Inhofe Calls EPAs Endangerment Finding a Ticking Time Bomb

[datzfast]

far left wacos dont want you to know their names. coco cola a co2 manufactuer when a pop is opened it releases co2. its up to them to hire a hit squad.

[Faktatack]

Not the sharpest tool in the box, is he? 23 minutes of nonsens.

[adamsinclair007]

Inhofe is a shady politician that purposely cherrypicks quotes and misleads the public on the actual research done in the area. I find this dishonest and deplorable. Again, YOU CANNOT REFUTE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES BY SIMPLY CHERRYPICKING A DATASET OR ATTACKING THE STUDY. YOU NEED TO PERFORM YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND EVALUATION AND HAVE IT COUNTERED IN THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED COMMUNITY. Then again, you can just side with your lobby.

[Vynjira]

I forgot to mention, that I did check the credibility of the petition.. the only misleading factor is that all of those scientists would be qualified on climate change.. which I never claimed.

The Petition as far as I understand was initiated to counter the argument of 2500 scientists on the IPCC.. only 24 of which had any qualification and 9 with a PhD.

Of the Petition 9,000 out of the 32,000 have a PhD in the right qualifications.

[adamsinclair007]

Actually, of the 9,000 that have PhDs, only about a thousand of them deal with anything regarding climatology. And they include people who are both dead and retired, as well as fictional characters. Believe me, I looked because I was interested as well. The first PhD I came across on the Oregon Petition was dead.

[Vynjira]

First ~3800 qualified scientists. The goal was to refute the IPCC. Which only has a couple of dozen scientists 9 of which have PhDs. The many of those PhDs are not qualified for climatology at all.

Now read the FAQ as your issues have been addressed and explained.

I am interested why you think retired scientists are no longer qualified to review scientific reports?

*Because of post size my arguments will be shortened.

[adamsinclair007]

Are you kidding me? First of all, the petition had such credible scientists as Count Chocula. Secondly, I do not think a scientist who has been retired for ten years is as credible as a scientist doing research now. Your "oregon petition" intro letter was written by a man who left a reputible scientific agency to support tobacco companies' claims that lung cancer and emphysema were not linked to cigarette smoking.

[Vynjira]

Yea, which were falsely added to discredit the petition.. and when discovered were removed.. you discredit an open petition if they are not counting those names for the actual count.

Further the argument has been that reputable scientists working in the field are threatened when they speak out against the political agenda of the IPCC.

Lastly the number of actual verified PhDs with qualifications vastly outweigh the opposing view.

[adamsinclair007]

THEY ACTUALLY USED THOSE IN THE COUNT! Are you kidding me? The majority of the "verified PhDs" had absolutely no expertise in climate change and were fed a "scientific paper" that claimed to be peer reviewed (which it wasn't and whose arguments had been refuted over a decade ago). The petition is a complete sham.

And no one has been threatened whey they speak out against the "political agenda of the IPCC." They do, however, become reprimanded when they use bad science to make their point.

[adamsinclair007]

The people who wrote the "scientific paper" were not climatologists, but chemists, and they were rehashing arguments that had been squashed by academic peer review back in the 90's.  Also, two of the "co-authors" also do work for the Discovery Institute, the same geniuses who are trying to get Intelligent Design taught in high schools.

[elliot1961]

Exactly what education, qualification, or experience does Jim have that makes him think he knows more than the overwhelming preponderance of credible scientists and climate researchers? Jim is a disgrace to his state and to his office.

[gwilliamoakley]

And exactly what education, qualification, or experience do you have regarding Senator Inhofe's qualifications that makes you think you know more than the senator. You have cited no evidence and you use the catchphrase " the overwhelming preponderance of credible scientists and climate researchers" which is not evidence, only polling data. You sir, are a disgrace to logical thought.

[Vynjira]

Over 30,000 credible scientists(9,000 PHDs) have looked at the IPCC "Science" and have signed a petition refuting MAN-MADE Global Warming.

The IPCC has been CAUGHT falsifying Data to "prove" Global Warming. So have some NASA Scientists.

There is a $500,000 prize for anyone who can prove MAN-MADE Global Warming.. which NOONE has claimed. You'd think some of those "Credible" scientists would have taken that money. You know.. if Global Warming was indeed Man-Made...

[adamsinclair007]

Check out the credibility of that petition you've cited. There has been no evidence of falsifying data. There have been instances of data being missed, but it's generally been fixed by the scientists conducting the study. In fact, there has been outright fraud conducted by some of the skeptics including the people involved in the petition. Look at potholer54 or greenman3610 for the science behind anthropogenic global warming in video form (in case you find scientific peer reviewed papers boring)

[Vynjira]

Dr. James Hansen was caught falsifying temperature records.. the Laurette's on the IPCC were also caught altering data for their agenda.

Insisting there is no dissent and a consensus has been reached reveals something less scientific and much more political.. Consensus is not a science word.. threatening dissenters is also not scientific.

I'll take a look at what you've cited.

[adamsinclair007]

I'll also look at what you've said. The only thing I could find on Hansen involved NASA's temperature data for the US. There was a glitch in the data gathering program that added 0.15 degrees to the temperatures after 2000. I don't find this a matter of doctoring data or dishonesty. It was a glitch that has since been fixed. Even after the glitch, the conclusions on the warming trend were still valid and backed up in peer reviewed papers. I'm still looking at IPCC allegations.

[Vynjira]

The figures published by Dr Hansen's institute consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

In Nov 2008, He reported the month of October was the hottest on record. The investigation revealed that he had used temperature data from the previous month.

During a presentation in Australia, The IPCC Chairman claimed that global temperatures have recently been rising. The last 18 months they have clearly begun a downward trend.

[adamsinclair007]

You can't look at 18 months and call it climate change. In fact, the smallest dataset that you can look at regarding temperature data specifically is about 30 years. I still cannot find any deliberate deception going on. All of these studies are still subject to peer review. If falsification of data had been discovered, the academic arena would've cut his balls off (pardon the vulgarity). If you look at the response to the claims, they seem to be valid.

[Vynjira]

The 18 months(over 2 years now) is only mentioned to refute the Warming Theory as it was presented.

GISS was forced to admit their error when Dr. James Hansen publicly claimed October 2008 was the warmest October in history.

They discovered NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had copied the September 2008 temperature data into the October temperature data.

I find it hard to believe you don't see that as deliberate.

[adamsinclair007]

No I don't find that deliberate at all. That error actually happened at multiple stations AND it was available to the public before it was used in any published study. If it had been a deliberate attempt to mislead, then I highly doubt that they would have used THE EXACT SAME MEASUREMENTS as the previous month AND provide the data to the public before using it themselves. If they were being dishonest, then they would've been smart enough to CHANGE the numbers.

[adamsinclair007]

What they did do was fix the dataset in question when it was pointed out to them. What the "skeptics" problem is that they point to every error that happens as a refuting point or a deliberate attempt to mislead. This is utter crap since the errors are corrected when pointed out and the published research uses the corrected dataset. Rather than publish their own research, skeptics cherrypick people actually doing work on the subject. Peer reviewed research is the only credible counter.

[Vynjira]

Yes and when the errors were fixed.. the proof of Warming Theory was gone.. yet politicians still insist CO² as a forcing agent.. which the science acknowledges as not the case.

[adamsinclair007]

No, the conclusions of global warming were still valid. I don't know how to get this through to you. One month, one year, two years, ten years are not enough to refute the theory. And no natural cause has been attributed to the warming we've seen over the last century. I understand that you are not a scientist and continue being fed what the media and people like Inhofe continue to feed you (who is necessarily following HIS political agenda).

[Vynjira]

You can't get non-science into me by dressing it up to look like science.

You completely misunderstand why the theory is no longer valid. Otherwise you would not be arguing.

Regardless I am not gonna argue against your system of beliefs. When your ready to talk scientific realities you can msg me and I will be happy to discuss the facts.

[adamsinclair007]

What the hell are you talking about? You bring up BS petitions, a BS $500,000 prize, and you make the claim that people are saying that CO2 isn't a forcing term (which NO ONE with any academic background in anything close to climatology has said, even the skeptics!); and you refer to those as scientific realities? Give me a break. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. So do yourself a favor, educate yourself.

[Vynjira]

potholer54 - 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate ( 6:25 )

After admitting the lag he proceeds to defend the argument as an effect of tipping point for Climate Destabilization. He then ignores that the tipping point argument doesn't defend the original position being disputed which is what caused the tipping point..

Like I said you can't dress up your argument to make it look like science.

The prize and petition counter consensus and theory.

[adamsinclair007]

The prize and petition do not counter consensus and theory.  The petition is a fraud, therefore invalid. The prize is also a sham because the same tactic is used in the case against evolution, which you yourself said was proven fact (which seems as though you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to science). As far as the lag? CO2 and temperature is NOT A LINEAR RELATIONSHIP. And guess what, no one claims that it is! It's a forcing term, one of several, that all have an impact.

[Vynjira]

Actually I think its quite apparent that you have all the knowledge of science of a creationist. Your cannot distinguish the difference between scientific theories and facts..

The petition isn't a fraud... your attempt to discredit it is invalid. Until you understand what constitutes theory and fact you can't understand why that prize exists.

I suggest you try to learn what the relationship between theory and fact is.

[adamsinclair007]

I'm actually verywell aware of what theory and fact are. In science, a theory is a term used to explain a set of facts. I am no creationist you moron. I do, however, require a higher standard of proof than what Fox News and politicians tell me.

[adamsinclair007]

Case in point as to how moronic you are: The paper attached to the petition you claim is valid is written by creationists.

You use terms that you have no idea what the meaning is, you refute a theory you don't understand, you have zero comprehension of how science is refuted as well as the importance of peer reviewed research. But by all means, continue to believe what bullshit artists like Inhofe tells you. Have a nice life, try reading a book.

[adamsinclair007]

It's obvious that we have different takes on this. Just keep in mind, the only valid argument you can make against a scientific argument, is more science. You cannot cherrypick a study, and then fight it in the press or political forum: that's quite literally junk science. The only valid way is to conduct and publish a study that is subject to academic peer review that refutes the original. That has been extremely lacking. "Consensus" in the way it is used, has absolutely been defined.

[Vynjira]

First you need to review potholer's video, he specifically stated there was no consensus on either side. He refuted the application of the word consensus to scientific debate.

The Warming Theory presented was refuted by scientists.. (Which is where Destabilization Theory comes into play)

As such the Theory and the Data needs to be reviewed and the Theory revised. Otherwise its political doctrine and not science.

Again I apologize for lack of details.

[adamsinclair007]

When the word "consensus" has been used, the people who have used it have provided their own definition. You can either accept that or refute that. You could replace it with "an overwhelming majority" and be correct. It's the details that scientists argue over. Most everyone has accepted the ideas that a) the earth is getting warmer (short cooling periods are part of this), and b) man has had some part in it.

[Vynjira]

A Consensus of Scientists agreed the world was flat. Then it was found out scientists did not actually think the world was flat.. the political organization that represented the "Consensus" did.

Consensus is not a science word.. using it in science shows political pushing of science.

[adamsinclair007]

You're right, in the sense that consensus does not represent fact. However, when you make a counter claim that there isn't a consensus, then you put no weight in that argument as well. It's absolutely a political word, but it's effective in representing to the public what the expert scientific opinion is at present. Could it be wrong? Absolutely, but no other explanation has been given that has been able to stand up against it. Using the "flat earth consensus" isn't exactly a winner here.

[adamsinclair007]

The $500,000 prize is a bit misleading as well. There isn't one study that proves or disproves anthropogenic global warming, but rather a culmination of thousands of studies across different fields. You could make the same argument for evolution. There isn't just one test or experiment you can do to prove either without a doubt, but the conclusions of many different experiments and data over different fields corroborate the notions.

[Vynjira]

The $500,000 prize is to assure people that there is not an overwhelming amount of data to claim such a prize..

A lot of data is still being disputed and while the prize remains unclaimed we know that the science is still working on the answer.

The argument for evolution is misleading.. one could claim a prize for proving evolution.. one could not claim the prize for any specific theory of evolution.

I hope I clarified my points.

[adamsinclair007]

You're wrong on the evolution topic. One cannot claim a prize for proving evolution because there is a prize out there and no one has claimed it. Why? Because if you produce a transition fossil, they'll require 2 more. If you provide the human/great ape genome, they'd just claim you can't prove it wasn't designed that way. It's a PR sham designed to mislead, exactly like the $500,000 prize for global warming. LOOK at the data, there IS an overwhelming amount to support; very little to counter.

[Vynjira]

What your citing is a specific evolution theory which I said could not be proven. Evolution is a proven fact.. we know evolution happens. The theory refers to the scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

The overwhelming DATA shows that Climate Change is happening, very little data supports the Warming Theory presented. (IPCC)

Such as that 18 months comment which does not coincide with the Warming Theory argument.

[adamsinclair007]

Wow, you are way off base here. First of all, according to your own logic, because the "prove evolution" prize money hasn't been claimed, then therefore it can't be happening.

Secondly, the global warming theory is actually supported by the data. Again, you need at least 30 years of temperature data to refute it. Nothing in nature has been able to explain the recent warming trend that has happened this century. Again, some counter theories had promise, but all have been discarded.

[Vynjira]

No. The Prize for proving the theory of Evolution cannot be proven.. Evolution itself is proven...

Climate Change is proven.. the theory of what causes it is not...

AGAIN, We know both Climate Change and Evolution happens.. the details of causes and explanations for them are not...

So the prize is for proving humans were the cause not proving wether or not its happening..

The data shows CO² is not a forcing agent.. thus that theory is wrong.

[adamsinclair007]

According to you: "The $500,000 prize is to assure people that there is not an overwhelming amount of data to claim such a prize.." So by the same token, the fact that no one has claimed the evolution prize money this should "assure people that there is not an overwhelming amount of data to claim such a prize" when talking about evolution.

The data absolutely shows CO2 as a forcing agent, as it is a greenhouse gas. Thus, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[OkieBluesDog]

I fail to understand how paying a tax to the UN will stop global warming. Maybe sew all the money together and build a great big umbrella to block the sun. : ) Maybe build a huge ice machine with the money. : ) I just don't get it.

Thank you Sir