Sen. Kerry Grills AEI's Ken Green Over Climate Bill

[TKDJimi]

LOL @ Al Gore's book.

Was that peer reviewed?

[anolmec]

/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE

decide for yourself who has an agenda

[Alvin691]

Hey John, how are columns of methane raising out of the ocean OUR FAULT??? You just provied we need to be drilling for oil and natural gas in the ocean.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Because methane clathrates are held under hight pressuers and low temperatures. Lower preasue or INCREASE TEMPERATURE and they are released - and they are 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Methane is also frozen in the perma frost - melt the perma frost and guess what...

We do NOT have to start drilling we have to change the lifestyles of the western world (especially the US) before it destroys the part for everyone...

[Alvin691]

Here's an idea. YOU change YOUR lifestyle and leave the rest of us the F*CK alone.

[StunnedByStupidity]

I have a better and more intelligent and informed, you get the fuck out of the way and let the decent, intelligent, informed people save life on this planet....

[Alvin691]

You're not more intelligent or more informed than anyone, you just like to look in the bathroom mirror and convince yourself that you are the smartest person in the room. Unfortunately for you, the soap dish is catching up fast.

[StunnedByStupidity]

wow, tell you what when you have no argument why not try a smart assed comment, that's sure to win the debate for you.

[Alvin691]

Well, just talking your language. Buck to Buck.

[obamadidit2008]

i wish that they could tax you on your usage of brain cells.oh....wait a sec......that wouldn't amount to much anyway. oh well,something is better then nothing

[StunnedByStupidity]

OH ha ha ha ha ha, sheez you are so funny. Tell you what when you don't know what the hell you are talking about and have replaced your brains with excrement, try an ad hominem slip rather than confronting the facts against you.

[obamadidit2008]

that was for andymacks benefit, not you

[StunnedByStupidity]

WTF? That reply is DISGUSTING - are you an Alex Jones fan?

One way of controling usage is taxes but there are two suggestions give the taxes to corporations - to shoulder the costs and develop alternatives or return it back to the people. Those on the left are lobbying for the latter.

But here's the thing if no action is taken it will cost up to 20 TIMES the amount to fix - you'll be SAVING money MORON...

And celebrating the collapse of action to save BILLIONS from being killed and Displaced?

[populartechnology]

ROFLMAO!!! Only a clueless alarmist would think causing electricity rates to skyrocket is saving you money. Even Obama admits it!

[StunnedByStupidity]

Right for the 11 BILLIONTH time ignore all challenges shove your deluded head further up your right wing ass and state EXACTLY the same thing again - with no effin proof of what you are claiming - go on lets see the bigot yet again in action...

[StunnedByStupidity]

Take a look at your keyboard. The 'i' is right next to the 'o' I misspressed - and this is absolutely typically right wing - if you fail in an argument get all pedantic anout grammar and spelling and hope the CAST IRON arguments go away.

If you are honesly asking - I shake my head. See agin typical you are arguing your tits off and don;t even understand what is going on.

See the suns pushes out little packets of energy called photons. When you see some thing your eyes are absorbing

[StunnedByStupidity]

PART of the photons hitting (those in the visible light part of the spectrum).

The sun sends out out these packets of energy and when they reach the atmosphere most of them go straight through (some ar reflected and some ar absorbed). The energy is then absorbed by the ground.

Now when the ground re admits it it is at a lower temperature than the sun was and so the packets (photons) are now at a lower energy - or longer wave length. And this CAN be asorbed by the greenhouse gases in the

[StunnedByStupidity]

atmosphere. So the heat is trapped and prevented from leaving the atmosphere - this warms the planet by about 30oC. And more greenhouse gases the more that heat is trapped.

So the sun releases short wave photons and the Earth long wave photons - greenhouse gases absorb more of the long wave than short wave...

[StunnedByStupidity]

WTF? Are you capable of following an argument. You claimed that because CO2 was a small percentage of the atmosphere its effects it would therefore be negligible . I point out this argument is wrong then you rush over and create a straw man.

CO2 in large quantities is poisonous - but even if it wasn't so what? The argument is whether it absorbs ling wave photons - IT DOES! Nitrogen - by far the most abundant in the atmosphere does not and adds NOTHING to the warming.

And go get your sun graph.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Yes there is very precise correlations.

Over the last 10 years CO2 has increased AND SO HAVE TEMPERATURES... See:

'NASA climate graph' on google

Red line rising? You bet...

And a small amount of something is NOT indicative of effect. Drink 4 pints of water. Any effect? Probably not. Now inhgale a few spores of anthrax - hmmmmm.

Ozone is way lower than CO2 yet life would be terrible without its sunray absorbing qualities...

Now wakey wakey - for everyones sake...

[starrdreams]

Cool. Straight and right in the face. I am sure that guy will not submit anything.

[mtklaric]

did kerry just admit that hes gonna listen the people who want to tax carbon?

[CommonSenseJoe]

Kerry is a moron. This guy proved him wrong again and again. The fact remains this is about controlling the people, not the climate.

[imrubberandyoureglue]

You're insane.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, I am just realistic about what these people are after. Notice how we no longer hear about global warming. It has been changed to global climate change. How do you determine that when the world have always had climate changes?

[uwnav]

They rename it because morons like you in the winter go "HEY GUYS! ITS STILL COLD OUT HERE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE, ITS A CONSPIRACY TO CONTROL PEOPLE!"

I'd give peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists precedence over your cold tippy toes when it comes to scientific research.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Actually they renamed it because the earth was actually cooling off.

[Hoogian]

Actually, scientists were using the term "climate change" long before the cooling period started. Scientists never "renamed it." Climate change and global warming are and always were two separate terms. Climate change is a blanket term for global warming and the other changes that are occurring (natural AND human caused).

[CommonSenseJoe]

I am not talking about scientists, but those who are packaging and selling this nonsense. You cannot call it global warming when the planet is actually cooling. Using the term "climate change" covers you no matter what the weather does.

[Hoogian]

Global warming is a trend that falls under climate change, so yes it does cover you no matter what the weather does, and yes it isn't always happening because climate isn't only temperature, and it isn't only from humans. It isn't nonsense. There is significant proof that both warming trends are happening (long term, not the past 10 yrs) and that humans might have contributed to it, but there is also significant proof that these trends and causes are not the biggest factors in climate change.

[Hoogian]

Also, I am sick of people (not necessarily you...)who only read proof that agrees with what they already believe. Arguments like the one here aren't getting anywhere because both sides already have all of their faith put into one belief, and proof that contradicts it won't change that. I believe that global warming and climate change are happening, but I won't say that it is human caused yet because there are so many unknowns we have in the climate. Also insults (see below) don't help.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Which is my point! We are told we must surrender our freedom for the sake of saving the plane when, even the best estimates, say it might have less than a tenth of degree impact.

[shellius]

You're not realistic, you're a right-wing nut, probably a tea bagger. You don't believe in science, you're probably a fundamentalist "christian" who loves war, and you probably adore Sarah "quitter" Palin. You go to rallies and scream about freedom and you have no idea what you're talking about. You're ignorant and should be ignored. PERIOD.

Come on people, at some point we just have to ignore and laugh at these people and their silly denier claims. They're dumb. I guess they deserve our pity.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Ranting is not really proving anything.

[shellius]

No CommonSenseJoe, Aliens from Xenon are controlling our climate, you moron.

Jeez, I wish deniers would get an education or take a pill or something.

[CommonSenseJoe]

You mean just accept that ALL this stuff is true regardless of the facts.

[uwnav]

that is quite probably the most ironic thing you could say

[CommonSenseJoe]

I love irony. It is like people who screamed to high heaven when the Congress passed the Patriot Act concerned about the loss of privacy and freedom. Now the Congress is going to tax the very air you breath out and no one seems concerned at all about the loss of liberty.

Even if you accept some human involvement in climate change, do you really believe the Chinese are going to cut back? Do you really believe India is going to halt their economic growth because of "greenhouse gases"?

[eldictator1]

kicked his ass! I don't understand the opposition, Who the hell doesn't want to conserve energy and save money, and make our health better?

[populartechnology]

Sen. Kerry needs to Google:

"450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

[BoyKicksGirl19962000]

....and? There are a number of non peer-reviewed articles in your list. Try again.

[populartechnology]

Wrong they are all peer-reviewed.

[BoyKicksGirl19962000]

CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate: Comment (PDF)

(GSA Today, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp. 1818, July 2004)

- Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer

This is a comment and comments are rarely peer-reviewed by the journal.

Nice seeing you from Treehugger. ha ha. I read your comments there and will let that one lie. You're hopeless.

[populartechnology]

There are more than 450 listing, comments and replies are not included in the count.

[kekemankek]

450 you say...vs how many peer-reviewed papers SUPPORTING the AGW hypothesis? The remaining 98% of climate change related papers? :)

[populartechnology]

No there are very few papers explicitly endorsing the AGW hypothesis.

[elaminthecat]

Kerry is WRONG about everything, nothing is "speeding up," Arctic ice is recovering and many of his Noble Prize winners have become global warming skeptics.

He won't be able to old onto the GW fraud much longer, the observations DO NOT support it.

BTW, India's minister of environment just said the glaciers in India are not disappearing. WRONG again failed presidential candidate boy.

[flacobeyful]

Kerry's not claiming anything, he is just telling you what the best scientists in the world are advising him.

[StunnedByStupidity]

The arctic is melting WAY faster than previous predictions no if's buts nor ands. There are NO global warming nobel prize winning skeptics... (106 of the 178 living have signed a declaration on AGW)

The observations don't support it? What on your planet?

BTW the report by the Indian minister has been decried by experts...

Now with proof, what has caused the warming over the last 30 years - oh and make it PERFECT because that is what you are demanding of those who claim it is down to CO2...

[populartechnology]

There are Nobel Prize winning skeptics.

- Ivar Giaever, Ph.D. Physics, Nobel Prize in Physics 1973

- Kary Mullis, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993

- Norman Borlaug, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of International Agriculture, Texas A&M University, Nobel Peace Prize 1970

[StunnedByStupidity]

Well that is piss poor. First, I offer 106 and you offer 3. ( around 60% agree v's less than 2% disagree - yeah you make such a pedantic and worthwhile point).

But as far as I can see Giaever is not saying that Earth isn't warming nor that people are to blame but that it is nothing to be concerned about.

Mullis is a fruit - you agree with his CFC and aids stance?

I'll give you Borlaug - now just supply his proof and you will have a point...

You can find the 106's proof in the IPCC reports.

[mattmontero1]

Show us the evidence.

Sources? You sound like you're rambling to me...

[uwnav]

you're right. As an Indian I can confirm that Indian ministers and politicians never lie. In fact they're well known globally for their incorruptible status

[StunnedByStupidity]

Well no one can accuse right wingers of a lack of arrogance can you? 'Ken Green' - wow you cant make this stuff up. Dr Green with his green shirt trying to avoid action to save the biosphere. I'm guessing Mr Green has his fair share of the 40 traits of a psychopath - if there is a more despicable thing a human being can do than to lobby to avoid action on climate change I'd like to hear it .

There should be a penalty. When he is wrongALLhis money should be confiscated and given to the victims

[robinvan1983]

USA upholds any treaty? What about the geneva convention treaty? with Gitmo?

this vid just shows why people think Americans are ignorant

[Tylonous]

I love it. "Do you have any peer reviewed studies?" "No I'll have to get back to you on that." Hah fat chance.

[populartechnology]

No need to get back to him, you can Google this yourself...

"450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

[StunnedByStupidity]

They are NOT against man made global warming (contrary to the caption at the top of the page) They are the reference list from the back of the oil soaked 'Unstoppable Global warming every 1500 years'. Which is nailed to the wall here:

'Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing' on youtube.

Now google:

'Naomi Oreskes Beyond the Ivory Tower'

Then check 'Benny Peiser' on wikipedia.

Overwhelming consensus - and a deliberate attempt to prove otherwise falls flat on its face.

[populartechnology]

Yes they are skeptical of man-made global warming and have nothing to do with that book. They are not the reference list, if you had the book your would know this.

Oreskes paper is debunked and worthless. Only 13 papers (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

[StunnedByStupidity]

No, the top of the web page claims it is - I have taken a random sample and NONE disagree that man made CO2 causes warming. Go get a list of 5 that do...

The list is taken from the book I mentioned (ith some pathetically stupid addendums like the absolutely appalling first one)

Oreskes paper was NOT debunked. As I posted in the the last post you deliberately ignored Pieser TRIED and spectacularly failed.

1% eh - get you stupid assed reference for that stupid comment - or try reading it!

[populartechnology]

There are 450 papers there that support skepticism, if you cannot find them then you are not even trying.

It is taken from the book really? Then how come there are papers published AFTER the book was released? You are totally clueless.

Oreskes paper is fraudulent as the paper states she used the search words "climate change" but later claimed it was "global climate change" LMAO!!! Total fraud and debunked.

[StunnedByStupidity]

There are 450 idiotically claimed skeptical papers. As pointed out, using the 1500 year as an excuse fails. The satellite data was wrong. It is NOT the sun nor cosmic rays (the sun is decreasing over 30 years and no change up nor down in cosmic rays - no change no effect).

450 and you cannot say which 5 thats 1 effin percent you are pinning your claim on hmmmm.

As I said the book 'coincidentally' references 450 - and the web site has thrown in a few STUPID more...

[StunnedByStupidity]

And now we begin to back track on Oreskes - and stunningly suprisingly you are getting hopelessly pedantic.

So it was more that 1% agreed - by your silence. Pieser did you you claimed and used the two word term - AND FAILED.

ANd your stupid cackling is very disturbing. Like some mad psychopath. Total fraud - what that is your evidence - and you require perfection from the other side - you are obviously insane...

[StunnedByStupidity]

Right WITH PROOF what has caused the warming over the last 30 years - hell you have 450 papers to prove it apparently - oh and make it PERFECT - because that is what you are demanding of others...

Now hypocrite let's see what you have LMFAO indeed...

[populartechnology]

No Oreskes paper was a total fraud and only 1% of her cherry picked papers explicitly endorsed her position.

Pieser showed she fraudulently claimed to use the search term "climate change" when she really used "global climate change" leaving out 11,000 papers from her search.

Oreskes paper is debunked and worthless, only clueless alarmists bring it up to show their lack of knowledge on the issue.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Look you are coming over as a bigoted fruit cake. The paper CLEARLY states explicit /implicit agreement 75% and they were random samples.

Then Pieser (you fucking retard) tried again AND CAME TO VERY SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS! Oh and you are deliberately being thick (wow a thick right winger wonders will never cease) he tried to us non peer reviewed sources - Sorry but in science magazine article don't count and certainly not Fox news and AM radio where you get ALL you 'facts' from...

[populartechnology]

Why do you keep talking about a book you clearly never read, I have it in front of me. Please tell me what pages all the papers from 2008 and 2009 are on.

"450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

Dominating

[StunnedByStupidity]

Oh dear are we getting desperate? The list is from the references in the back. And quit trying to throw the scent, the list is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a list of 450 papers that deny man made warming - it is an idiotic go no where list of nit picking nonsense.

Now use your stupid book and your list of 450 papers and give me 5 papers that prove, as is the claim, at the top of the page that the CO2 emitted by man cannot cause warming...

[populartechnology]

You keep repeating the lie, if the list is from the back of the book can you tell me where in the back of the book the papers from 2008 and 2009 are since the book came out in 2007.

The fact is, it has nothing to do with the book.

"450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

Dominating

[StunnedByStupidity]

Ok, I accept you white flag, now PLEASE buy some decent books and read the science for all our sakes...

[populartechnology]

I've read plenty of books on the science, including...

"Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know" (2009)

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology

[StunnedByStupidity]

Right 2 books soaked in oil money - I mean do you know anything about the debate and who is trying to claim there is one?

Michaels ADMITS the warming is AT LEAST partly down to man - hmmmm

And how many have you read that don't have oil industry ties? And two is NOT 'plenty' 2 is 2...

And still cannot show its not down to man I see.

As I said you are a right winger and cannot be wrong - All I ask is that you stop lying to yourself this is VERY VERY VERY important - we are about to blow it!

[populartechnology]

It has nothing to due with oil money. Oh I know more about the debate than you do apparently.

What Michaels admits is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the temperature increase is so minor to be insignificant. He debunks all he alarmist positions with only peer-reviewed papers.

I can reference over 50 skeptical books on the subject and counting.

[StunnedByStupidity]

It has EVERYTHING to do with oil money - it is THEY that are pushing there is still debate - there is NOT NOT NOT. And it is they that are pushing it's too expensive - blown out of the water by the Stern review and IPCC.

No, Michaels claims the low end of the IPCC - when the latest science shows that the WORST CASE will be exceeded - Wake the fuck up!

Those books are funded by people like the CATO institute - that gets oil money - BOOKS are not science. Go look in the back at their refences

[StunnedByStupidity]

now compare that with say 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas with 40 yes thats right 40 pages of scientific peer reviewed papers - NOTHING on the denial side comes close - he spent 8 hours a day for a year in a scientific library compiling it!

And as I have ENDLESSLY asked WITH PROOF what has caused the warming? 50 books 450 ALLEGED papers and STILL nothing to offer - hmmm they sound just packed with facts...

[populartechnology]

The number of "pages" is irrelevant since any number of papers can be on a single page.

I have asked for the proof that man-made CO2 has caused the warming and you have nothing but virtual reality.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Right, go to the backs of your books and tell me how many pages...

I have the IPCC report ALL the science published up to 2007 - that level of scientific compilation has NEVER been done before - NOTHING comes close.

And I tell you what when you loose why not heave the goal posts onto you shoulders and move them further down the field...

CO2 traps longwave radiation - man has increased the amount in the atmosphere - Q E effin D

[StunnedByStupidity]

Oh and you might like to tell me (since you know so much about the false 'debate') who is Frank Luntz and why do I ask?

[populartechnology]

Sorry Dr. Michaels only has about 15 pages of very small type references. But since page count has nothing to do with paper count, you point is irrelevant.

Most of the papers in the IPCC report are general climate papers and do not discuss AGW at all.

Your statement proves nothing. I said prove man-made CO2 has caused the warming since the little ice age.

Frank Luntz? Why the hell would you bring in a polster who is prominently on Fox News?

You are in denial of the debate?

[StunnedByStupidity]

Ah so Michael's offers nothing.

The IPCC - THE greatest compilation (the reort is split into 'working groups' - one of which is dedicated to giving the science and proof) nails you.

My statement is as simple and as concise as a right winger will allow - so tell me does CO2 trap heat? And have we increased the amount?

There is tons of periphery infor. The stratosphere (warmed by the sun is COOLING) the troposphere (warmed by green house gases) is warming. Most of the warming is at night

[StunnedByStupidity]

and during the winter (it would be day and summer if it was the sun). Solar output has decreased over the last 30 years. No change to the cosmic rays. Measuring energy at the top of the atmosphere shows no increase in input yet decrease in output (categorically pointing at greenhouse gases).

And don't know about Frank Luntz? What you claim to know something about the debate and don;t know why Luntz is important?

'Frank Luntz in the Denial Machine (CBC - Fifth Estate)' on you tube

[StunnedByStupidity]

And the reason you have so much baloney in your head is because of this asshole. Yeah loved by fox news the people who stole an election and brought you all the crap and nonsense about Iraq...

More here:

'Earth: The Climate Wars Fightback. Episode 2.' on google video from around the 48 minute mark...

'Interview with Frank Luntz (FRONTLINE: "Hot Politics")' on you tube

and it is YOU that is in denial - in fact you appear to be clinically insane...

[populartechnology]

You seem out of touch with reality and are a typical clueless liberal who thinks every skeptic is a right wing conservative who watches Fox News. Well I'm not, I'm a libertarian. You rambling about Luntz is just ridiculous as I have never heard him mentioned once in the debate.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Google:

'liberal us wiki'

First return. Then scoll down to 'Demographics of Liberals'

The more educated the more Liberal. and just to hammet home the point:

'6% Of Scientist Are Republicans' on you tube

See you are a right winger BECAUSE you are a know nothing bigot...

A 'Libertarian' eh? If you tell me you work for a wage you should be slapped up side you stupid assed head...

Luntz is THE man used by the oil industry and Republicans - deny all you like that is reality...

[StunnedByStupidity]

Oh, have just checked reading list for Climate of Extremes - 13 pages. But what is more damaging is just take a random selection of those published by either Science or Nature (these are the most repitable and I could not belive that they had disproved man made global warming) and sure enogh if you judge them by the extracts, all that I checked DID NOT disagree with man made global warming - in fact they mostly implicitly agreed. Hmmmmmm

Which is why you have no legs to stand on me thinks...

[populartechnology]

Dr. Michael's rebutes all your claims. I suggest you read the book.

The IPCC report is a politic report and

doesn't nail anything.

The sun is still a climate driver.

"Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing"

The CBC is apparently clueless as Luntz is never brought up in any debate on the subject.

[StunnedByStupidity]

So again wriggle like a clueless dishonest worm. Michaels offer nothing (by you admission you haven't got a clue what is causing the warming)

The IPCC is NOT NOT NOT a political document - it is the SCIENCE - having to lie AGAIN to win hmmmm.

'Cosmic rays dont die so easily' Hmmmm

Ah and tell you what don't watch the videos I post and pretend you know what the fuck is going on...

[populartechnology]

Prove the book was funded by oil money and no wikipedia and sourcewatch are not reliable sources.

Yes there is still a debate.

The IPCC and Stern Review are debunked in the list of 450 papers.

Dr. Michaels claims that the trend does not even follow the low end of the IPCC. Absolutely nothing but hysterical alarmists support the worst case scenario.

Dr. Michaels book has hundreds of references to peer-reviewed papers, try reading it.

[StunnedByStupidity]

So Cato is not funded by Exxon? And Michaels has taken no fossil fuel money - try reading 'The Heat is on' by Ross Gelbspan. Oh and wiki no good? Wiki is referenced and you can easily check the references oh and whats this:

'bbc news wiki survives research' on google. 'ONLY' as good as the Encyclopedia Britanica.

Oh and EVERY SINGLE time I point to a repitable source that nails you you just dicount it - hmmmmm - LOOK UP BIGOT...

NO DEBATE

450? Where?

Michaels has NOTHING...

[populartechnology]

Stunned you are acting rabidly insane. You have no proof for any of your lies and keep calling me a bigot.

Have a good day in crazy land.

[exenrontexas]

The conservative leaders of large corporations who oppose climate change legislation depend upon PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. THey give those in the public who either do not understand the problem or do not WANT to understand it for political reason,an opportunity to deny ANY and ALL contradictory evidence that they ARE WRONG.  They spend more time argueing against changing our energy practices than seeking the truth. Jimmy Carter was RIGHT. Energy conservation is the moral equivalent of WAR.

[classc63]

Take 'em to task Kerry!!!!!

[sjcpal]

Get em Kerry