Open thread: Goracle on Capitol Hill to talk about the weather; Update: Heart-ache — Gore refuses Inhofe’s energy ethics pledge; Update: Video added
posted at 9:22 am on March 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
C-SPAN 3 will have both hearings, first the undercard at 9:30 before a House subcommittee on global warming and then the main event at 2:30 before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, where he and crusty GW skeptic James Inhofe will finally square off. Neither my cable company nor Bryan’s carries C-SPAN 3, so we’re at the mercy of Fox and CNN. If you’re hot to watch, and no doubt some of you are, you can do so over the web. Keep us posted on the goings-on in the comments.
Here’s what to expect in the a.m.:
Gore begins the day in the House, where he will face Energy Chairman John D. Dingell, a Democrat from the auto-industry state of Michigan, who has resisted federal increases in fuel-efficiency standards. Dingell also invited Lomborg, a Danish political scientist and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has argued that combating AIDS and poverty may carry a greater social value than tackling climate change.
Republicans have already signaled that they’ll be waiting with tough questions. Two senior GOP members, Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas and former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, want Gore to use his 30-minute opening statement to address a comment last year that “it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations” in his lecture.
“What is your motive for the ‘over-representation?’ ” Barton and Hastert asked in a letter delivered to Gore on Tuesday. “Are you worried that your issue must compete for attention and resources with those other global issues that are already compelling and do not need Hollywood hyperbole?”
And here’s a taste of what he’ll face in the p.m. It’s Inhofe versus CNN anchor Miles O’Brien from last October. His press guy put out a statement last night essentially accusing Gore of thinking his shinola don’t stink, to coin a phrase. Should be fun.
Update: “Those who believe all his garbage are going to be excited to death and the rest of us are going to ignore it.”
Update: Fox is carrying it. The Gorebot is late to the hearing, reportedly because he doesn’t want to suffer the indignity of listening to the GOP’s opening statement. Republicans now say they’ll waive their opening statement — in return for five extra minutes of questioning.
Update: Inhofe’s press guy says the transcript of Gore’s prepared remarks was finally delivered to the Senate — at 9:29 a.m., fully one minute before the House hearing opened and 23 hours and 59 minutes after he’d promised to deliver them.
Update: Tonight he dines in hell!
Update: You think Inhofe is enjoying this or what?
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.
“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked…
Gore refused to take the pledge.
Update: Here’s a little post-pledge video that’s making the rounds.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Ah… yeah, I’m almost positive that’s what he was trying to say.
They measure the ratios of C13 and C12 isotopes in the atmosphere. The C13 (the “heavier” stuff) is more prevalent in CO2 emitted due to the combustion of fossil fuels. So a trend up in that isotope’s prevalence in the atmosphere would indicate that the changes are a result of our fuel burning, and are not a natural increase.
Well, that isn’t true. What has been shown is that temperature can and regularly does increase naturally in the absence of CO2 increases, and that CO2 concentration increases in response to rising temperatures. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t positive temperature feedbacks from CO2.
I don’t think that any prominent scientists–even the major skeptics–would argue that CO2 doesn’t result in more energy retained in the atmosphere. The argument is over how much, how much can it ultimately cause, and is it even a bad thing.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Yeah, I remember hearing the same “10 years before it’s too late” warning from noted environmental scientist Ted Danson (who also happened to play the charcter “Sam” on the popular ’80’s sitcom “Cheers”) …. in 1990.
Looks like he bet his career (scientific or acting, take your pick) on that prediction.
thirteen28 on March 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I hope he’s enjoying a tasty carbon-neutral lunch. Of course it looks like he needs to be eating more calorie-neutral food. I guess he can’t figure out how to buy calorie offsets :^)
db on March 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Key word: significant
db on March 21, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Ding, ding, round two.
Everyone, man your keyboards!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:32 PM
hehehe…hope you love your nails Babs. ;)
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:35 PM
How are you guys watching it? The CSPAN feed isn’t working for me.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I don’t think I can take anymore from Gore today. Anyone interested in buying my offsets?
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Dave- I have a TV right beside the monitor.
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:37 PM
and they are getting in on already…Give’m Hell Senator Inhofe!
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I really have to say up front that I get such a kick out of blasting this guy because we have done everything we can think of to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (short of freezing ourselves to death and quitting our jobs so we don’t have to drive).
This includes, but is not limited to, not using any petroleum based fertilizers on our property (hey man, we are organic) carpooling and, NEVER turning the heat up over 67 degrees. The normal state for the temp in our home in winter is 62 degrees. Sometimes it falls below 55. I am here to tell you that is cold! We have NO HEAT in our bedroom. Sometimes the temp in the bedroom falls below 50 degrees.
So, here we go. Ol’ Nancy has just spewed her directives. And,we are off!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Well, how do you define that? Even if the entire 0.6 deg of warming was entirely due to anthropogenic emissions, would that be “significant”? What if only half of it or a quarter of it is… say 0.15 deg?
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Mikulski, oh man, what a witch. Shake it Nancy, wave the flag and rah-rah for Al…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:41 PM
“Key word: significant
Well, how do you define that? Even if the entire 0.6 deg of warming was entirely due to anthropogenic emissions, would that be “significant”? What if only half of it or a quarter of it is… say 0.15 deg?
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 2:39 PM”
What does it signify?
Zetterson on March 21, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Oh Man, equate Al to Rosa Parks…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:43 PM
It’s the “We Love Al” Show!
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:43 PM
ROSA PARKS? Oh shit. Please, Boxer, I work on the 18th floor.
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHh…..
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 2:43 PM
acidic? I thought CO2 made our sodas fizzy? So if the Ocean is absorbing all this…shouldn’t there be a head on it?
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I’m getting the video OK, but the audio’s all messed up. All I hear is this wet, slobbery, sucking sound.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Co2 levels are higher now than the last 650,000 years???
I would love to meet the guy that measured Co2 levels 650,000 years ago.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:45 PM
St. Kan - I think you are getting the audio just fine…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I may be wrong, but I would swear that he said the naturally occuring heavier CO2 settles out of the atmosphere so that non-man-made CO2 does not contribute to global warming.
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Give em hell Inhofe…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Inhofe: “We’re really close up here”
yeah…close to what? Looks like Ms. Boxer is ready to rip your head off
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:48 PM
“Some of the statements you have made have inacuracies and have been misleading”
No kidding…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I wish he wouldn’t cite the debate. It’s a red herring… focus on the science.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM
It seems that the debate IS the science anymore.
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Great…See you all in 30 minutes. I think I’ve heard this part before.
Pilgrim on March 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM
“The poor will have to pay for it and the science isn’t there”
Here goes Al…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I seem to remember Gore debating a shaved retarded chimp with Hitler’s brain on TV back in 2000…and losing.
Maybe he doesn’t like debates anymore.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 2:54 PM
He just referred to Senator Mukulski. I simply hate that woman. She has done everything she could possibly do to castrate the Naval Academy which is, unfortunately, in her state.
The sex scandals that have ensued from her pressure have almost brought the Academy to its knees.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Being a chemical engineer (granted I haven’t researched much into the CO2 emission thing) does anyone know if any major studies have been done to see how much of this CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans? As far as I know, CO2 is fairly soluble in water at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures (a lot more than oxygen), so do these scientists just assume that it all stays in the atmosphere?
specialkayel on March 21, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Special - Why would you ask a technical question like that? You gotta believe man, gotta believe….
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 2:58 PM
“Shrill, but accurate.”
Like CBS.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 3:00 PM
“This is not a normal time. We are facing a planetary emergency.”
Yeah, the emergency is coming from the proliferation of hot air out of your mouth.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Looks like it’s just you and me Babs. I would have jumped out the window myself by now but it’s sealed shut.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Yeah St. my windows are sealed shut too. To keep the freakin cold out!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:04 PM
OMG, he just said the scientific evidence is almost as significant as gravity!!!!!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I just spent an hour or so trying to educate myself on that.
There are three different carbon isotopes c-12,c-13 and c-14. C-14 is radioactive and is not much of a factor in the burning of fuel.
I take it that the “signature” they speak of is ratio of carbon-14 in the tropo and stratospheres where it is produced (by cosmic rays) to the presence of the stable isotopes 12 and 13. Or perhaps they could detect the presence of isotope-12 in an unnatural ratio to isotope-13 that would be indicative of fossil fuels being burned.
The first example wouldn’t explain why the stable co2 would be man made rather than naturally occurring. And for the second example, I haven’t found any data claiming that man made co2 contains a different isotope ratio than naturally occurring co2.
It seems to me that the carbon-14 would be decreasing in the upper atmosphere when forests aren’t burning or if the sample was taken during a time of increased incidents of forest fires, the appearance of carbon-14 in their sample would be higher.
Another thing about forest fires is they used to burn constantly before humans had the ability to extinguish them so I’d like to know how that factors in their climate models.
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 3:06 PM
You mean there had to be a scientific consensus to say that gravity exists?
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Man, I don’t remember Gore being this good. This is frightening.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 3:07 PM
This afternoon hearing might not be as amusing as this morning but, I will continue to watch because this debate really annoys me.
So, all the jokes to one side, I NEED to know what this asshat is saying to our legislators and, what they are saying back.
OMG, he is now equating the movie 300 to the global warming challenge!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
“This shouldn’t be seen as a political issue.”
And that’s why I’m here today testifying on Capitol Hill and calling for a ban on incandescent lightbulbs and a pollution tax and new SEC disclosure rules.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Perchant, I linked to some info about that above. They measure trends in the C13-C12 ratio. C13 is more prevalent in anthropogenic emissions, and atmospheric C13 trends upward as we pump it into the atmosphere. That sounds like a pretty solid assumption to make.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 3:09 PM
“They don’t export world wars from Europe anymore.”
That’s true. Now they just lie down and lube up whenever a new dictator arises.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I CANNOT believe that he is comparing the “global warming” weenies with the movie 300.
Could this get any more strange?
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Forest fires. Indeed.
Since I am in the fire business, here is something ya’ll need to look at.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/
I’m serious, Allah. You need to link this above firemaps. It is just mind boggling that fires burn year round on such a large scale.
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Yes! Let’s ban the incandescent bulb — made of exclusively easilly recyclable metal and glass — and replace them with flourescents that contain lots of electronic components and mercury vapor!!! That’ll save the environment!!!
db on March 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Also, I wanted to point out that this CERTAINLY does have the feel of a Sunday morning sermon. CSPAN even showed Hillary slightly and almost imperceptably nodding her head… a near-silent “Amen” to Gore’s preaching.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
“A time will come, I promise you. When a future generation will look back on us and, either they will ask what in God’s name were you doing, didn’t they see the ice cap melting, blah, blah, earth quakes on Greenland, nature on the run, Manatees in where ever, Cape Cod, nature is on the run”
Run nature, run!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Immediate freeze on Co2 emmissions.
OK, everyone hold your breath again!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM
His entire argument, essentially, is “It’s hot.” The definition of a fallacious argument… “non-sequitur”, “post hoc ergo proctor hoc”… choose one.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Gore talking about wild fitre “We call that kindling”
I call it faggots.
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 3:17 PM
bopbottle…did you see the global fire maps?
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Jeeze, he has devolved into his morning speech. I think I have heard this before…
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Sure ain’t no kindling wood there.
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Kokonut - I looked at the fire map. Looks like southeast Asia is in flames… What do you make of the map?
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Here we go again with home electricity generation. Hey Al, want to throw me 20 grand? I’ll put an array on my roof.
No, didn’t think so.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM
You know, I do see now why Steve Jobs and Al get along so well… they share that famous “reality distortion field.”
“We need a nationwide power grid…”
“Yeah! We’ll call it iGrid! It’ll sell millions and put Apple back on top!”
OK, I’ve got to go catch the freaking train to my freaking bus stop (seriously). Thanks everyone, you’ve been great, I’ll be here all week.
saint kansas on March 21, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Thanks kokonut,
I think he should be talking to Southeast Asia and central Africa.
If I turn on my barbecue, will it show up on the fire map?
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Buy St - Joke with you on another thread.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Er… By
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Inhofe has started out great. He wants Gore to pledge to not use any more energy in his household than the average family.
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 3:29 PM
If mankind stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere this very second absolutely nothing would happen. If the earth is in a warming cycle, there’s nothing us pitiful little humans can do about it.
Why didn’t the world population die out in the 1930’s? There was a decade or so of much warmer temperatures than we’re experiencing now. Why didn’t the oceans rise by 20 feet? Why are there still glaciers?
darwin on March 21, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Heh. “I assume your answer is no.”
Matticus Finch on March 21, 2007 at 3:31 PM
OMG, he should be allowed to use more energy because he is living in an old home??? He also said, correctly, that there are laws about retrofitting old homes?
Well, guess what Al… I live in a 109 year old home… I am also faced with the restrictions on “old Homes”
In fact, if I wanted to place a photo voltaic array on my home, my township would most probably reject it.
So, Al, are you saying that only rich people should live in old homes so that they can pay the energy bills?
Inhofe is really getting the digs in. Nancy is going wild!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:34 PM
This is a magical 10 years. He filmed his movie well over a year ago. In the movie (sorry, mocu….I mean, documentary) he says that we only have 10 years left. Well, if that was filmed over a year ago and we only had 10 years left then and we STILL have 10 years left now…..that math don’t add up.
Unless, as I said, it’s a magical 10 years. Perhaps the decade that never ends? In which case, we will change it’s name from “magical 10 years” to “the sixties” because THAT is the decade that will never end.
JadeNYU on March 21, 2007 at 3:37 PM
“I’m sittin here tryin to think”
Don’t bother Al. Your thinkin is totally messed up.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Ah! The Gore sigh is back!!!
db on March 21, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Is he speaking more slowly now to eat into Inhofe’s time; trying to run out the clock?
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Wow! Inohof took Al to the mat!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Nancy “stops the clock”
Bwahahaha!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Oh no, The repubs ask for more time for Inhof, NO says Nancy!
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Are you willing to change the way you live Al?
Answer: We live a “carbon neutral life Senator”
Oh Jesus… Can I have your private jet Al? I would sell it to pay my heating bill.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Did he say he does not contribute to the problem he is trying to help solve? Give me a break!
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Post-its? Yeah, that’s relevant.
dalewalt on March 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Babs…deforestation, agriculture burning (ie getting the field ready for planting), and natural and man-made forest fires.
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Good grief, Babs. No offense, but will you please quit talking directly to Al Gore? He isn’t here.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 3:47 PM
He is speaking at a much faster rate answering the questions of a democrat than he did Inhofe.
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 3:49 PM
The Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, had *nothing* to do with global warming… so why is he using those two acts as examples of ‘bipartisan support’???
dalewalt on March 21, 2007 at 3:49 PM
A hundred years ago, this lying pig fraud would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.
A hundred and 50 years ago he might have gotten lynched.
Two hundred years ago, he would have been challenged to a duel, mano-a-mano.
But today, this lying fool gets invited to tell his lies before Congress and to propagandize the country via CSpan.
georgej on March 21, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Hey, sorry Dave… Here comes John Warner, deploy bibs now!
I do wish Al was here in my home right now. Failing that, can I still have his jet?
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Sen. Warners’ asking for daylight to be brought to this issue… silly boy, hasn’t anybody told you that the discussion is over?
dalewalt on March 21, 2007 at 3:53 PM
clean solution technology is a huge profit potential. No doubt. But it has nothing to do with global warming nor about saving the world’s climate. It makes sense at the local and regional level when it comes to our own backyard pollution.
First move…become energy independent with no foreign oil dependence. We got enough oil and gas here along with other energy alternatives.
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 3:53 PM
(talking about how to get China to also reduce emissions)
“When we leading, we greatly improve the odds that they will follow”
Uh, does anyone else notice the similarity between this argument and the whole nuclear disarmament argument?
dalewalt on March 21, 2007 at 3:59 PM
We got enough oil and gas here along with other energy alternatives.
Except that the exploitation of our own energy resources has been stopped at every point.
Does everyone realize that the Cubans and Chinese have gained the rights to drill for oil less than 50 miles off the coast of FL? We, the people of the U.S.A. are not permitted to drill for oil off the coast of
FL. not so much the U.S.A.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Sen. Sander “The hearst of our young people are beating a little faster today…”
That’s called nausea.
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 4:02 PM
I was just reading a science article that claims that fossil fuels have so little C13 and so much C12 that the burning of those fuels is causing a C13 deficiency in the isotope ratio of sea water which is leading to C13 deficiencies in marine life.
Seems to be a contradiction there.
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Sorry, should be “The hearts of our young people are beating a little faster today…”
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Babs,
Not quite. We have the Green River shale formation in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado with enough oil locked up in it near or at the surface than the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. A factor of 3 to 5 times as much. The GR formation is being exploited/applied as we speak to get the oil out of the shale rocks.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Babs,
This one here, too. On the leases of the GR formation access.
http://geology.com/news/2006/12/colorado-oil-shale-leases-green-river.html
Kokonut on March 21, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Sen. Bond’s going after him now.
dalewalt on March 21, 2007 at 4:08 PM
No, bopbottle, that’s a horrible problem threatening civilization:
Global Palpitation Acceleration.
Matticus Finch on March 21, 2007 at 4:09 PM
THIS IS MADNESS!!!!! THIS IS BLASPHEMEY!!!!!!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 4:12 PM
C02, about .054 of our atmoshpere. We contribute a tiny fraction of that (one volcano eruption would equal of our C02 output). So we will be generous and say 10% is man. That is now .0054, if we could cut our output by 1/2 C02 would now be .054 minus .0027 or about .051. Still not good enough for Gore and his minions.
If we would have let the famine that they predicted happen in the year 2000 (prediction in the mid 60’s along with the ice age) we could have cut our C02 with starvation. NOw we may have to walk. Bummer.
right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 4:12 PM
No, I misstated the info at the link. It says that there is a peak of the C13 concentrations during the summer as plants, etc., eat up the C12… but over time the peak has been trending downward as we inject C12.
I completely misstated it, pretty much backwards. My bad.
DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »