. There aren't any really practical models out there.

Alcohols have helped but it depends on how they are created. Alcohol from corn is a waste of farmland. Same with soy.

Concrete creates a lot of CO2 through calcination as you mention, but the calcination process requires heating the mix to 2500 deg., that is accomplished through oil or coal burning, so its a double whammy.

Fossil fuels are very pervasive and intertwined in our way of life. From farming to manufacturing to transportation. We often use them inefficiently. There is a great deal of inertia to overcome to make any type of change to our system. The profits for the fossil fuel companies are huge as you know so there is little financial incentive to change.

I don't want to be pessimistic but I don't see change happening in my lifetime or my childrens unless some technological breakthrough comes through for energy creation.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

People don't care about "self preservation" all they care about is "dancing with the stars" or texting, facebooking, tweeting or IPoding.

Geez, give me a break - Nature will prevail in the end. So, regardless of what we do - Oh and let me remind you that with all the new technology coming down the pike we will be "oil independent" within the next five years and we will be producing less greenhouse gasses, acording to our Obimination so, it isn't going to matter - Nature Rules.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Couldn't reply to your last post to me on your 'solution'.

"Again, you can provide all kind of data but until the use of "fossle fuel" is stopped completely to prove that that's the problem it won't matter."

That is what is required as proof? I had to keep from falling off the chair with laughter.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Geo, here's the solution. Let me know when you decide to become serious and start doing what is stated below (and not in part or partially because that doesn't cut it) if you are that concerned about "global warming". Lets see just how serious you are about that.

If you can't then you like the rest of those "tree hugging enviornmentalists" are blowing smoke up everyones ass making them think you are concerned.

Stop buying all plastic products - I mean all plastic products including but not limited to cell phones, Ipods, Ipads, Laptops, Desktops, Flat screen televisions, gaming devices, sneekers, pvc piping, plastic bags, and anything else that uses fossel fuel energy to produce these products.

Stop driving cars

Stop using electricity and that includes any type of electrical transportation. That also pollutes - buy a bicycle instead - that way you can also lose weight while at the same time being efficient.

Then you can start living like it it was prior to the 60's - everyone back then had 1 telephone in their house that was connected to a party line.

Now comes the ecological conservatism fun part.

Buy land and start living off the land. Start farming - have farm animals - build shelters from trees - grow crops - and get your water from a stream.

Start making candles from animal fat, stack up a supply of wood for the winter to be used to heat the house with a built in fireplace that can provide some light at night along with all the candles you make.

Dig a hugh hole in the ground and use it for you root cellar. If you are a meat eater, slaughter your own livestock, cure the meat, store it to have food for the winter time.

If you are a vegiterian, cann all your vegetables during the summertime so that you will have food for the winter time.

So there you have it listed above are just a few options and I am sure if need be I can find more to help you reduce "green house gas".

Now, everyone complains about global warming and everyone comes up with lots of reasons for doing something about it but nobody does so, it's a "mute" issue.

Nobody wants to stop using their plastic products nor do they want to stop driving their vehicles - even if they are electric they were still made using fossle fuel. Nobody wants to stop using their air conditioning nor do they want to stop heating their house in the winter time.

Again, you can provide all kind of data but until the use of "fossle fuel" is stopped completely to prove that that's the problem it won't matter.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I like the 'nature will prevail' rhetoric you threw in at he end there,. It almost sounded like you care, about something, anything,. more than profits in the short term. Go back to your partisan hackery dip-sht. "Obimination" really?? Sad and pathetic too.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I do care and I do my part - If everyone did the same maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You see, the reason for this discussion is because of overuse. People feel guilty when someone brings up a topic that has something to do with what they are using or doing.

It happens all the time. It's all government hype to make people feel guilty and some do. People think plastic will last for ever - well, it doesn't it has a 15 year life span.

The list goes on and on. So, If you feel the need to do something about global warming do it - it will make you feel better. I do it all the time and I always feel better about myself not because I am that much concerned about global warming but I am a conservative and don't wast things like lots of people do. .

[-] 3 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

What makes you think we're not? What system have we messed with that we didn't mess up?

The thing is, it's happening faster than it's ever happened before.

Much faster.

Do they know everything that's going to happen over any particular period of time? No, it's an entire biosphere, not just the atmosphere.

It's complex in the extreme, and the data is building all the time, as well as our ability to make the measurements.

Remember this quote.

“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” ― John Muir---

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

On one hand you say it's happening faster then it ever happened and on the other hand you say they don't know everything that's going to happen.

Which is it either they do or they don't. And if being complex is the reason, then that doesn't provide answers, just confusion.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Heavy volcanic eruptions tend to cause short term cooling.

It was, I believe Benjamin Franklin that first made that observation.

In spite of the concentration of CO2 in an eruption, it doesn't hold a candle to what man puts out, and has little effect.

That being said, you really failed to give an adequate response to the 70+% decrease in winter ice on the Great Lakes.

You also failed to tell me what system man has messed with that he didn't mess up.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Like I said, global warming is not an issue with me - people tend to become involved because someone pushed their button into thinking that we are as a civilization "destroying the earth" when in fact we are not.

Worse things have happened to this planet that we will neve know about and Nature has rebounded in spit of it.

Now that may require "population clensing" but if that is what Nature does, then so be it. We do not have the power to change Nature.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

You see, that's where you are wrong, aside from not addressing a single thing I posted.

We are affecting it, to one degree or another.

Denial doesn't change science.

And please don't bring up the fact that there are a few skeptics.

There always are, and they are only rarely correct.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Shooz, I don't disagree with you I just think that over time Nature will take care of the problem should what we are doing affects the enviornment. We don't know if what we are doing affects the enviornment - people are only assuming - nothing in concrete has been proven.

Nature has a way of dealing with global change for if it didn't we wouldn't be here.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 2 years ago

Steve what will happen if the ice caps melt? sea level rise, do you know what that means... Coastal flood plains, where we grow tonnes of food, under salt water... huge cities, under 30-40 water... look at the NASA time lapse photos of Antarctica bud its real....

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Did you know that this has already happened in the past without any large populations of beings on the planet? Florida was under 5' of water at one time.

Look, I don't disagree with you about the ice caps melting but I doubt that by us not driving, not heating our homes, not using air conditioning not buring coal etc., is going to change things that much.

The earth changes over time whether we like it or not.

[+] -4 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Hey do not attack Al Gore. He got stupid RICH on this Man Made Global Warming. and the Left love him.

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

That the best you got, lame slander of some guy who once spoke about the issue? I think Gore actually got rich from being born into money like most rich folks. He also got all that payback from the corporations he helped while vice-president, in the form of exclusive 'investments' that always seem to pay out like some house rigged slot machine.

But hay, that really is not the point, Gore is not global warming he is just one guy with opinions on the subject. But keep attacking the man instead of the issue, it serves ME well when you do.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

ok i admit it was lame. The Right does not say Global warming is NOT happening, they simply say that proof that it is man caused is weak at best. It is just like you say global warming instead on man made global warming.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How silly is that? You don't need to be rocket scientist to see that 'man' is the most dominant force on earth. We are greedy and weak-willed, we let some get away with terrible crimes and great destruction, if we benefit even a little, by pretending we just knew nothing about it, or did not understand what we where helping to happen. The way the pro-oil spin machine changes and back peddles on this issue is hilarious.

  • There is no global warming. (it's getting colder actually.)
  • Well, ok there is,. but humans just can not be causing it. (the invisible-man-in-the-sky controls everything, we are so arrogant,.)
  • Oil just grows back. (really, it comes form the core, and we can just keep burning it and wasting vast amounts of stored energy, and needlessly destroying complex molecules that we could, in the near future, put to much more interesting uses.)

You have to really want to be blind, to not see. Why does the right tow this silly pro-corporate-oil line? It is not a conservative argument, it is a burn liberally argument! In fact most of what passes for conservatism is hardly conservative at all,. the terms seem to have lost any definition.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Oil is the life blood all all the nations right now and i do not mean just for burning it. We already put oil to to use in so many mind boggling thing it truly is the greatest single product on the planet. I would have no problem with a different fuel to use if it was practical and not costly beyond reason. Electric car's are cool but they have no range and take to long to recharge.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yeah I know, electric cars suck; http://www.teslamotors.com/

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

That's your opinion but its not based on fact. We have measurable proof that what we are witnessing today is in fact AGW. Including the acidification of the oceans.

The anthropogenic carbon that has been added to our system can be isotopically identified and measured. We know how much CO2 we have added to the oceans/atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

Through basic physics we know how that CO2 (and other GHG's) affect the absoprtion/radiation of solar energy. Through a global energy budget we know that we are capturing thermal energy and keeping it in surplus... every year, and that surplus is growing.