Inhofe Calls EPAs Endangerment Finding a Ticking Time Bomb

On Friday, May 1, 2009, Senator Inhofe spoke on the Senate Floor about the Administrations recent announcement of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Senator Inhofe calls the decision a ticking time bomb that presents policymakers with a false choice: Use an outdated, ill equipped and economically disastrous option under the Clean Air Act, or pick another bad option—cap-and-trade—that commits us to requirements for which affordable and reliable technology does not exist.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• global
• warming
• endangerment
• finding
• inhofe
• obama

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.