James Inhofe vs Anderson Cooper

[JuanVoyce]

This is typical of the kind of schizophrenic narrative you hear from Deniers.

[GovernmentSham912]

@JuanVoyce

The word denier is always used to compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust Deniers. My friend, you got the founder of CNN, Ted Turner calling for drastic world population reduction and a "voluntary" 1 child policy to prevent man made global warming. If scientists told you Jews needed to be wiped out or they would breed mankind with genetic disorders, would you say Sieg heil or would you dare question the "science" of Eugenics.

[JuanVoyce]

@GovernmentSham912 A 1 child policy is not eugenics. But since you want to talk about it, explain how society's protection of the sick, deformed, retarded runs counter to Darwinian evolution.

[GovernmentSham912]

@JuanVoyce

I didn't say a 1 child policy was eugenics.

First I pointed out what one of the top advocates along with many others are saying what measures have to be taken in order to combat climate change. Then I gave an a well known example of another hyped up crisis by government. Nazi scientists claiming a consensus on the science of Eugenics, saying that Jews were inferior and would ruin the race.

[JuanVoyce]

@GovernmentSham912 So a scientific consensus on climate change, in your mind, is equivalent to the Holocaust? Yeah...you're thinking clearly.

[GovernmentSham912]

@JuanVoyce

Your keep on taking things I say and twisting it into something I didn't say.

Both eugenics and the theory of man made global warming are crack pot pieces of pseudoscience meant to give up our ways of life and wealth to government bureaucrats and the ultra rich.

[JuanVoyce]

@GovernmentSham912 OK, go ahead and prove your point, either about eugenics or AGW.

[Sharpe3884]

worst senator EVER!

[shartne]

jim is a hero !

[DarthFastidious]

Yes, the man who said the "outrage over the outrage" was worse than the actual prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, is a "hero." The man who said that "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century" even though satellite data doesn't start until 1979, and it shows that there IS warming is a "hero." the man who said we should support Israel because "God said so" is a "hero."

[DarthFastidious]

The man who implied that the 9-11 attacks were a form od divine retribution upon the US by God is a "hero." The man who has voted against expanding access to student loans by lowering rates is a "hero." The man who said while pointing to a picture of his family on the Senate floor, "[my wife and I] have 20 kids and grandkids, I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship" is a "hero."

[DarthFastidious]

The man who has been rated seven seperate times as "one of the most corrupt members of Congress" is a "hero." See, the words I think of are: "cruel, mean-spirited, batshit insane, homophobic, bigoted, Bible-thumping, lying, sycophantic bastard."

[prikhod]

your ad hominem attacks on Inhofe only make you look foolish. AGW is bullshit and now it's out.

[DarthFastidious]

Hey, kids! Let's play The Vocabulary Game! Today's secret word is: "ad hominem"!  What does that mean, kids? Why, it means: "an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." Which seems to imply what, kids? Why, that the person is pointing out things that are either not true, or irrelevant to the discussion! So, if the things being pointed out are independently verifiable, and accurately show a consistent-

[prikhod]

@Darth: Inhofe being a bible thumper, or an anti-gay advocate as you mentioned in your previous posts alongside other irrelevant garble do not make his anti-AGW arguments any less valid. Give you a simple example of your argument: "Hitler lies, Hitler says smoking is bad for your health", hence the conclusion "Smoking is good for your since Hitler is a liar". This is what your "argument" looks like.

[DarthFastidious]

-pattern of flat out lying, making stuff up, hypocrisy and occasional delusional insanity, they are not irrelevant to the discussion of the original point, that said lunatic is a "hero"! That's right, kids! It's not ad hominem! That's just a term people who themselves use ad hominem attacks (like Sean "anyone listening to this show that believes homosexuality is a normal lifestyle has been brainwashed" Hannity) like to throw around to blur the fact that they do so! Thanks for playing!

[DarthFastidious]

Oh, and pointing out the hacked e-mails? Yeah, that doesn't actually prove anything, except that you go looking for things which verify your preconceived narrative. You see, a few scientists acting unethically doesn't, ya know, completely invalidate the independent observations of several hundred thousand others who all come to the same conclusion. And who can also back said conclusion with actual observational data, something Jim "there's balloon data!" Imhofe doesn't really understand.

[prikhod]

@D: what you say clearly indicates that you haven't read the emails. I have downloaded full copies a week ago, and there's a LOT of statements that make it absolutely clear that at least the following has taken place:

1) Deletion of data

2) Selective use of data

3) Abuse of peer review process

4) Intimidation and black mail

5) Violation of FOI act

6) Fabricating reports to fit a pre-determined agenda.

If you're interested I can email you the copy (69MB), PM if you're interested.

[DarthFastidious]

Pot, meet kettle. You, of course, never read the 99% of the e-mails that were not like this. You only read the ones the anti-environmentalist lobby published all over their propaganda sites. And again, you're cherry picking the handful of unethical loons (who's only real agenda was getting more funding by making their studies look more important than they really were), and ignoring the absolute MOUNTAIN of observable evidence and ETHICAL scientists who back it up.

[prikhod]

@D: Incorrect, virtually every email is incriminating. Michael Mann concocted the now debunked "hockey stick" (you know what I'm talking about) the whole AGW is rests upon, Phil Jones was the "scientist" who published the 1,000 year temperature records, so these people were at the vanguard of AGW. Others have played along (for grants), but absolute majority of independent scientists completely disagree with the theory of AGW. The only reason you haven't heard about it is because you cherry-pick.

[DarthFastidious]

Do me a favor before you continue your screed. We can hurl numbers at each other all day to no effect. Let's do the logic thing. Look up "scientific opinion on climate change" on Wikipedia. Then tell me why so many scientists and organizations (97% of scientists in the field by most accounts) are part of a James Bond-style global cabal to... To what, exactly?

[DarthFastidious]

Oh, right, that doesn't mesh with your worldview, where all Liberals are EEEEEEVIL, so you ignore it. Right. And hey, let's play the Vocabulary Game again! What was that original explosion of text in response to? In response to the implication that Inhofe was a "hero." NOT his stance on AGW.

[prikhod]

I'm a liberal, I just happen not jump on a bandwagon of AGW. I repeat there is no thousands and thousand of scientists who support AGW outside a small group. You may want to read this: 2007 US Senate Minority Report. Read carefully... None of the scientists in the report are conservative. They are just not big fans of bullshit.

[prikhod]

There are no "hundred of thousands of scientists" coming to the same conclusion. There are 42 scientist in UN IPCC, some of who are only involved in gathering data and not, I repeat NOT, conclusions (CO2) and summary for policy makers. Now also, the email that leaked were NOT of some of the many scientists working on CC, but the very founders of the theory, including (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc.) Don't downplay it, we know they cooked it, and they know it too.

[DarthFastidious]

There is no "founder" of the "theory." Would you like to look up how many scientists support this evidence, and how many are "skeptical"? That's like saying "Darwin lied a few times, thus ALL EVOLUTION SCIENCE IS INVALID." Oh, wait... Wasn't that the EXACT argument you were just making about my observations of Inhofe...?

[prikhod]

I'm not touching Wikipedia on this subject. It's not credible... they haven't even added the leaked emails scandal to Mr. Mann's biography... Shall we go any further? I think not. Read a real source.

[DarthFastidious]

I'm not even referencing the e-mails here. I'm pointing out a specific article which is fully referenced at the bottom. READ IT. And tell me why, NOW, that many organizations and scientists are "lying."

[DarthFastidious]

And what about the observations of US governmental agencies, like NOAA and NASA, which show a drastic decrease in glacier ice thickness, and a mean increase in global surface temperatures the speed and intensity of which has no peer in observed geological history? Are they ALL lying? Are they all working for this imaginary cabal of evil Europeans?

[prikhod]

@D. Nobody disputes overall warming. What's disputed is the conclusions. i.e. Global Warming is NOT Anthropogenic, hence no need for carbon tax. Furthermore, the warming stopped in 1998 and the global temperature has been declining since. Secondly, there are a lot of interest groups (not scientists) who are GW activists, who are in no way credible, EVEN if wikipedia (LOL@u) says otherwise.

[DarthFastidious]

And you go right back to this. I notice you're completely ignoring the question here. WHY. MAKE. THIS. STUFF. UP? And honestly, slamming a Wikipedia article? Yeah, an independent study in 2006 showed that Wikipedia was more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. It isn't what it was five years ago. And this is a FULLY REFERENCED article, here. It links to dozens of other websites. Oh, of course, they're ALL lying...

[DarthFastidious]

Where the HELL did you get that the increase "stopped" in 1998? The NOAA seems to disagree with you on that... So does NASA. Oh, right, they're all doing it for money.

[DarthFastidious]

See, this is the same crap I get into with the 9-11 Truther lunatics. Why even bother hurling numbers and data at each other when there's a far simpler question to be asked and answered: "how is such a conspiracy even possible in the first place, and why would anyone even want to do this?" That question has to be answered FIRST. The burden of proof is on the people making accusations. Not the defendants.

[prikhod]

There are many reasons as to why and the answer is different depending on the group:

1. Scientists @ IPCC get more funding when they are researching results of imminent danger;

2. Al Gore has millions invested in "green energy" (Generation Investment Management)

3. Obama was one of the founders of Chicago Climate Tax Credit Exchange

4. Activists do it for political reasons (no different from the church)

5. UN will get their first direct taxation (carbon tax) if cap and trade is ratified.

[DarthFastidious]

That's absurd. You could explain away absolutely everything that way. "Why did scientists say the sky was blue because of light scattering? Well, the art lobby wanted more attention brought to the fact that white light includes all aspects of the color spectrum..." So, lemme see if I have your feelings on this correct. Every piece of data, EVER, is suspect, because absolutely every single person on the planet (except the ones you agree with) is an evil bastard who only wants more money.

[DarthFastidious]

And why on Earth, with the possible ramifications of ignoring a global increase in temperature, do we even need to err on the side of caution here? Even if the tables were reversed, and the minority opinion was that it wasn't likely, it would still be a damned good idea to do something about it. What's the harm? ONOZ several dozen astonishingly rich men might... Not... Be as rich? For a few years? And what's the harm if it's true and we ignore it? Oh, right, millions dead and displaced.

[prikhod]

There won't be millions dead or displaced. In the 70's they were talking about ice age coming back, in the 80's it was ozone layer depletion (which made billions for DuPont of course), and now it's global warming. I agree with conservation and reducing pollution, but AGW has nothing to do with that. It's about taxing people for CO2 emissions. CO2 is not even a pollutant. If Gore cared about the planet, he'd stop flying around in a private jet and having utilities 100x average household.

[DarthFastidious]

Oh, don't you DARE bring up the Global Cooling nonsense. You know as well as I do that was a view shared by only a tiny group of scientists, which the media blew completely out of proportion (as they are won't to do). Using that as any kind of proof is complete absurdity. WAIT. CO2 is not a pollutant? ...Are you familiar with the planet Venus, by any chance? You know what else occurs naturally in the atmosphere? Argon! Let's increase the levels of that by 50%! It's all natural, right?

[prikhod]

Listen, I don't want to argue all day, read the minority report for US senate from 2007 and if you don't want to read, watch "global warming doomsday called off". That's a start, after which you may want to do some more research. I can assure you if you stop reading wikipedia, you'll find that GW is not as "science is settled" or "flat earth arg" as you think it is right now.

[DarthFastidious]

Lady, I did read it. Two years ago. Your assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is not aware of the "facts" is more than a little insane. And I don't get all my info from Wikipedia. And your response is to tell me to watch a video of a CBC documentary. The CBC. A government-controlled news organization. Right. Hey, remember the whole ad hominem thing? Guess what you're doing right now by assuming that everyone who agrees AGW is an unenlightened idiot who has been "duped"?

[DarthFastidious]

For that matter, do you have any idea how utterly condescending and asinine it is to basically say, "Hmmph. Well, clearly, CLEARLY you haven't READ all the material. Harrumph. You obviously are nowhere near as educated on this issue as I. After all, you obviously are a complete MORON. you disagree with ME, after all, and mentioned... Shudder... Wikipedia... Such a COMMONER'S source of information. Just like everyone else who does not share my worldview, they are all liars. To a man!"

[DarthFastidious]

And ozone depletion was actually happening. NASA satellites verified it. And say what you will about who made money off of helping the situation, I don't care. The point is, the hole has been drastically reduced in size. Oh, for God's sake... You're doing it again. Gore proves nothing. The man has always had an ego the size of a small planet. I could care less if he's still right.

[DarthFastidious]

And yes, there will be millions dead and displaced. Imagine the Sumatran Tsunami on a much larger scale. You do see all the cap ice breaking off, right? You do realize what will happen if the sea level rises a few inches? What will happen to countries like Bangladesh?

[DarthFastidious]

Which, I suppose, brings up full circle. This IS a video of Inhofe, after all. Why does HE so angrily try to debunk it? Well, a quick look at his donor list shows a hell of a lot of fossil fuel companies. And then there's the whole Bible-thumping thing. He's a Christian Dominionist. he thinks that Humans are literally incapable of harming God's "perfect" creation. Great. Preconceived narrative, indeed.

[prikhod]

He may get money from oil, he may not, and I honestly don't care. What I care about however is that AGW is bullshit. The other thing what I hear soemtimes which I find a little puzzling, why exactly would oil companies care? They'll just pass the tax down to you at the pump... that's all, so you'll pay $6 a gallon and bitch how bad oil companies are. And what's wrong with them anyways? Do you not drive? Or maybe you don't heat your house? Is your internet pedal powered? Nobody makes you buy gas

[DarthFastidious]

Seriously? You don't know what's wrong with an industry that has monopolistic control over ever single way we get around, and has massive influence over every single politician in the Western World? You... Can't see how that might be a bad thing? Or the whole, you know, largest one quarter profit in Human History thing? While people are paying four times the price they did a few years ago at the pump? Gee... I wonder what they would have to lose from no more fossil fuel burning...

[prikhod]

Whether you get a CO2 tax or not, oil industry isn't going anywhere, face it, except for you utilities bill is going to skyrocket. Next thing you know, you'll start bitching how "green energy" is taking in unheard of profits. And there will be a new Global Cooling calling for a "blue energy" to replace green energy.

AGW is a money grab, that's all it is, and you'll feel really silly when the whole thing unravels. It's very shaky by now.

[DarthFastidious]

For God's sake, I'm not bitching about my bills. I don't care about the bills. I care about the ramifications of ignoring this. Agreed, as soon as fossil fuel is replaced by something else, a few megacorps will be in control of it, and abuse the control to make too much money. Terrible, but let's deal with that when we get there. The whole, "our abuse of the system could get people killed and the planetary ecosystem damaged" thing is a bit more important at the moment.

[DarthFastidious]

See, federal governments of every industrialized nation on Earth deciding together to come up with a way to switch over to non-fossil fuel methods of energy and propulsion...  Yeah, that might put a bit of a dent in their profits. And yes, I'm fine with a tax increase. It will make people drive less, reduce smog and CO levels, clear up roadways, and the tax money can go to public transportation.

[prikhod]

Yes, the government is here to help ya out. Good One! For a liberal, that's quite a statement.

See, AGW is a religion.

1. Pope (Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Leo)

2. Prophets (Mann, Jones)

3. Sin (CO2 emissions)

4. Dogma ("science is settled")

5. Defensive followers (GW activists)

When you try to explain to a Christian that what he/she believes is bull, they look at you and try to save you... Well with global warming it's the same thing... AGW = Religion for non-theistic people.

[DarthFastidious]

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Lady, you're doing the exact same thing, and I don't believe for a second it's because of any enlightenment on your part. You, like all purveyors of convoluted conspiracy tripe, have one goal in life: slaking your gigantic, throbbing, oversized egos. "Hey, look at me! I'm not a lemming like all of you SHEEP! I'm smarter! I have divine knowledge that you lack! I see the TRUTH! And I'm gonna bring the system down! Yeah!"

[DarthFastidious]

And you're applying the wrong definition of "Liberal" here. A Canadian Liberal is closer to a classical European "Liberal." An American Liberal is primarily defined by their support for a large, strong, centralized Federal government. Remember, we're a Federation, not a Confederation like Canada.

[prikhod]

And by the way...

1. Science IS NEVER settled, so whenever you hear somebody tell you that next time, get your bullshit-radar ready cuz they are about to unload a bunch of garbage on you.

2. And when you hear "thousands and thousands of scientists, blah blah"... get your bullshit radar ready too. Science is not a popularity contest.

[DarthFastidious]

Actually, it kind of is. See, Occam's Razor tends to apply. When the vast, vast majority of experts in a particular field all say the same thing independent of each other when looking at the same data? That's usually a pretty damned good sign that they're right. This isn't the middle ages. They aren't being influenced by a religious dogma. They're looking at the same data, and reaching the same conclusions.

[prikhod]

Except for there is no VAST VAST majority of experts. There are 28 pro AGW scientists who reference each other all the time, most active of which (who also happen to be the fore-fathers of AGW) have been discredited with the email hack.

I can assure you most scientists don't take AGW seriously. They've only recently become active speakers because the policy is being crafted based on the fake-science and are naturally outraged.

[DarthFastidious]

Oh, my God, that is utter and complete tripe. Where are you getting that from? You accuse me of cherry-picking, and then you dump suspiciously familiar accusations on here. I've heard that one before, and it's nonsense. Go to a university, and visit the climatological department, if they have one. See how many of them are skeptics. Every major climatological department and organization is in agreement. And NASA, and ESA, and JAXA, and so on... That's not "vast"?

[prikhod]

Name a few... I will comment on each and every one of them... Please avoid names in the emails, it will be too easy for me...

[prikhod]

All of these are skeptics:

1) Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC cocoordinating

lead author

2) Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College

3) Dr. Paul Berenson - Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense

4) Dr. David Packham - Australian Bureau of Meteorology

5) Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson

6) Meteorologist Thomas B. Gray (NOAA)

I have the full list of 700 prominent scientists, it's just there isn't enough space. They all think AGW is a joke.

[prikhod]

Dr. Peter Stilbs (Royal Institute of Technology)

Dr. Randy Cerveny (UNs World

Meteorological Organization)

NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham

Paul C. Knappenberger (New Hope Environmental Services)

Peter R. Leavitt (National Research Councils Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate)

U.S Army Chief Scientist Dr. Bruce West dissented from climate fears in 2008

Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University

Meteorologist Hajo Smit (IPCC)

Come on...

[DarthFastidious]

And 700 out of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. Not exactly compelling. And since you're so fond of doing it, I'll pull one of your tricks out of the bag, and tell you to go actually read up on each and every name on that list. Tell me if they actually did say that, or were misquoted. And if they did, tell me they are in a position to be an "expert."

[prikhod]

give me names... you still just repeating crap you heard from Al Gore... names, any?

[DarthFastidious]

Oho... THAT list. I've seen that one before.  Go look up what happened after it was posted. The majority of the scientists on there demanded their names be taken off, saying they never disputed climate change, and that quotes were being taken out of context.

[prikhod]

That's not the case... Initial list was 450 scientists in 2007, and by 2009 it grew to over 700. Can you name a single person on that list who demanded their name to be taken off? I will contact them personally to verify.

[DarthFastidious]

Will you, now? Would you care to explain how? Are YOU claiming to be a climatologist now? Oh, and this: "Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the AMS or STATS at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that currently available scientific evidence substantiates its occurrence."

[prikhod]

Yes I will, most professors don't mind replying to emails or picking up phone calls, so yes, I will personally contact them to verify your claims of their demands... GOOD LUCK!

"489 randomly selected members"... LOL! Ok... THAT settles it :) Got any real beef or are you gonna be serving up tofu?

[DarthFastidious]

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

Oh, and of course, the randoms aren't real scientists. Because they disagree with you.

[prikhod]

Svante Bjork, ehh? Well let's see what he has to say: QUOTE: Cold periods in the north

have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC.

GOOD ONE! Yes, DOOM and GLOOM, isn't it? IPCC routinely puts names of scientists on their reports, EVEN WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE. The quote one word here, two words there and BANG... name's on the list. Most of them consider AGW complete nonsense.

[prikhod]

And before throwing the names... I'd verify what they actually have to say...

[DarthFastidious]

Yeah, how about that I DID: in response to inclusion on the list, Bjork sent an e-mail stating that the doctor was deliberately taken out of context, and, "please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"

[prikhod]

She did reply that to a completely different list compiled by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's petition. I'm talking about US Senate Minority report.

[DarthFastidious]

Inhofe pulled names from the original Heartland list for his. Most of the names were still included because "well, even if they don't think they did, their findings support us."

[DarthFastidious]

Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University

Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University

Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

[DarthFastidious]

Supposedly, out of the first Heartland list, there were over 120 who wanted off. Find the rest yourself. Now, I'm curious to see just how big that throbbing ego really is...

[prikhod]

If you read the US Senate Minority Report, each and every single one of them (yes over 700) writes about 2 paragraphs on their thoughts on AGW. You won't like what they all say. Give you a couple here:

I am sure that the concept of a Global Temperature is nonsense, Thomas B. Gray

point out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as proof of disastrous warming. Paul C. Knappenberger

[DarthFastidious]

Ahem... "The Center for Inquiry says hundreds of scientists cited in the U.S. Senate Minority Report are not credible climate researchers. The Minority Report disputes the 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position that humans are responsible for climate change. Opponents of climate change legislation say more than 700 researchers have now signed on to the report-"

[DarthFastidious]

"-But the Center for Inquiry says most of those scientists don't have the proper credentials to be called climate researchers. A report from the group says about 80 percent had no peer-reviewed publication record on climate science."

[prikhod]

Why won't you go over credentials on the list instead quoting some "Center for Inquiry"? Listen, I'm done arguing with you, since you've already been "saved" and want to hear nothing about it. If you want to believe in fairy tales, go ahead... But mark my words, 20 years from now you'll see how you've wasted a lot of time...

[DarthFastidious]

Hmm-mmm. Here, how about you look up "Ranking Members Senate Minority Report on Global Warming Not Credible, says Center for Inquiry" on Google, find the website, and read the PDFs. Then get back to me and tell me how those 700 "scientists" are "credible." I'm sure the fact that Inhofe himself pushed that report had nothing to do with that... Oh, right, I'M the one who's been "saved." Clearly, your mind is totally open. Have fun actually e-mailing those professors. Right.

[prikhod]

I'm done talking to you, it's a waste of my time... have a nice day.

[DarthFastidious]

Lady, you started this by insulting me over something I said TWO MONTHS AGO. You, ma'am, are a hypocrite of astonishing proportions, and utterly incapable of seeing that you do the exact things your profess to abhor. So, seriously, have fun damning us all from your high mountain of invincibility, where no dissension is allowed.

[prikhod]

I'm not a lady for one. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean it as an insult. And secondly I used to believe in AGW for quite some time, but was totally shocked when I looked at what they are basing their conclusions on. No more...

[DarthFastidious]

I took a quick look at your profile when this started and in the few seconds I was there gleaned "Canada" and "lady" because there was an uploaded video of a new mom. I assumed that was you. And again with the ego. "BEHOLD! I HAVE BEEN GIVEN EYES AND HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH! Someday, brother, I hope you will join me." Gee, not at all exactly like what you said I was doing, is it?

[prikhod]

You have a bit of a point, except for I have a default position. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I guess I just went with AGW initially cause I didn't really care much and accepted a media-promoted position.

But like George Carlin said: "the planet is fine, people are fucked"

[DarthFastidious]

But it's not extraordinary at all. We've already completely altered this planet with our own hands. We've altered our own evolutionary path already! Look at our feet: the arch is slowly disappearing because we wear shoes... Is it really so extraordinary to think that we could cause a calamity? And I'm not talking some absurd, over-the-top all of a sudden, "Day After Tomorrow" (please go away, Roland Emmerich) type of thing here. Again, we aren't all alarmist loons.

[DarthFastidious]

The problem is that people listen to idiots like Greenpeace, who seem to think the planet will literally EXPLODE, and conclude that's what all environmental legislation supporters are like. It's a gradual thing that alarms me. This planet ISN'T naturally cold. Ice caps are a rarity. Earth is very far into Sol's "Habitable Zone." This should be a downright tropical planet, like it was in the Mesozoic. We were on our way back to that, but it's happening too fast... MUCH too fast.

[prikhod]

Ok I want to distinguish between two things: Environmental protection and GWA.

When it comes to environment protection, I'm all for it. I agree that measures should taken in place for:

1. Poisonous gases, fluids and nuclear waster disposal

2. Spill prevention (Enron)

3. Preservation of wild life.

4. Preservation of forest and rain-forest

5. Preservation of oceans

+more

I just don't believe in a CO2 scare. There are real problems environmental and other, I just don't buy this is one of them.

[DarthFastidious]

And THAT is a way of putting it I can get behind.  Still completely disagree there, but that's palatable to me. No more preaching.

[prikhod]

Ok cool. I particularly have hard time buying the CO2 thing when it's sold to us in a "War on Terror" fashion by such cronies as Gore who are set to make billions from their "green" investments.

But again, time will tell, but rest assured you and your children will be just fine.

[DarthFastidious]

Oh, I'm not reproducing. EVER. I shudder to think of the horrifying creatures my DNA would produce. Besides, New Yorker. We don't really breed. Or ever get married. I think we produce via parthenogenesis.

But yes, the media panic crap is not something I'm fond of, even if I support the idea behind it. And seriously, Gore... Now, THAT is an ego. Manbearpig, indeed. His heart's in the right place, but DAMN.

And it's not me I worry about...

[Tacair1]

Its happening too fast because the datasets arent accurate.

Flawed data being used by corrupt climate crooks at CRu posing as "scientists" to promote a scenario which isnt happening at all.

It only exists in the adjusted data and the cherry picked warm station data.

It looks real but it isnt.

Welcome to the climate change Matrix where nothing is what it appears.

[DarthFastidious]

@Tacair1

Would you care to back up your assertion that the "datasets aren't accurate"? With, you know, actual information that shows they aren't? Because NASA satellites, that have nothing to do with the climategate scientists, say they are. Go look it up on the NASA website.

...Far be it from me to be so flippant, but I think we've already covered this. Like, to death. Seriously, scroll down. That fellow and I nearly tore each other's eye sockets out. We're done now, thanks.

[Tacair1]

Google hessell1980.pdf

Shows problems with data being collected way back then.

Some images of what im saying.

Google: Temperature stations.

Youll find examples of stations that are being artificially heated by air con outflows, carparks and other urban situations.

No way can these be relied upon for accurate data as theres no way to compensate for the introduce inaccuracies.

[DarthFastidious]

@Tacair

You're cherry-picking and ignoring... Oh, Jesus! No, NOT AGAIN. I stopped posting to politically-charged videos months ago because of this stuff. Listen, if this is so important to you, go join the NOAA. What, exactly, is accomplished by talking to me? Do Am a member of congress? Why do you need to convince me of your GOP talking points? After I calmed down the last time, that's what I realized. WHO CARES??

[Tacair1]

Ive no affiliation with any political party, least of all republicans.....

I thought id clicked "post a text comment", ya know its free to donate a POV here?

Nothing to do with republicans as i stated.

The only affiliation i have is with trying to get to the bottom of truth- whatever it may be.

If i clicked the "reply" icon by mistake...well my mistake.

Have a nice life.

[DarthFastidious]

@Tacair1

No, it's not. YouTube isn't the place for it. Here's a bit of wisdom I've learned over the past few years on here: there's no point. The Internet is a festering hive of idiocy, especially YouTube. The anonymity and audience it gives people makes them act like complete sociopaths. By preaching on here, all you're doing is preaching to an abattoir of screaming, retarded children. There's literally no point. I spent months freaking out at "9-11 Truther" psychos before I realized.

[JuanVoyce]

@DarthFastidious "abattoir" - you wouldn't preach "to" a building, did you mean "in"?

[DarthFastidious]

@JuanVoyce

Feeling pedantic, were we?

[JuanVoyce]

@DarthFastidious No, I had to look it up and the comment was to help me remember it.

[DarthFastidious]

It's on the website of the CFI Office of Public Policy. You should be able to find it quickly. Or is your preconceived notion that all people who are corned with global warming are fanatics so strong you can't see your OWN fanaticism?

[xpswebstar420]

Inhofe is an idiot!

[groanmaggot]

hicks in oklahoma vote for this fuckin worthless piece of horseshit

bible beater....

fuck him

he is old....

and we are young

power to the youth

fuck the old

[ashleypeyton]

jesus...i cannot believe people vote for this dude. are people really too stupid to see what his motivations are for denying global warming??

hint: exxon posted record profits last year

[nucflashevent]

To my knowledge, Exxon-Mobile does not operate in Oklahoma. So, therefor, I do not see a correlation.

[ashleypeyton]

It doesn't surprise me that you don't.

[DarthFastidious]

Check Inhofe's ledgers. Look at who his biggest campaign contributors are. Surprise surprise. You don't have to have a presence in their state to buy your very own politician, friend. Also, Inhofe is a Christian Dominionist of the worst sort, who genuinely believes that God made everything perfect, and humans cannot alter the creations of God. ...Except when we do, like when we completely alter coastal landscapes, reconfigure plant DNA, cause puberty to move up a few years, et cetera...

[onemanband1963]

Inhofe is up for re-election in 08. I have hope the people of OK will put an end to his political career then.

[led4acs]

Inhofe is the dumbest member of the Senate. What a complete embarrassment to the people of Oklahoma.

[politicomark]

It is really not surprising to hear conspiracy theories out of Inhofe. He is like the biggest rightwing nutter in the Senate. He basically takes a "FlatEarth" stance on global warming. He is the type of person who would see debtors prison as a rational solution to bankruptcy.

[cdoc77]

The question is not whether global warming is real. The question is whether it is caused by humans. That is the legitimate debate. I don't believe humans play any significant part, and I'm not part of the "big oil" crowd. Inhofe is though.

[crazy2004]

Yeah, the anti-global warming crowd are in the pockets of big oil but at the same time the global warming alarmists are in the pockets of government.  They get money from the government by saying it is a problem that they would otherwise not get through research grants. So who's telling the truth? I've still never seen any definitive proof of human made global warming.

[rtfirefly0]

The scientists concerned about global warming who are leading research projects are prominant, intelligent, skilled men and women who could easily work on other projects or take their knowledge and skill to better paying, more secure private sector jobs. Those "global warming alarmist conspiracy of greed theories" are just silly.

[crazy2004]

So show me the proof then. There still hasn't been any proof that global warming is caused by man. It's all just manipulated data.

[groanmaggot]

Study geology from a real Univeristy-

not a bible collage.....

[Malachyt]

Even the White House acknowledges that there's a problem, they're just calling it 'climate change'. But that's not really the issue here. Inhofe accusing Cooper of name calling (and what is this, third grade?) is simply BIZARRE. The only name he's been called by Cooper in PlanetinPeril is 'Senator Inhofe'. Then again, I guess that IS a pretty good insult.

[softearth]

It's not about the people, it's about the science! Stick to the facts! Why is the polar ice on Mars and Jupiter's moons melting? I know, I know, because of the SUV's on planet Earth! Right?

[ponyboy316]

Please provide link to information.

[ponyboy316]

Nevermind, researched it myself. Mars goes through season much like Earth. Yes the dry-ice will recede but did you know this happens yearly? Much like Earth, Mars has seasons. CO2 freezes durring its further orbit position (winter) into dry ice, the dry ice melts as the southern pole, which is slightly off-center, tips towards the sun durring it's closer orbit position (spring). Seasons, like on Earth.

[softearth]

Simply Google 'polar ice melting Mars Jupiter' and have at it ponyboy.  But be careful, it contains multiple sources with multiple references and viewpoints. Imagine that! Multiple viewpoints on a subject matter. What an Idea!

[robaxx]

I'll attack you - You're a dumbass!

[ColonelPablo]

Inhofe says "This is the reason...This is what we're subjected to..." Yes. How dare we publicly broadcast your own words back at you. It's our fault isn't it? More repugnican playing the victim and offended from that stance.

[FilipeBrasAlmeida]

James Inhofe is the dumbest person in congress.

[CatAtomic99]

I'm sick of these right-wing ass hats who just casually lie all the time. I'm really sick of them.

[blair227]

Typical Rightwing lunacy. When your wrong on nearly every issue try and blame your woes on the opposition. Haven't we had enough of The McConnells and Inhofes of this world. It's time to grow brains and vote these mindless do nothings out of the senate.

[Undaunted3311]

When in doubt, make shit up.

[Neoconhater]

Inhofe is an inbred piece of shit. What ever he says is just pure garbage.