By the way, science has never been about consensus. Scientific truth is never based on some mythical voting process as M Hertsgaard attempts to suggest here. He should know better than to present that faulty argument. But then again, propaganda only uses science to spice the soup they stir.
Why can't someone profit from a book discussing the issue rather than having to resort to an extreme position? ... maybe because logic does not sell... fear does !
Mark Hertsgaard is a very eloquent presenter. Now if he could actually report news and unbiased information instead of promoting his book product via fear, he would become credible.
If I'm going to read a book about climate change, it will be one discussing dynamics and a spectrum of arguments instead of one presenting a single biased approach. I am doubting Mr Hertsgaard knows how to sell information rather than fear.
Our time is better spent looking for the win-win of new technology.
Did you see the monster of a man videoing this highly edited childish ambush - yes I have seen the original - looks like he has developed his own personal carbon capture system.
Just curious about how many tons of carbon a single volcano puts in the atmosphere? Maybe these people should put up demonstrations around one of them till they get a response.
Ambush and yellow Journalism. They couldn't even show the entire interview with the Senator, because in reality, they got skewered. They had to cut it and twist it to show a message that is false on all counts. This is just another example of everything that is wrong with the Media in today's world.
Maybe instead of just ranting about "the Media" being "false on all counts", you could provide some EVIDENCE of exactly what is missing that you think is so important.
The challenge was for you to provide "evidence of EXACTLY what is missing that you think is so important." Pointing me to a video fails to demonstrate that you are capable.
@wfmkk being unable to watch said video and discern honestly for yourself the truth of the situation demonstrates that you are incapable of a rationality or development of a rational idea.
Sorry ... I'm not going to play your little game. If you have a point, then the onus is on YOU to make it. It's not my responsibility to dig through a video to make your argument for you.
@whiteguycash 'twas a thing of beauty. These dolts don't even seem to be aware of the HUNDREDS (over 700, in fact) of international scientists who have dissented about global warming.
@annglamgal Ok so what? So what if a small minority of scientist dissent. A small minority of scientist say smoking is not bad for you, so what. What is your point?
"900 scientist dissenting ... at the Senate hearings"
WTF ... that is obviously a lie. 900 people testified? LOL ... So the Senate hearings ran nonstop for months? You should stop and consider how ridiculous you look when you make such statements.
"tampering with the data"
Here's a clue for you. Your inability to understand the work of scientists is no evidence of a conspiracy by scientists. It just means you're ignorant.
@wfmkk Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were indeed 900 dissenting Scientist listed in the Senate hearing that Inhofe refers to. If you watched the full unedited video (search youtube for v=1vmoErFbHao to see for yourself) you would know this, along with all the reasons that "Cap and Trade" does nothing to slow global warming... in fact, it will only make man-made global warming and pollution far worse, as more manufacturing goes overseas for cheaper production. Oh, and $400 Billion tax$
@wfmkk You are no scientist yourself, so what makes your opinion qualifiable?
Ask your self this:
If Cap and Trade does nothing to improve GHG production, and increases real pollutant output (China and many other Countries are exempt from compliance and don't have as stringent pollution standards as the US), then what will be gained?
Who will gain?
Who will suffer?
This is all about power, control, and envy of American success and an attempt to hobble US for the benefit of others in power.
@wfmkk And don't forget $300-400 BILLION in taxes levied against us while we suffer more losses in manufacturing jobs going overseas. All on an arguable hoax.
We should be doing everything we can to continue "Made in USA" while working toward cleaner, more efficient, less environmental impact standards and practices HERE. We know how to do things right.
Unless you're willing to go back toward the rural America "horse and buggy days"
Don't fall for scare tactics designed to cripple or enslave.
Gee ... I never knew that 900 "dissenting scientists" could fit into one Senate hearing room. But since they're just figments of your imagination, then each one occupied an infinitesimal amount of space. So I presume they all fit into Senator Inhofe's briefcase.
And it's amusing that you assume I support cap-and-trade (as if that were the only solution) and that you assume that my opinion is not strongly supported by reams of scientific research.
"Since 1751 approximately 337 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s."
I repeat ... HALF of the man-made carbon emission in only 40 years.
"By tracking the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere, the distinctive imprint of fossil fuel combustion can be identified. This is really just confirmation of the inevitable chemical fact that burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces [huge amounts of] CO2."
@MrDanbloom I didn't ask who you consider to be cranks or why consider them such. You said you never indulge in name calling. Cranks is obviously name calling. Personally I don't care what you call me, I'm just pointing out that Marks biggest fan is as inconsistent as he is.
@wfmkk If I were you I'd go with climate crank it's a bit catchier than the others. My point to Dan regarded his hypocrisy. I prefer you chant abuse rather than present calm and rational arguments. I like the fact you guys spend more time working on your little catch phrases rather than a clear, coherent strategy to win hearts and mind. Please continue your list but maybe use uppercase so you can sound more hysterical.
@wfmkk Wow. It gets even better. There's really no need for me to counter with ad hominems with folks who post like this. You are your own worst enemy. For the record, I prefer, "critical thinking, realistic, analytical, Mechanical Engineer, political agnostic." Nevertheless, I'll copy your rants for use elsewhere to depict the mentaility of the folks pushing the nonsense. It's useful. As always, thanks again.
@wfmkk Thanks for the clarification on your ability to toss ad hominems like a champ and your inability to make any cogent scientific argument . All the best.
Once again, you're out of your depth. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be if I asserted that your claims about climate change are wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot.
But if I insult your lack of intelligence and/or ethics WHILE offering an argument that does not depend on your personal inadequacies, then that is NOT an example of the ad hominem fallacy. It's just frosting on the cake.
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. Do you actually read what you write? An ad hominem fallacy? Huh? I'll buy you a dictionary and a thesaurus for your birthday. You know, if I stated that your knowledge of Climate Science is about the breadth of a three-fold Greenpeace propaganda flyer, that would be an opinion. Probably accurate, but merely opinion. I generally prefer to stick to facts than opinions, so should not go there. Bottom line: You're in way, way over your head. That is fact. Take care.
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. In complete seriousness, I want to apologize if I've said anything that was offensive to you. I suspect you're a very decent person and we're not going to resolve any disagreement here. Again, my background is steeped in dispassionate science and all we're getting here is name calling. Maybe if we have a beer together someday, we'll resolve the world's problems. I want to sincerely wish you success in all of your endeavors. All the best and take care...Steve
@wfmkk You called us corrupt, liars in the pay of fossil fuel companies. You are attacking our character to undermine any argument we present i.e "fossil-fueled puppet". You are saying I'm wrong because I'm brain washed or corrupt. Offering an evidence based argument in conjunction with a character attack does NOT somehow cancel out the ad hom. You have only tried to offer evidence for catastrophic climate change not your accusations.
Ok LtDan, let's do a little math here. The United States has a population of roughly 310,000,000 people. Your video has roughly 5600 views. That works out to approximately 0.001806% of the population of America. The world population is roughly 6,876,000,000 people. That gives us around 0.0000814% that has seen your "video". In other words and in the grand scheme of things, no one cares.
@ fredloftonab ...MrDanBloom, are you in love with this guy or something? YES I SUPPORt HIS BOOK 100 percent....re: "No one cares about your YouTube clip about coal or whatever it is". 5600 people say you are wrong Fred.
And Fred, TRUTH is not SPAM. come on! Watch my "2099 graduation speech" just once, i dare you!
@bhloop - wrong, i do not use term denialist with any reference to the Holocaust, please delete that from your mind. I use for people who deny the reality of climate change and global warming, that's all. And sure, you can call my side climate delusionists, that's okay. Just keep love in your heart as we are all in this together, denialists and delusionists......we need to come together.... RE: "...let's not call names here. The denialists mean well.
The original "deniers" were those who deny that the Holocaust happened. The term "climate denier" is used to describe those who deny the similarly obvious fact of global warming – especially since it threatens and even bigger holocaust.
MrDanBloom, are you in love with this guy or something. The fact that he posted a poorly edited piece is a lie in and of itself. But that's a typical liberal media ploy. The fact that the full clip on Inhofe's page (classy move btw) has more views shows that not everyone wants bits and pieces of the truth. No one cares about your YouTube clip about coal or whatever it is. Quit spamming the pages and get a life.
Gotta love it. Mr. Dan Bloom writes: "...let's not call names here. The denialists mean well. They will come around. Treat them with love, not disdain!"
You used the term denialist - a clear reference to Holocaust deniers or denialists. Sure let's put scientific skeptics in that group. But, at least you're not name calling.
Hmmm, the Climate delusionists. They will come around. Treat them with love, not disdain.
The greenhouse effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide has been accepted science for the past century or more. Do you deny that fact?
If you accept the greenhouse effect then I'm curious about how you would respond to the clear observation that the current amount of atmospheric CO2 is as high as it was 15 million years ago -- when there was no Arctic ice cap.
@wfmkk Wfmkk, thank you for the note. Yes, of course there’s a greenhouse effect! We’d be living on a cold rock otherwise. But, do you deny that CO2 has only gone from .028% of the atmosphere to .038% of the atmosphere in the last 130 years? Do you deny that the long term trends show CO2 lagging, not leading temp? Do you deny that water vapor dwarfs all other gh gasses combined? Do you deny that unlike CO2, you cannot tax water vapor? Do these facts interfere with your ideology/religion?
You seem to be implying that the impact that CO2 has on our atmosphere is small, simply because its concentration is relatively small. I hope you see the fallacy in that, as I assume you wouldn't drink a glass of water that contains "only" 0.38% arsenic.
@11111110 Thanks for the note. Let me get this straight. You're comparing .38% to .038% and you're comparing CO2, one of the building blocks of life on the planet to Arsenic? You lost me there somewhere unless your intent was to present a really poor argument. If that's the case, very well done. My argument that the impact of CO2 being an extremely small player in the scheme of things (compared to water vapor) remains factual and intact. But thanks for the note.
There a lots of building blocks of life on this planet that very quickly turn deadly when applied in excess amounts. Clean water is needed to sustain life, but if you drink too much of it in a short period of time, the resulting water intoxication will kill you
But you're argument is that CO2 can't possibly have a significant impact, since there is such a small concentration of it. But there are many instances where adding small concentrations of substances can have a huge impact.
Additionally, the reason why no one is worrying about water vapor is because there is literally nothing anyone can do to control how much water vapor goes into the atmosphere. It all gets evaporated!
@11111110 Thanks for the note. Yes, I agree 100% with your point of "the poison is in the dose." I've used that argument in other debates. The point here is that water vapor is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect on earth. It's that simple. I'm not saying CO2 is completely irrelevant, but it is not the major player that the warm-mongers want you to believe.
But CO2 is *a* major player, and one in which we've been directly responsible for dumping into the atmosphere in excess. We can't stop water vapor from getting into the atmosphere, but as global temperature averages increase, so does the amount of evaporation occurring. Thus, putting more water vapor into the atmosphere, and creating a nasty cycle.
@11111110 - "You seem to be implying that the impact that CO2 has on our atmosphere is small, simply because its concentration is relatively small. I hope you see the fallacy in that, I assume you wouldn't drink a glass of water that contains "only" 0.38% arsenic."
You're so indoctrinated you're actually stupid. A know-nothing, brain-dead, dip shit would understand why those two aren't even in the same league. They're not even the same fucking sport. Seriously! You're a fucking retard!
What a mature and intelligent response you've typed up, I thank you for it. Maybe in your next post, you can actually point out any inaccuracies in my post, instead of shouting expletives and namecalling. You know, something new.
Wow! I saw the entire "ambush interview" on Daily Caller. It's funny how you like to use the term cherry pick, and then use a few bits of the interview you liked. Inhofe had you for lunch. As for "science", clearly none of you has a background in any science whatsoever. You better push your agenda before everyone has flipped. The rats are jumping off the consensus wagon in droves. Go back to school and study engineering or some other field where you actually have to understand science.
"CO2 has only gone from .028% of the atmosphere to .038%"
Actually it's over .039% now -- which is higher than it has even been in human history. You would know that if you had actually read my previous citation:
tiny. cc/Tripati
"lagging, not leading temp"
Debunking that particular fossil-fueled talking point:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
You would also find hundreds of references to the fact that CO2 is a major CAUSE of warming ... if you read scientific journals.
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. "Hundreds of references....." Wow. Now I'm convinced. As for the scientific journals and published science and the IPCC reports themselves, I suspect I've waded through much more of it than you have ever seen or will ever see. And, after that exhausting journy, not only do I remain unconvinced, it pushed me to even further skepticism. Thanks again for the note.
You're obviously full of shit. I don't believe for a minute that you read scientific journals.
I posted a complete scientific refutation of your dumb-ass argument about water vapor, and you simply ignored it entirely. I think the complexity of the situation is beyond your comprehension, so all you can do is regurgitate fossil-fueled talking points like a puppet. Once again, the Dunning-Kruger syndrome finds a home among the ranks of climate cranks.
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. I find it amusing when I read the emails here and see the tone of the warming faction compared to skeptics. And I'm the crank? That's rich. Even more amusing is that I suspect none of you has a scientific background. My background is Mechanical Engineering, which means I actually have to understand and apply the physical sciences in practice. You posted a "complete scientific refutation?" Where? The only one parroting weak arguments posited by others is...you.
That's another fossil-fueled talking point. Water vapor is a feedback agent, not a forcing agent. Water vapor cannot cause the Earth to get warmer by itself, but it does amplify the effect of CO2 (which is definitely a forcing agent).
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. Real Cimate? Isn't that Schmidt, et al. Wasn't he with the "hide the decline" crew? He can call it feedback all he wants, the fact is...it's both. You could say CO2 is both....as the atmosphere/ocean warms, surely the ocean will release CO2, correct? Water vapor resides in the atmosphere and remains, by far, the strongest contributor to the greenhouse effect. This is fact. It's indisputable. The only dispute is whether it's contribution is 75% or 85%.
see my youtube speech video here at YTube titled "A Graduation Speech to the "Class of 2099" on Climate Change and Tightening the Noose around Coal"
Average Con, that was NOT me calling anyone a MORON, please. I never use that word for anyone. We are all in this together. Marc Morano and Anthony Watts are my friends, as is Mark Hertsgaard and Andy Revkin. as for WFMKK below callin them morons, please WFMKK , let's not call names here. The denialists mean well. They will come around. Treat them with love, not disdain!
i posted Mark's mea gulpa on the Politico gaffe there so they can see the truth IF they want to see it: Mark Hertsgaad explains his gaffe here: ..... "I did make
one mistake. In the haste of introducing myself to Inhofe, I misspoke
by saying I was "with Politico." I had intended to say I "write for
Politico," which I had done just that morning in the form of the
above-mentioned opinion article. My words came out wrong, which I
MrDanbloom... no one is a moron here. Except those who call others morons. These young people are simply without any other experience than what they have experienced in school and college. They haven't hit the real world yet. The evidence they have been given is rooted in the bias which is tied to the funding of academia. The Kamir Rouge of Cambodia too full advantage of the lack of wisdom by youth. No wisdom, little understanding, easily manipulated, easily convinced, easily socialized.
@ gantman I disagree there re .."....America needs an energy policy that includes more oil drilling, more natural gas, more nuclear.." Yes, more nuclear, yes more wind and water power, and solar power, NO to any more use of coal or oil, period. we can agree to disagree for now, check back in year 2500 AD.... sigh
Additionally, we have learned that Politico has asked Mark Hertsgaard to stop identifying himself as their representative. A recent email from one Politico editor to the DailyCaller stated; “Mr. Hertsgaard is not a POLITICO reporter or employee and we have asked him not to portray himself as one”
When we consider the full moral implications of climate change and the trans-generational injustice of wrecking the biosphere for human civilization, it is no exaggeration to say that we are dealing with evil here.
if its hot its global warming, if its cold its global warming, if you're retarded you believe in global warming. lol, if my cock gets sucked tonight its global warming...
"Mr. Hertsgaard’s confusion concerning his employment raises a valid question from anyone coming in contact with him, “If you are lying to people about where you work, how are we to believe anything else that comes out of your mouth?”"
What would YOU know about truth and basic facts? Are you really smarter than thousands of climate scientists? LOL ... You seem to be the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome:
Why are you pushing for the super rich to take over our planet under UN AGENDA 21.
AGW is a fraud for the super rich, have you guys forgot about climate gate already?
How is paying Al gore our money going to fix the weather? Its not. You guys are shrills for big bankers and oil men. Did you ever take the time to look who is pushing AGW? Nope. You guys are pushing a social control and eugenics policy from people like the Rockefellers, and Rothschilds, Strong and the brit Royals.
I remember first learning about you back in 1988 when you wrote "On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency". I was impressed by that book, and I am impressed by your efforts today.
Reagan started the right-wing class war and the war against science that continues today. His "trees cause pollution" remark was similar to the kind of nonsense that climate cranks spout about global warming.
"We Report You Decide" umm.. do you work for Fox News? or the Politico like you identified yourself? Have to lie just to get your foot in the door, what makes you think that anyone is going to take your statistics as fact at all?
This video (the full version) made me laugh. I love how he brings 'young people' with him to the interview. lol The poor youth, not understanding how this Libs 'fix' for climate change is to tax and destroy America
I want to see these Young people explain and apologize to their children and grandchildren for all the taxes they will be paying if this scam ever becomes law.
Hertsgaard certainly is duplicitous isn't he? I guess he doesn't dare post the whole interview. The fact that he has to lie and pretend that he was representing Politico says all you want to know. Anyone with the sense to look at the history of climate change can see that climate is always transitional. Massive climate shifts have occurred many times before the industrial revolution, but I guess that is truly an inconvenient truth.
You pathetic Fraud. How about this from POLITICO “Mr. Hertsgaard is not a POLITICO reporter or employee and we have asked him not to portray himself as one” Oh and trying to use the "We Report, You Decide" trademark from Fox? Pathetic. Figures a commie thinks that he can freely use trade names and make shat up. First it was global warming, once that was proved false, it is now climate change. Can't have it both ways. It's not man made.
Show the full 5 minute video where you lied and said you were a Politico reporter. Instead of using Saul Alinsky tactics, do your reporting as an honorable human being. Don't act like scum. You lose people that way. BTW, climate change is just BS to institute carbon credits, a scheme to make the corrupt rich. In the end, it's all controling the masses.
Are you libs still pushing this fake man made climate change? hahahahahahaha It's amazing how stupid libs are. Sane people knew it was a hoax before it was proven that you libs rearranged the evidence to fit your political goals. Follow the money all the way to al gore's house. hahahahahaha
Bill Allen in Basking RidgeNJ tells me this today re Mark's very good book and Cap Hill actions - ''The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.” quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer
KaseyKruz, Mike123 and ozcavalie ! We need to stop fighting here and work together to solve our nation's problems. Agree, disagree, fine, but let's work together on both sides of the aisles to solve our problems. Climate is a real issue, even if you don't believe in AGW or global warming. Nobody can see the future but me, and i see dead people, over 10 billion dead people and you'd better see my video first....titled "A Graduation Speech to the "Class of 2099"
@MrDanbloom I agree. But how can you work together with people like say Mr. Hertzgaard when his whole agenda is to destroy the 'other sides' credibility and spew lies? America needs an energy policy that includes more oil drilling, more natural gas, more nuclear. And while we're using our own natural resources and not relying on our enemies, the great innovators in our country will further develop green technologies to the point where they are actually usable and not going to bankrupt us.
OIl production in the United States peaked 40 years ago and has been declining ever since. So despite the ridiculous economic premise of growing forever, oil is a finite resource that is becoming scarce. No amount of right-wing ideology can refute that FACT.
@wfmkk And why do you think its declining? Its not because we don't have more oil. Its because of the 'Green' groups putting restrictions on our entire country while the rest of the world continues to drill new wells.
So instead of bankrupting our country, we can use the resources we have here and continue to invest in green technologies so that ONE DAY they will be economically viable. Because right now they are not.
If there were plentiful oil on U.S. territory, then oil corporations would be extracting it.
Oil corporations are probably the most powerful organizations on the planet, and your conspiracy theory about "Green groups" restricting their activities for 40 years is ridiculous.
@wfmkk you're telling me there are no restrictions on these companies from drilling in these regions? Look up Seahawk drilling which will file for bankruptcy due to the lack of drilling permits being issued in the Gulf of Mexico. Perfect example of killing jobs for the greenies
Or how about all the Shale we have in the US? None of this is conspiracy. These are facts: Geological Survey estimates parts of the US hold 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia
I never stated there were "no restrictions"; I simply laughed at your ridiculous conspiracy theory about the "greenies" having more power than Big Oil. Based on your remarks, I would suppose that you consider anyone who values their health more than money to be a "greenie".
You blithely gloss over the huge distinction between oil shale and crude oil. Since you are obviously ignorant about peak oil, you are probably equally clueless about net energy (or EROEI).
@wfmkk considering the president of the united states is one of the "greenies", then yes I think they do have more power than big oil. Just look at the moratorium that is still in effect and costing jobs. You're never going to to agree with me and vice versa. All I'm saying is we have to continue to protect the interests of our country by using our own resources instead of relying on our enemies. And we should continue to invest in new technologies. But destroying the US is not the solution
Those energy resources are FAR LESS in amount than you seem to think. Many Republicans allow their ideology to warp their perception of reality. This is especially true of climate science.
Obama is not ... NOT a "greenie". That's a totally ridiculous claim. He's a puppet for corporate interests, just like the 4 Presidents before him. He just happens to realize that climate denial is suicidal.
1. Despite the insane opinions of Senator Inhofe, an economy based on renewable energy would actually create more American jobs than the current fossil fuel economy.
2. If we continue to do nothing about the climate crisis, then the United States (and most of Western civilization) will be destroyed by climate change.
So you and your Republican friends have it TOTALLY BACKWARDS.
@wfmkk I agree that we should have an economy based on renewable energy. The problem is that the technology for this is still 20 years away. The only reason they exist now is because of massive subsidies. Sooooo we need to support our own economy NOW with Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, until green techs are actually feasible. Its also a matter of national security. Look at the price of oil today because of Libya. We have to drill here now because last I checked that solar panel won't move my car.
I'm not sure of the best solution, but we obviously must severely reduce our CO2 emissions somehow. Right now, society rewards the wrong energy choices (fossil fuels) and dietary choices (animal-centered agriculture).
The most direct way to tilt the marketplace toward "renewable" energy is with a carbon tax, which would account for the true ecological cost of fossil fuels.
The bottom line is that many of our current "freedoms" are actually THEFT from future generations.
I oppose the so-called "cap and trade" methods that have been proposed. These videos sum up my position on that. The first one is entertaining, and the second one features two dissenting scientists from EPA:
watch?v=f3_CYdYDDpk
watch?v=uSNQzSjb38g
But it's critical to not conflate bad solutions with a non-existence of a problem!!!
Wait a minute KaseyKruz, Mike123 and ozcavalier! Mark did write an oped commentary for Politico the other day, and that is what he meant by saying he was from Politico. He did not mean to imply he was on staff, just that he was a contributor. You need to check that first. Second, Mark is a good man and he cares about the future, as you do, too. So don't paint him in a corner and tar him with the liberal label. We are one nation, all of us in this together. You might disagree with Mark's MO...
You're not even a real reporter. Politico denies you're an employee, you FRAUD!. Why is it now it's called "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming"? Because people aren't buying it! Snow in Florida proves Global Warming false, that's why you now say "Climate Change" because no one can deny that the climate does change...hahaha nice try at "journalism". Just more liberal bias to control the masses through legislation.
Just saw the full video. The full video was chopped and taken grossly out of context for this nonsense.
Sen Inhoffe never said "the science doesn't matter". He said that the scientific community is not unanimous on this and that there are dissenting scientists who have valid claims.
They completely left out the senator's response to the whiney little girl. They cut out all of the senator's responses.
Completely dishonest.
But then, he's a liberal so what else should we expect?
Post the whole video Mark, not the editted version. Where's the bit where you claimed to be from Politco? Sitting on the cutting room floor because you got proven to be a liar.... and yet you want us to believe that the rest of this (obviously editted) video is the truth?? What kind of idiots do you really think people are? Face it Mark, you got owned by the Senator, and now your blatant "face-saving" edit has been prven false too. Fail, Fail, Fail.
Loser! And you wonder why with stunts like this that nobody but the kool-aid drinkers believe in Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling or whatever new name you choose to give it. Its is because it is a fraud just like your edited interview. Pathetic! Doesn't it make you feel weak knowing your defending a lie?
WHO'S A LIAR? CLIMATE CRIMINAL Exxon was caught funding a huge disinformation campaign about global warming. This is one of the reasons so many people don't understand the realities of global warming, or they are complicit or participating in the criminal disinformation scam. Read the report: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science -- ucsusa . org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed . html
Here are a few tips for the next time you crawl out from under your rock. 1 Don't ambush someone about global warming in winter clothing. 2 If your going to have girls show up to represent generation "hot" they should be HOT. Dress them in bikinis, and have sweat glistening off their hard bodies. 3 Try and keep yourself together man. I could hear the fear in your voice. 4 Don't ambush people smarter then you. Especially if they have their own cameras.
Mark your a joke. I saw the entire interview, which was over 5 min long. Your kind has been pushing this crap, since before I was born. First there was going to be mass famine by 2000. Then came global cooling, and scientist said the glacier were going to get us. Then there was global warm, and we were all going to drown. When that failed you people shifted to climate change. All of you are nothing, but frauds.
@FullAuto2008 WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE CLIMATE CRIMINALS: Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter.
"Generation Hot"? Really?? What are they.....a bunch of little prostitots??? Too bad this guy seems to have so much influence on these kids! Where are their parents??? Oh, right!!,,,,,They're the ones with the 60's do's and their little protest signs still in the closet! HAHAHAHAHA Poor kids!
I watched the whole unedited video and it is very different than this one. Right off the bat this person says he is with Politico and he is not,.. please watch the whole video and compare.
Search Youtube for; "Inhofe Takes on Global Warming Alarmist Attempted Ambush".
Mark, I read some comments below, yep get a hair cut, your not 18 anymore and a man your age should act it and not be pretentious. Your not going to attract your daughters girlfriends, sorry.
Mark, your argument is weak and 98% of scientist do not in any way agree with your position. Many have been both shun and ridiculed by those zealots who worship this planet as their god. You and your science is bull and the worse thing is you prostitute your own daughter for the additional taxes you want to see added and regulations. Your a douche bag and your that same little Bitch I beat up in School, apparently not enough, your still that little liar and you'll never change from that,
This guy is lagging far behind the facts... Most global warming alarmists have learned that the globe isn't getting warmer and have jumped onto the "global climate change" ban wagon... But not this guy! He's sticking to his roots... He's probably canadian.
1976 called and they want their hair style back. But on to more important things. First you misrepresent yourself saying that you are from Politico then you edit the measured and sensible response from Inhofe and you still don't recognize the truth behind your overly emotional reaction to the biggest emotional scam ever perpetrated by those who seek to distort the data (climate gate) and tax the people of the world in for a doom and gloom scenario that would change nothing.
This is heavily edited. it's a shame that people on both sides are only interested in winning and not the truth.
freddyvoetsch 2 months ago
By the way, science has never been about consensus. Scientific truth is never based on some mythical voting process as M Hertsgaard attempts to suggest here. He should know better than to present that faulty argument. But then again, propaganda only uses science to spice the soup they stir.
Why can't someone profit from a book discussing the issue rather than having to resort to an extreme position? ... maybe because logic does not sell... fear does !
WaterfrontConsultant 6 months ago
Mark Hertsgaard is a very eloquent presenter. Now if he could actually report news and unbiased information instead of promoting his book product via fear, he would become credible.
If I'm going to read a book about climate change, it will be one discussing dynamics and a spectrum of arguments instead of one presenting a single biased approach. I am doubting Mr Hertsgaard knows how to sell information rather than fear.
Our time is better spent looking for the win-win of new technology.
WaterfrontConsultant 6 months ago
Stop the wars, save the planet.
freethinking1 11 months ago
Did you see the monster of a man videoing this highly edited childish ambush - yes I have seen the original - looks like he has developed his own personal carbon capture system.
Turitea 11 months ago
Climate cranks won't let facts get in their way. The mission is still dupe, delay, deceit and deny.
wfmkk 11 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@wfmkk Clearly you haven't done your homework on the subject, or you wouldn't make such a comment.
heavym3tal 11 months ago
wow, did the denialists use vote bots?
StarcrossedPacific 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To see the full unedited interview, see this 5-minute youtube video:
v=1vmoErFbHao
garwoodv6 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To see the full unedited interview, see this 5-minute youtube video:
v=1vmoErFbHao
garwoodv6 11 months ago
To see the full unedited interview, see this 5-minute youtube video:
v=1vmoErFbHao
garwoodv6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a bunch of hokey! highly edited, and built on ignorance.
To see the full unedited truth, go to:
v=1vmoErFbHao
garwoodv6 1 year ago
Comment removed
garwoodv6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEY, FECAL-HEADED LIBTARDS - YOU WERE OWNED BY INHOFE.
annglamgal 1 year ago
@annglamgal Ok how did inhofe us? What argument did he use that disproves global warming, and what about all the conservatives that believe in AGW?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan The argument the Inhofe uses is "God controls, the climate not man", which shows us that he is a idiot!
jesushatesyoutoo 1 year ago
@jesushatesyoutoo Oh well why didnt you tell me goddoneit. Ok they win that is a perfect argument for why humans cannot cause global warming lol.
Yeah inhofe is a joke lol. No one is stupid enough to actually say goddoneit other then inhofe.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Google Representative John Shimkus (R-IL).
jesushatesyoutoo 1 year ago
@jesushatesyoutoo Will do, but I see alot of face palming in my future. lol
thesparitan 1 year ago
Just curious about how many tons of carbon a single volcano puts in the atmosphere? Maybe these people should put up demonstrations around one of them till they get a response.
Overlord0001 1 year ago
@Overlord0001
A single volcano? Well, the TOTAL carbon dioxide from ALL volcanoes on the planet is 130 million tons per year:
volcanoes. usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
But the total CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels is about 31 BILLION tons per year:
dx.doi. org/10.1038/ngeo1022
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
@wfmkk Nice
thesparitan 1 year ago
Ambush and yellow Journalism. They couldn't even show the entire interview with the Senator, because in reality, they got skewered. They had to cut it and twist it to show a message that is false on all counts. This is just another example of everything that is wrong with the Media in today's world.
whiteguycash 1 year ago
@whiteguycash
Maybe instead of just ranting about "the Media" being "false on all counts", you could provide some EVIDENCE of exactly what is missing that you think is so important.
Show us that you're capable of that. I dare you.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk
Challenge Accepted
/watch?v=1vmoErFbHao
whiteguycash 1 year ago
@whiteguycash
The challenge was for you to provide "evidence of EXACTLY what is missing that you think is so important." Pointing me to a video fails to demonstrate that you are capable.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk being unable to watch said video and discern honestly for yourself the truth of the situation demonstrates that you are incapable of a rationality or development of a rational idea.
whiteguycash 1 year ago
@whiteguycash
Sorry ... I'm not going to play your little game. If you have a point, then the onus is on YOU to make it. It's not my responsibility to dig through a video to make your argument for you.
Grow up.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@whiteguycash 'twas a thing of beauty. These dolts don't even seem to be aware of the HUNDREDS (over 700, in fact) of international scientists who have dissented about global warming.
annglamgal 1 year ago
@annglamgal
Hundreds of "dissenting scientists"? Is that what Fox News planted into your little mind?
monbiot. com/archives/2009/12/07/the -real-climate-scandal
Monbiot points out that the majority of people who embrace anti-scientific propaganda have been "duped ... by PR companies and hired experts."
Note the case studies and the target audiences -- "older, less educated males" and "younger, lower-income women."
He's talking about people like you.
wfmkk 1 year ago 4
@annglamgal Ok so what? So what if a small minority of scientist dissent. A small minority of scientist say smoking is not bad for you, so what. What is your point?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@annglamgal There were over 900 scientist dissenting the Global warming hoax at the Senate hearings alone.
Add to that all the leaked emails about tampering with the data last year from the University studies in England?
The exposed lies from the Penn State University studies?
When will these AGW babies realize that they are being misled into a battle for control of America and
Americans?
How much more dirty pollution will be generated by overseas economies when we give them all of ours
garwoodv6 1 year ago
@garwoodv6
"900 scientist dissenting ... at the Senate hearings"
WTF ... that is obviously a lie. 900 people testified? LOL ... So the Senate hearings ran nonstop for months? You should stop and consider how ridiculous you look when you make such statements.
"tampering with the data"
Here's a clue for you. Your inability to understand the work of scientists is no evidence of a conspiracy by scientists. It just means you're ignorant.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were indeed 900 dissenting Scientist listed in the Senate hearing that Inhofe refers to. If you watched the full unedited video (search youtube for v=1vmoErFbHao to see for yourself) you would know this, along with all the reasons that "Cap and Trade" does nothing to slow global warming... in fact, it will only make man-made global warming and pollution far worse, as more manufacturing goes overseas for cheaper production. Oh, and $400 Billion tax$
garwoodv6 1 year ago
@wfmkk You are no scientist yourself, so what makes your opinion qualifiable?
Ask your self this:
If Cap and Trade does nothing to improve GHG production, and increases real pollutant output (China and many other Countries are exempt from compliance and don't have as stringent pollution standards as the US), then what will be gained?
Who will gain?
Who will suffer?
This is all about power, control, and envy of American success and an attempt to hobble US for the benefit of others in power.
garwoodv6 1 year ago
@wfmkk And don't forget $300-400 BILLION in taxes levied against us while we suffer more losses in manufacturing jobs going overseas. All on an arguable hoax.
We should be doing everything we can to continue "Made in USA" while working toward cleaner, more efficient, less environmental impact standards and practices HERE. We know how to do things right.
Unless you're willing to go back toward the rural America "horse and buggy days"
Don't fall for scare tactics designed to cripple or enslave.
garwoodv6 1 year ago
@garwoodv6
Gee ... I never knew that 900 "dissenting scientists" could fit into one Senate hearing room. But since they're just figments of your imagination, then each one occupied an infinitesimal amount of space. So I presume they all fit into Senator Inhofe's briefcase.
And it's amusing that you assume I support cap-and-trade (as if that were the only solution) and that you assume that my opinion is not strongly supported by reams of scientific research.
wfmkk 1 year ago
cdiac.ornl. gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
"Since 1751 approximately 337 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s."
I repeat ... HALF of the man-made carbon emission in only 40 years.
wfmkk 1 year ago
The famous work by Ghosh and Brand is another sample from virtually infinite well of evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming ...
sindark. com/2009/11/18/climate- change-isotopic-ratios
"By tracking the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere, the distinctive imprint of fossil fuel combustion can be identified. This is really just confirmation of the inevitable chemical fact that burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces [huge amounts of] CO2."
wfmkk 1 year ago
The Complete Guide to Modern Day Climate Change
climateprogress. org/2010/04/14/the-complete- guide-to-modern-day- climate-change
wfmkk 1 year ago
Chinese philanthropist Chen Guangbiao and his wife who made their fortune in the recycling business in China, and says he
is very environmentally conscious. One of his sons is named “Huanjing”
or “Environment,” and another son is named “Huanbao” or “Environmental
Protection." In addition, Mr Chen's nickname is .
"Chen Ditan,” or “Low Carbon Chen,” and his wife's name is Zhang Luse,
which means “Zhang green.”
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shiftyd100 RE: "MrDanbloom So you don't consider "climate cranks" name calling?"
ｎｏ！tHEY ARE CRANKS...THEIR HEADS ARE IN THE SAND. THEY MEAN WELL BUT THEY ARE NOT LISTENING. THEY HAVE OTHER AGENDAS. THEY ARE CLIMATE CRANKS SURE.
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
@MrDanbloom I didn't ask who you consider to be cranks or why consider them such. You said you never indulge in name calling. Cranks is obviously name calling. Personally I don't care what you call me, I'm just pointing out that Marks biggest fan is as inconsistent as he is.
shiftyd100 1 year ago
@shiftyd100
If you don't like "climate crank," how about anti-scientific loon?
Neo-libertarian wing nut?
Fossil-fueled puppet?
Poster boy for the most self-centered generation?
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk If I were you I'd go with climate crank it's a bit catchier than the others. My point to Dan regarded his hypocrisy. I prefer you chant abuse rather than present calm and rational arguments. I like the fact you guys spend more time working on your little catch phrases rather than a clear, coherent strategy to win hearts and mind. Please continue your list but maybe use uppercase so you can sound more hysterical.
shiftyd100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wfmkk Wow. It gets even better. There's really no need for me to counter with ad hominems with folks who post like this. You are your own worst enemy. For the record, I prefer, "critical thinking, realistic, analytical, Mechanical Engineer, political agnostic." Nevertheless, I'll copy your rants for use elsewhere to depict the mentaility of the folks pushing the nonsense. It's useful. As always, thanks again.
bhloop 1 year ago
@wfmkk Thanks for the clarification on your ability to toss ad hominems like a champ and your inability to make any cogent scientific argument . All the best.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
Once again, you're out of your depth. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be if I asserted that your claims about climate change are wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot.
But if I insult your lack of intelligence and/or ethics WHILE offering an argument that does not depend on your personal inadequacies, then that is NOT an example of the ad hominem fallacy. It's just frosting on the cake.
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. Do you actually read what you write? An ad hominem fallacy? Huh? I'll buy you a dictionary and a thesaurus for your birthday. You know, if I stated that your knowledge of Climate Science is about the breadth of a three-fold Greenpeace propaganda flyer, that would be an opinion. Probably accurate, but merely opinion. I generally prefer to stick to facts than opinions, so should not go there. Bottom line: You're in way, way over your head. That is fact. Take care.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
Yes, ad hominem is a type of fallacy. Your bluster fails to cover your ignorance.
nizkor. org/features/fallacies/ ad-hominem.html
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. In complete seriousness, I want to apologize if I've said anything that was offensive to you. I suspect you're a very decent person and we're not going to resolve any disagreement here. Again, my background is steeped in dispassionate science and all we're getting here is name calling. Maybe if we have a beer together someday, we'll resolve the world's problems. I want to sincerely wish you success in all of your endeavors. All the best and take care...Steve
bhloop 1 year ago
@wfmkk You called us corrupt, liars in the pay of fossil fuel companies. You are attacking our character to undermine any argument we present i.e "fossil-fueled puppet". You are saying I'm wrong because I'm brain washed or corrupt. Offering an evidence based argument in conjunction with a character attack does NOT somehow cancel out the ad hom. You have only tried to offer evidence for catastrophic climate change not your accusations.
shiftyd100 1 year ago
11,003 NOW....GO GO GO
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
10,995 HITS SO FAR!!!
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
Btw LtDan, when you repeat the same comment over and over on the same video, it's SPAM. It doesn't matter if YOU think it's the truth or not.
fredloftonab 1 year ago
Ok LtDan, let's do a little math here. The United States has a population of roughly 310,000,000 people. Your video has roughly 5600 views. That works out to approximately 0.001806% of the population of America. The world population is roughly 6,876,000,000 people. That gives us around 0.0000814% that has seen your "video". In other words and in the grand scheme of things, no one cares.
fredloftonab 1 year ago
''Once the Arctic gets warm enough permafrost will release so much
carbon and methane it will tip us into uncontrollable heating of the
planet a new study finds. That tipping or starting point is 15 to 20
years off they think. I document some shortcomings in the study so it
may begin even sooner sorry to say. It means our fossil fuel use has
to decline within the next 10 years or so otherwise the next and
future generations will be stuck with a radically-altered climate.''
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ fredloftonab ...MrDanBloom, are you in love with this guy or something? YES I SUPPORt HIS BOOK 100 percent....re: "No one cares about your YouTube clip about coal or whatever it is". 5600 people say you are wrong Fred.
And Fred, TRUTH is not SPAM. come on! Watch my "2099 graduation speech" just once, i dare you!
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
@bhloop - wrong, i do not use term denialist with any reference to the Holocaust, please delete that from your mind. I use for people who deny the reality of climate change and global warming, that's all. And sure, you can call my side climate delusionists, that's okay. Just keep love in your heart as we are all in this together, denialists and delusionists......we need to come together.... RE: "...let's not call names here. The denialists mean well.
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
@MrDanbloom So you don't consider "climate cranks" name calling?
shiftyd100 1 year ago
@MrDanbloom
The original "deniers" were those who deny that the Holocaust happened. The term "climate denier" is used to describe those who deny the similarly obvious fact of global warming – especially since it threatens and even bigger holocaust.
The term is entirely appropriate.
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
MrDanBloom, are you in love with this guy or something. The fact that he posted a poorly edited piece is a lie in and of itself. But that's a typical liberal media ploy. The fact that the full clip on Inhofe's page (classy move btw) has more views shows that not everyone wants bits and pieces of the truth. No one cares about your YouTube clip about coal or whatever it is. Quit spamming the pages and get a life.
fredloftonab 1 year ago
Anyone that stilll believes in global warming is not paying attention
dlrice 1 year ago
@dlrice
Pay attention.
skepticalscience. com
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
Gotta love it. Mr. Dan Bloom writes: "...let's not call names here. The denialists mean well. They will come around. Treat them with love, not disdain!"
You used the term denialist - a clear reference to Holocaust deniers or denialists. Sure let's put scientific skeptics in that group. But, at least you're not name calling.
Hmmm, the Climate delusionists. They will come around. Treat them with love, not disdain.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
The greenhouse effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide has been accepted science for the past century or more. Do you deny that fact?
If you accept the greenhouse effect then I'm curious about how you would respond to the clear observation that the current amount of atmospheric CO2 is as high as it was 15 million years ago -- when there was no Arctic ice cap.
tiny. cc/Tripati
Are the facts interfering with your ideology?
dericbownds. net/uploaded_images /Doonesbury.gif
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
@wfmkk Wfmkk, thank you for the note. Yes, of course there’s a greenhouse effect! We’d be living on a cold rock otherwise. But, do you deny that CO2 has only gone from .028% of the atmosphere to .038% of the atmosphere in the last 130 years? Do you deny that the long term trends show CO2 lagging, not leading temp? Do you deny that water vapor dwarfs all other gh gasses combined? Do you deny that unlike CO2, you cannot tax water vapor? Do these facts interfere with your ideology/religion?
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
You seem to be implying that the impact that CO2 has on our atmosphere is small, simply because its concentration is relatively small. I hope you see the fallacy in that, as I assume you wouldn't drink a glass of water that contains "only" 0.38% arsenic.
11111110 1 year ago 4
@11111110 Thanks for the note. Let me get this straight. You're comparing .38% to .038% and you're comparing CO2, one of the building blocks of life on the planet to Arsenic? You lost me there somewhere unless your intent was to present a really poor argument. If that's the case, very well done. My argument that the impact of CO2 being an extremely small player in the scheme of things (compared to water vapor) remains factual and intact. But thanks for the note.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
There a lots of building blocks of life on this planet that very quickly turn deadly when applied in excess amounts. Clean water is needed to sustain life, but if you drink too much of it in a short period of time, the resulting water intoxication will kill you
But you're argument is that CO2 can't possibly have a significant impact, since there is such a small concentration of it. But there are many instances where adding small concentrations of substances can have a huge impact.
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110
Additionally, the reason why no one is worrying about water vapor is because there is literally nothing anyone can do to control how much water vapor goes into the atmosphere. It all gets evaporated!
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 Thanks for the note. Yes, I agree 100% with your point of "the poison is in the dose." I've used that argument in other debates. The point here is that water vapor is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect on earth. It's that simple. I'm not saying CO2 is completely irrelevant, but it is not the major player that the warm-mongers want you to believe.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
But CO2 is *a* major player, and one in which we've been directly responsible for dumping into the atmosphere in excess. We can't stop water vapor from getting into the atmosphere, but as global temperature averages increase, so does the amount of evaporation occurring. Thus, putting more water vapor into the atmosphere, and creating a nasty cycle.
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 - "You seem to be implying that the impact that CO2 has on our atmosphere is small, simply because its concentration is relatively small. I hope you see the fallacy in that, I assume you wouldn't drink a glass of water that contains "only" 0.38% arsenic."
You're so indoctrinated you're actually stupid. A know-nothing, brain-dead, dip shit would understand why those two aren't even in the same league. They're not even the same fucking sport. Seriously! You're a fucking retard!
thomaserossi 5 months ago
@thomaserossi
What a mature and intelligent response you've typed up, I thank you for it. Maybe in your next post, you can actually point out any inaccuracies in my post, instead of shouting expletives and namecalling. You know, something new.
11111110 5 months ago
Wow! I saw the entire "ambush interview" on Daily Caller. It's funny how you like to use the term cherry pick, and then use a few bits of the interview you liked. Inhofe had you for lunch. As for "science", clearly none of you has a background in any science whatsoever. You better push your agenda before everyone has flipped. The rats are jumping off the consensus wagon in droves. Go back to school and study engineering or some other field where you actually have to understand science.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
"CO2 has only gone from .028% of the atmosphere to .038%"
Actually it's over .039% now -- which is higher than it has even been in human history. You would know that if you had actually read my previous citation:
tiny. cc/Tripati
"lagging, not leading temp"
Debunking that particular fossil-fueled talking point:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
You would also find hundreds of references to the fact that CO2 is a major CAUSE of warming ... if you read scientific journals.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. "Hundreds of references....." Wow. Now I'm convinced. As for the scientific journals and published science and the IPCC reports themselves, I suspect I've waded through much more of it than you have ever seen or will ever see. And, after that exhausting journy, not only do I remain unconvinced, it pushed me to even further skepticism. Thanks again for the note.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
You're obviously full of shit. I don't believe for a minute that you read scientific journals.
I posted a complete scientific refutation of your dumb-ass argument about water vapor, and you simply ignored it entirely. I think the complexity of the situation is beyond your comprehension, so all you can do is regurgitate fossil-fueled talking points like a puppet. Once again, the Dunning-Kruger syndrome finds a home among the ranks of climate cranks.
wfmkk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. I find it amusing when I read the emails here and see the tone of the warming faction compared to skeptics. And I'm the crank? That's rich. Even more amusing is that I suspect none of you has a scientific background. My background is Mechanical Engineering, which means I actually have to understand and apply the physical sciences in practice. You posted a "complete scientific refutation?" Where? The only one parroting weak arguments posited by others is...you.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
"water vapor dwarfs all other greenhouse gasses"
That's another fossil-fueled talking point. Water vapor is a feedback agent, not a forcing agent. Water vapor cannot cause the Earth to get warmer by itself, but it does amplify the effect of CO2 (which is definitely a forcing agent).
watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs
realclimate. org/index.php/archives/2005/ 04/water-vapour- feedback-or-forcing
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk Thanks for the note. Real Cimate? Isn't that Schmidt, et al. Wasn't he with the "hide the decline" crew? He can call it feedback all he wants, the fact is...it's both. You could say CO2 is both....as the atmosphere/ocean warms, surely the ocean will release CO2, correct? Water vapor resides in the atmosphere and remains, by far, the strongest contributor to the greenhouse effect. This is fact. It's indisputable. The only dispute is whether it's contribution is 75% or 85%.
bhloop 1 year ago
@bhloop
"hide the decline"
Whatever you say, Beavis.
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Mark Hertsgaad apologized: ..... "I did make
one mistake. In the haste of introducing myself to Inhofe, I misspoke
by saying I was "with Politico." I had intended to say I "write for
Politico," which I had done just that morning in the form of the
above-mentioned opinion article. My words came out wrong, which I
regret. " SO STOP CALLING HIM A LIAR!
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
see my youtube speech video here at YTube titled "A Graduation Speech to the "Class of 2099" on Climate Change and Tightening the Noose around Coal"
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
Average Con, that was NOT me calling anyone a MORON, please. I never use that word for anyone. We are all in this together. Marc Morano and Anthony Watts are my friends, as is Mark Hertsgaard and Andy Revkin. as for WFMKK below callin them morons, please WFMKK , let's not call names here. The denialists mean well. They will come around. Treat them with love, not disdain!
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
i posted Mark's mea gulpa on the Politico gaffe there so they can see the truth IF they want to see it: Mark Hertsgaad explains his gaffe here: ..... "I did make
one mistake. In the haste of introducing myself to Inhofe, I misspoke
by saying I was "with Politico." I had intended to say I "write for
Politico," which I had done just that morning in the form of the
above-mentioned opinion article. My words came out wrong, which I
regret.
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
Let's check polling after next years winter. I know, I know... this year's winter isn't over with but hang in there because spring is near.
the82spartans 1 year ago
MrDanbloom... no one is a moron here. Except those who call others morons. These young people are simply without any other experience than what they have experienced in school and college. They haven't hit the real world yet. The evidence they have been given is rooted in the bias which is tied to the funding of academia. The Kamir Rouge of Cambodia too full advantage of the lack of wisdom by youth. No wisdom, little understanding, easily manipulated, easily convinced, easily socialized.
AverageConservative 1 year ago 2
8846 hits now compared to 59K hits for Imhof Press office video. SIGH
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
@ gantman I disagree there re .."....America needs an energy policy that includes more oil drilling, more natural gas, more nuclear.." Yes, more nuclear, yes more wind and water power, and solar power, NO to any more use of coal or oil, period. we can agree to disagree for now, check back in year 2500 AD.... sigh
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
@MrDanbloom
You're dealing with morons who refuse to accept the century-old scientific fact of the greenhouse effect.
wfmkk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
see my youtube speech video here at YTube titled "A Graduation Speech to the "Class of 2099" on Climate Change and Tightening the Noose around Coal"
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
Additionally, we have learned that Politico has asked Mark Hertsgaard to stop identifying himself as their representative. A recent email from one Politico editor to the DailyCaller stated; “Mr. Hertsgaard is not a POLITICO reporter or employee and we have asked him not to portray himself as one”
1family4me 1 year ago
When we consider the full moral implications of climate change and the trans-generational injustice of wrecking the biosphere for human civilization, it is no exaggeration to say that we are dealing with evil here.
Here's a related essay:
tiny. cc/lfpgq
wfmkk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if its hot its global warming, if its cold its global warming, if you're retarded you believe in global warming. lol, if my cock gets sucked tonight its global warming...
1Guitarslayer 1 year ago
Haa haaa
"Mr. Hertsgaard’s confusion concerning his employment raises a valid question from anyone coming in contact with him, “If you are lying to people about where you work, how are we to believe anything else that comes out of your mouth?”"
moski3 1 year ago
It sad the LIBERALS refuse to understand truth and basic FACTS. It is like ClimateGate never happened. They are so obsessed to fuck over America.
Interesting that they cut out the answer to the stupid brainwashed little bitch in this vid.
Wonder why they cut out all of the concrete answers that Inhofe stated?? Hmmmm. . .
Kinda sound like the lefties are afraid to let facts get out to their uninformed lemming followers.
moski3 1 year ago
@moski3
What would YOU know about truth and basic facts? Are you really smarter than thousands of climate scientists? LOL ... You seem to be the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome:
tiny. cc/AGW- Dunning-Kruger
wfmkk 1 year ago
Why are you pushing for the super rich to take over our planet under UN AGENDA 21.
AGW is a fraud for the super rich, have you guys forgot about climate gate already?
How is paying Al gore our money going to fix the weather? Its not. You guys are shrills for big bankers and oil men. Did you ever take the time to look who is pushing AGW? Nope. You guys are pushing a social control and eugenics policy from people like the Rockefellers, and Rothschilds, Strong and the brit Royals.
Robodoon 1 year ago
@Robodoon
Did you know that the Rockefellers are under your bed?
Better check.
wfmkk 1 year ago
Mr. Hertsgaard, keep up the good work.
I remember first learning about you back in 1988 when you wrote "On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency". I was impressed by that book, and I am impressed by your efforts today.
Reagan started the right-wing class war and the war against science that continues today. His "trees cause pollution" remark was similar to the kind of nonsense that climate cranks spout about global warming.
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
"If 98 out of a hundred Scientists..."
Must be the same 98 who work for ... the U.N.!!! U know! The most CORRUPT ORG ON EARTH!!!
Hahahahaha... PATHETIC REPORTING!! So "APPARENTLY BIASED & IGNORANT" a Child would be amused.
ULTRALAN02 1 year ago
C'mon guys! We should listen to him. I mean, he works for Politico after-all. (Loads of Sarcasm)
ponchmasta007 1 year ago
"We Report You Decide" umm.. do you work for Fox News? or the Politico like you identified yourself? Have to lie just to get your foot in the door, what makes you think that anyone is going to take your statistics as fact at all?
NobleMaN79 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You disingenuous prick.....post the whole vid
stinky125 1 year ago
'My generation" suffers. girl, you hadn't grown up enough to realize anything yet.
Panchee123 1 year ago
This video (the full version) made me laugh. I love how he brings 'young people' with him to the interview. lol The poor youth, not understanding how this Libs 'fix' for climate change is to tax and destroy America
gantman 1 year ago
I want to see these Young people explain and apologize to their children and grandchildren for all the taxes they will be paying if this scam ever becomes law.
gantman 1 year ago
Hertsgaard certainly is duplicitous isn't he? I guess he doesn't dare post the whole interview. The fact that he has to lie and pretend that he was representing Politico says all you want to know. Anyone with the sense to look at the history of climate change can see that climate is always transitional. Massive climate shifts have occurred many times before the industrial revolution, but I guess that is truly an inconvenient truth.
m4a3e876 1 year ago
Why so cold? Oh, its winter time. I got it.
the82spartans 1 year ago
You pathetic Fraud. How about this from POLITICO “Mr. Hertsgaard is not a POLITICO reporter or employee and we have asked him not to portray himself as one” Oh and trying to use the "We Report, You Decide" trademark from Fox? Pathetic. Figures a commie thinks that he can freely use trade names and make shat up. First it was global warming, once that was proved false, it is now climate change. Can't have it both ways. It's not man made.
commentertony 1 year ago
Show the full 5 minute video where you lied and said you were a Politico reporter. Instead of using Saul Alinsky tactics, do your reporting as an honorable human being. Don't act like scum. You lose people that way. BTW, climate change is just BS to institute carbon credits, a scheme to make the corrupt rich. In the end, it's all controling the masses.
manyleaves 1 year ago
This is just too funny. It should be on Saturday Night Live. You go Jim. Facts speak for them selves.
cameraguyokc 1 year ago 2
Are you libs still pushing this fake man made climate change? hahahahahahaha It's amazing how stupid libs are. Sane people knew it was a hoax before it was proven that you libs rearranged the evidence to fit your political goals. Follow the money all the way to al gore's house. hahahahahaha
nolibhere4923 1 year ago
Bill Allen in Basking RidgeNJ tells me this today re Mark's very good book and Cap Hill actions - ''The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.” quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer
MrDanbloom 1 year ago 2
7117
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
KaseyKruz, Mike123 and ozcavalie ! We need to stop fighting here and work together to solve our nation's problems. Agree, disagree, fine, but let's work together on both sides of the aisles to solve our problems. Climate is a real issue, even if you don't believe in AGW or global warming. Nobody can see the future but me, and i see dead people, over 10 billion dead people and you'd better see my video first....titled "A Graduation Speech to the "Class of 2099"
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
@MrDanbloom I agree. But how can you work together with people like say Mr. Hertzgaard when his whole agenda is to destroy the 'other sides' credibility and spew lies? America needs an energy policy that includes more oil drilling, more natural gas, more nuclear. And while we're using our own natural resources and not relying on our enemies, the great innovators in our country will further develop green technologies to the point where they are actually usable and not going to bankrupt us.
gantman 1 year ago
@gantman
OIl production in the United States peaked 40 years ago and has been declining ever since. So despite the ridiculous economic premise of growing forever, oil is a finite resource that is becoming scarce. No amount of right-wing ideology can refute that FACT.
wfmkk 1 year ago 2
@wfmkk And why do you think its declining? Its not because we don't have more oil. Its because of the 'Green' groups putting restrictions on our entire country while the rest of the world continues to drill new wells.
So instead of bankrupting our country, we can use the resources we have here and continue to invest in green technologies so that ONE DAY they will be economically viable. Because right now they are not.
gantman 1 year ago
@gantman
If there were plentiful oil on U.S. territory, then oil corporations would be extracting it.
Oil corporations are probably the most powerful organizations on the planet, and your conspiracy theory about "Green groups" restricting their activities for 40 years is ridiculous.
Learn about peak oil:
watch?v=6uYmZmWAaxk
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk you're telling me there are no restrictions on these companies from drilling in these regions? Look up Seahawk drilling which will file for bankruptcy due to the lack of drilling permits being issued in the Gulf of Mexico. Perfect example of killing jobs for the greenies
Or how about all the Shale we have in the US? None of this is conspiracy. These are facts: Geological Survey estimates parts of the US hold 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia
gantman 1 year ago
@gantman
I never stated there were "no restrictions"; I simply laughed at your ridiculous conspiracy theory about the "greenies" having more power than Big Oil. Based on your remarks, I would suppose that you consider anyone who values their health more than money to be a "greenie".
You blithely gloss over the huge distinction between oil shale and crude oil. Since you are obviously ignorant about peak oil, you are probably equally clueless about net energy (or EROEI).
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk considering the president of the united states is one of the "greenies", then yes I think they do have more power than big oil. Just look at the moratorium that is still in effect and costing jobs. You're never going to to agree with me and vice versa. All I'm saying is we have to continue to protect the interests of our country by using our own resources instead of relying on our enemies. And we should continue to invest in new technologies. But destroying the US is not the solution
gantman 1 year ago
@gantman
"moratorium that is still in effect"
Did you miss the BP oil spill?
"using our own resources"
Those energy resources are FAR LESS in amount than you seem to think. Many Republicans allow their ideology to warp their perception of reality. This is especially true of climate science.
Obama is not ... NOT a "greenie". That's a totally ridiculous claim. He's a puppet for corporate interests, just like the 4 Presidents before him. He just happens to realize that climate denial is suicidal.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@gantman
Study EROEI (energy returned on energy invested).
Think about the tremendous energy required to process oil shale.
Study the greenhouse effect.
Think about the implications of a CO2 level that hasn't existed on this planet since 15 million years ago.
newsroom.ucla. edu/portal/ucla/last-time- carbon-dioxide-levels-111074. aspx
wfmkk 1 year ago
@gantman
"destroying the US"
1. Despite the insane opinions of Senator Inhofe, an economy based on renewable energy would actually create more American jobs than the current fossil fuel economy.
2. If we continue to do nothing about the climate crisis, then the United States (and most of Western civilization) will be destroyed by climate change.
So you and your Republican friends have it TOTALLY BACKWARDS.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk I agree that we should have an economy based on renewable energy. The problem is that the technology for this is still 20 years away. The only reason they exist now is because of massive subsidies. Sooooo we need to support our own economy NOW with Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, until green techs are actually feasible. Its also a matter of national security. Look at the price of oil today because of Libya. We have to drill here now because last I checked that solar panel won't move my car.
gantman 1 year ago
@gantman
Climate change is a GREATER matter of national security. In fact, screw nationalism; it's a matter of human survival.
Even the Pentagon gets it:
guardian.co. uk/environment/2004/feb/22/ usnews.theobserver
wfmkk 1 year ago
@wfmkk Let's say I completely agree with you. What is your solution?
gantman 1 year ago
@gantman
I'm not sure of the best solution, but we obviously must severely reduce our CO2 emissions somehow. Right now, society rewards the wrong energy choices (fossil fuels) and dietary choices (animal-centered agriculture).
The most direct way to tilt the marketplace toward "renewable" energy is with a carbon tax, which would account for the true ecological cost of fossil fuels.
The bottom line is that many of our current "freedoms" are actually THEFT from future generations.
wfmkk 1 year ago
@gantman
I oppose the so-called "cap and trade" methods that have been proposed. These videos sum up my position on that. The first one is entertaining, and the second one features two dissenting scientists from EPA:
watch?v=f3_CYdYDDpk
watch?v=uSNQzSjb38g
But it's critical to not conflate bad solutions with a non-existence of a problem!!!
This is a common fallacy among climate cranks.
wfmkk 1 year ago
Comment removed
wfmkk 1 year ago
Wait a minute KaseyKruz, Mike123 and ozcavalier! Mark did write an oped commentary for Politico the other day, and that is what he meant by saying he was from Politico. He did not mean to imply he was on staff, just that he was a contributor. You need to check that first. Second, Mark is a good man and he cares about the future, as you do, too. So don't paint him in a corner and tar him with the liberal label. We are one nation, all of us in this together. You might disagree with Mark's MO...
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
You're not even a real reporter. Politico denies you're an employee, you FRAUD!. Why is it now it's called "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming"? Because people aren't buying it! Snow in Florida proves Global Warming false, that's why you now say "Climate Change" because no one can deny that the climate does change...hahaha nice try at "journalism". Just more liberal bias to control the masses through legislation.
KaseyKruz 1 year ago
Just saw the full video. The full video was chopped and taken grossly out of context for this nonsense.
Sen Inhoffe never said "the science doesn't matter". He said that the scientific community is not unanimous on this and that there are dissenting scientists who have valid claims.
They completely left out the senator's response to the whiney little girl. They cut out all of the senator's responses.
Completely dishonest.
But then, he's a liberal so what else should we expect?
mikemck123 1 year ago
Post the whole video Mark, not the editted version. Where's the bit where you claimed to be from Politco? Sitting on the cutting room floor because you got proven to be a liar.... and yet you want us to believe that the rest of this (obviously editted) video is the truth?? What kind of idiots do you really think people are? Face it Mark, you got owned by the Senator, and now your blatant "face-saving" edit has been prven false too. Fail, Fail, Fail.
ozcavalier 1 year ago 2
see my youtube speech video here at YTube titled "A Graduation Speech to the "Class of 2099" on Climate Change and Tightening the Noose around Coal"
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
LOL what a tool!!
mmremtp 1 year ago
Reporter wanna be, take your propaganda elsewhere...
greatspirit72 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Loser! And you wonder why with stunts like this that nobody but the kool-aid drinkers believe in Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling or whatever new name you choose to give it. Its is because it is a fraud just like your edited interview. Pathetic! Doesn't it make you feel weak knowing your defending a lie?
greatspirit72 1 year ago
Comment removed
greatspirit72 1 year ago
I notice you cut out where you claimed you were from Politico.
Why are such a liar?
gregatyis 1 year ago
@NBC1059: dude your awesome!!!!
taijijohn 1 year ago
watch?v=1vmoErFbHao&
Full interview here
grimmjsb 1 year ago
“Mr. Hertsgaard is not a POLITICO reporter or employee and we have asked him not to portray himself as one”
Oh man it just keeps getting better
NBC1059 1 year ago
WHO'S A LIAR? CLIMATE CRIMINAL Exxon was caught funding a huge disinformation campaign about global warming. This is one of the reasons so many people don't understand the realities of global warming, or they are complicit or participating in the criminal disinformation scam. Read the report: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science -- ucsusa . org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed . html
gregjalbert 1 year ago
Here are a few tips for the next time you crawl out from under your rock. 1 Don't ambush someone about global warming in winter clothing. 2 If your going to have girls show up to represent generation "hot" they should be HOT. Dress them in bikinis, and have sweat glistening off their hard bodies. 3 Try and keep yourself together man. I could hear the fear in your voice. 4 Don't ambush people smarter then you. Especially if they have their own cameras.
NBC1059 1 year ago
HAHAAHAHAAHAHA Just lost all credibility you ever had.
TacoProdigy 1 year ago
Mark your a joke. I saw the entire interview, which was over 5 min long. Your kind has been pushing this crap, since before I was born. First there was going to be mass famine by 2000. Then came global cooling, and scientist said the glacier were going to get us. Then there was global warm, and we were all going to drown. When that failed you people shifted to climate change. All of you are nothing, but frauds.
NBC1059 1 year ago
Paste this into the search box for the REAL "interview":
Inhofe Takes on Global Warming Alarmist Attempted Ambush
FullAuto2008 1 year ago
@FullAuto2008 WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE CLIMATE CRIMINALS: Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter.
gregjalbert 1 year ago
"Generation Hot"? Really?? What are they.....a bunch of little prostitots??? Too bad this guy seems to have so much influence on these kids! Where are their parents??? Oh, right!!,,,,,They're the ones with the 60's do's and their little protest signs still in the closet! HAHAHAHAHA Poor kids!
peggy57 1 year ago
I watched the whole unedited video and it is very different than this one. Right off the bat this person says he is with Politico and he is not,.. please watch the whole video and compare.
Search Youtube for; "Inhofe Takes on Global Warming Alarmist Attempted Ambush".
lobotomyroom 1 year ago
Mark, I read some comments below, yep get a hair cut, your not 18 anymore and a man your age should act it and not be pretentious. Your not going to attract your daughters girlfriends, sorry.
hoppyman50 1 year ago
Mark, your argument is weak and 98% of scientist do not in any way agree with your position. Many have been both shun and ridiculed by those zealots who worship this planet as their god. You and your science is bull and the worse thing is you prostitute your own daughter for the additional taxes you want to see added and regulations. Your a douche bag and your that same little Bitch I beat up in School, apparently not enough, your still that little liar and you'll never change from that,
hoppyman50 1 year ago
where's the facebook page? I can't find it. Did it get swarmed by people mocking your lying butt and you had to take it down?
willyohio 1 year ago
They chopped this all up.
chaserehn 1 year ago
What a loser, the raw video gives you and your minion away....
RIRA1916 1 year ago
This guy is lagging far behind the facts... Most global warming alarmists have learned that the globe isn't getting warmer and have jumped onto the "global climate change" ban wagon... But not this guy! He's sticking to his roots... He's probably canadian.
sam98725 1 year ago
1976 called and they want their hair style back. But on to more important things. First you misrepresent yourself saying that you are from Politico then you edit the measured and sensible response from Inhofe and you still don't recognize the truth behind your overly emotional reaction to the biggest emotional scam ever perpetrated by those who seek to distort the data (climate gate) and tax the people of the world in for a doom and gloom scenario that would change nothing.
comicb 1 year ago