Inhofe: You know, it feels pretty good to be proven right

posted at 2:15 pm on December 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Last year, Senator Jim Inhofe traveled to the Copenhagen conference on global warming — the one buried in a record snowfall — to deliver a message to the gathered media: the US would not pass a cap-and-trade bill no matter what the Obama administration promised.  This year, the organizers had the sense to hold their conference in Cancun rather than in a snowbound European city, but Inhofe has decided to skip the trip this year.  Instead, he offered this missive to travelers from Americans for Prosperity going to Cancun to counterdemonstrate to encourage their efforts … and to gloat a little.  Well, okay, a lot:

We have come a long way since the last UN Climate meeting last year when President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Lisa Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and dozens of lawmakers made their way to Copenhagen to tell the world that cap-and-trade was going to pass the United States Senate.  Yet the truth was it had no chance of passing.  To deliver that message, I traveled to Copenhagen as a one-man truth squad.  I was only on the ground for about 2 hours, perhaps the most enjoyable 2 hours of my life, but the message I delivered was clear; under no circumstances will Global Warming Cap and Trade legislation ever pass the United States Senate. The reporters and diplomats didn’t like it.  They hated me for telling the truth.  But here we are: I was right and they were wrong.

The fact is, nothing is going to happen in Cancun this year and everyone knows it.   I couldn’t be happier and poor Al Gore couldn’t be more upset: it has been widely reported that he is “depressed” about Cancun.

But let me be clear: despite our success over the past year, global warming alarmists will continue to push their agenda.  For example, some leaders in Cancun are stepping up their attacks on capitalism and United Nations officials are saying they need to do more to “spread the wealth around.” All of this is more of the same.

Remember it was French President Jacques Chirac, who said in 2000 that Kyoto Protocol was the “first component of an authentic global governance.” And Margot Wallstrom, the European Union’s former Environment Commissioner, who said in 2001 that Kyoto is about “trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

The best thing I think Bush ever did was get us out of the farcical treaty called Koyoto.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I hope you are right Inhofe. If the r’s vote for this c&t bill, Infofe, you are WRONG!
L

letget on December 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Sorry, s/b Inhofe at 2:21,
L

letget on December 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

hahaha! “Let me be clear”

He enjoys twisting the knife doesn’t he?

Mord on December 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

These people who keep pushing global governance are nuts. They can’t even run the dinky little country they’re in charge of and they want to run mine, too? More like global insanity and Algore can go find another massage therapist to keep himself happy.

Kissmygrits on December 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Inhofe is right about the administration’s EPA back door. It needs to be slammed shut, pronto.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

I’m with ya all the way on this Jim, now you better your arms the earmark debacle and soon.

Tim Zank on December 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Algore is preparing a special hot spot for Sen. Imhofe. What a carbon footprint THAT will require, eh?

either orr on December 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

good job SEN Inhofe. the tide is turning (pun not intended).

ted c on December 3, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Remember it was French President Jacques Chirac, who said in 2000 that Kyoto Protocol was the “first component of an authentic global governance.”

Like obamacare was never about health care, cap and trade was never about global warming.

tinkerthinker on December 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Canada won a “Fossil” award at Cancun. Yeaaaaa!

BL@KBIRD on December 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Inhofe is right about the administration’s EPA back door. It needs to be slammed shut, pronto.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

It’s not just the EPA either; it’s the Dep’t of the Interior, the, OSHA, DOE, etc., etc.,…

It’s the full force of the federal government at war with sensible energy production and our economy.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

By the way Senator, your state has declared opposition to including Sharia law in your court system as “Anti-Islamic”. Allahu Ackbar!

BL@KBIRD on December 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM

the,

PREVIEW, ya stoopid hillbilly.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM

In a blow to the Real Climate “hockey team” one team member’s paper, Steig et al Nature, Jan 22, 2009 (seen at left) has been shown lacking. Once appropriate statistical procedures were applied, the real data spoke clearly, and it was done in a peer reviewed paper by skeptics. Jeff Condon of the Air Vent writes via email that he and co-authors, Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, and Steve McIntyre have succeeded in getting a paper accepted into the prestigious Journal of Climate and asked me to re-post the notice here.

The review process was difficult, with one reviewer getting difficult on submitted comments [and subsequent rebuttal comments from authors ] that became longer than the submitted paper, 88 pages, 10 times the length of the paper they submitted! I commend them for their patience in wading through such formidable bloviation. Anyone want to bet that reviewer was a “team” member?

As WUWT covered in the past, these authors have demonstrated clearly that the warming is mostly in the Antarctic Peninsula. Steig et al’s Mannian PCA math methods had smeared that warming over most of the entire continent, creating a false impression.

WUWT visitors may want to read this primer which explains how this happens. But most importantly, have a look at the side by side comparison maps below. Congratulations to Jeff, Ryan, Nick, and Steve! – Anthony

Jeff writes:

After ten months of reviews and rewrites we have successfully published an improved version of Steig et al. 2009. While we cannot publish the paper here, we can discuss the detail. Personally I’ve never seen so much work put into a single paper as Ryan did and it’s wonderful to see it come to a successful conclusion. This is the initial post on the subject, in the coming weeks there will be more to follow.

(emphasis added)

HT: AOSHQ

This is from the blog “Watt’s Up with That.” The global warming skeptics may be beginning to be able to break through into the peer review literature, and challenge the “methodology.”

Wethal on December 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Inhofe is right about the administration’s EPA back door. It needs to be slammed shut, pronto.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM
It’s not just the EPA either; it’s the Dep’t of the Interior, the, OSHA, DOE, etc., etc.,…

It’s the full force of the federal government at war with sensible energy production and our economy.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

YES!
Think of the sheer dollars spent by the govt to employ these worthless people.
A year ago there was a guy from some fed agency driving around the country here in SW ND on a 4-wheeler harassing locals for information & making veiled threats when the locals were hesitant about providing such information to all of his intrusive questions.
Then think of all the $$ that is spent by citizens in complying with their garbage rules.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Sen. Inhofe…

“In closing, I would like to say to Al Gore…

… Suck On It!”

Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2010 at 2:40 PM

I couldn’t be happier and poor Al Gore couldn’t be more upset: it has been widely reported that he is “depressed” about Cancun.

Lol! My favorite part of his quote.
.
.
.
Satisfaction.

OmahaConservative on December 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Well the sham behind the United Church of Global Warming (UCoGW) is the fact that it opposes any attempts to reach zero emissions unless the methods used also redistribute wealth to third world nations.

For instance, UCoGW is all FOR banning coal plants and oil drilling – because such measures impose a “handicap” on industrial nations which negatively impacts their economies and brings them down to the level of the third world by reducing the total energy available to these nations. UCoGW is FOR windmills and solar energy – because these are horrifically in-efficient energy sources and, while the industrialized nations are “playing with” these energy sources to get them to work – they will have less energy to fuel their industrial engines and therefore they will lose wealth to developing nations.

UCoGW DOES NOT SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER – which has ZERO Carbon emissions and is one of the most efficient means of energy production known to man – if not THE most efficient. However, the drawback to nuclear power is that, while it does answer the problem of emissions – it does not address the problem of wealth distribution since nuclear power imposes no energy shortfalls on the industrialized world.

HondaV65 on December 3, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Wethal on December 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Manipulation of the peer rvw process has been going on a long time.
Anyone attending a university who spent any time in a science department was aware of it.
I remember some of the rumblings of my geology profs at UWYO about this very thing.
With the internet, many researchers have been able to share & publish their stuff.
I love the Internet.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Chickens throughout world celebrate.

John the Libertarian on December 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

David Letterman’s mom agrees.

LASue on December 3, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Like obamacare was never about health care, cap and trade was never about global warming.

tinkerthinker on December 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Booyaka

visions on December 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

PREVIEW, ya stoopid hillbilly.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Hey! Don’t talk about a fellow hillbilly like that!

ladyingray on December 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I couldn’t be happier and poor Al Gore couldn’t be more upset: it has been widely reported that he is “depressed” about Cancun.
Lol! My favorite part of his quote.

OmahaConservative on December 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Hell, he’s been depressed since 2000, when he failed to wim his so-called ‘home’ state of Tennessee!!! Since he failed here, he was forced to go to FL and try to steal votes!

ladyingray on December 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2010 at 2:40 PM

HondaV65 on December 3, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Wethal on December 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Just got through showing my 10th grade students Al Gore’s movie Inconvenient Truth.
I didn’t say anything to them about the guy.
You should have seen the looks on their faces when they were watching this tripe.
Many times they asked me throughout the movie “What has this got to do with global warming?”.
They were actually exasperated by the corny propaganda.
Next week they will watch the movie counter to Gore’s called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It’s a very instructive movie.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM

According to the report in “The Telegraph” (UK)

“• In the pre-Hispanic language Cancun means ‘nest of serpents’. ”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8167386/Cancun-Climate-Change-Conference-the-Diary.html

How apropos.

oldleprechaun on December 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM

under no circumstances will Global Warming Cap and Trade legislation ever pass the United States Senate.

It didn’t have to. A close equivalent was imposed on us as an EPA “Rule” requiring Best Available Control Technology for facilities emitting more than 250,000 tons/year of CO2. Which effectively puts the kibosh on all fossil-fuel power plants, because no Control Technology is currently “Available” (demonstrated at the huge scale required), and since nobody has built such technology and calculated its cost, nobody knows which is “Best”.

Bottom line: EPA tells coal and gas plant builders that they can’t get a permit for a new plant because they can’t build what doesn’t exist. When existing plants come up for permit renewal, they shut down, leaving only nuclear, wind, and hydro power (about 30% of the total), leading to massive blackouts.

Inhofe was right about Cap and Trade not passing the Senate, but what is he going to do about Executive Rules that bypass Congress?

Steve Z on December 3, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Hell, he’s been depressed since 2000, when he failed to wim his so-called ‘home’ state of Tennessee!!!

So he started a new “wim” of getting rich selling carbon credits to “save” the world from a fictitious massive flood 4,000 years from now. It would probably be cheaper to build a sea-wall along all the inhabited coasts of the world, or maybe an Ark.

Steve Z on December 3, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Obama’s should take credit for reducing American carbon emissions through his effort to maintain high unemployment levels.

hawksruleva on December 3, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Inhofe is right. This was about control and power.

For example, some leaders in Cancun are stepping up their attacks on capitalism and United Nations officials are saying they need to do more to “spread the wealth around.” All of this is more of the same.

Remember it was French President Jacques Chirac, who said in 2000 that Kyoto Protocol was the “first component of an authentic global governance.” And Margot Wallstrom, the European Union’s former Environment Commissioner, who said in 2001 that Kyoto is about “trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.”

INC on December 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM

One thing I’m tired of is the Hollywood continuing propaganda on this (and other issues). The other week on USA’s Psych, a totally-unnecessary-to-the-plot-line was, “Global Warming is real.”

INC on December 3, 2010 at 3:06 PM

INC on December 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I read through the whole Kyoto treaty a decade ago for a research paper I did in college.
I could remember being shocked & alarmed at how much of our sovereignty as a nation it would have violated.
And the IPCC report was a total joke.
I’m not a conspiracist, but I swear it seems that there is some kind of global hand out there trying to do anything it can to make the whole world a socialist nightmarish utopia.
As I recall, Lenin had that in mind in Communism.
Communism was a struggle to rule the entire world.
That was why being a part of the CPUSA bordered on treasonous.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I could care less about anything Inhofe has to say at this point. I stopped listening at his defense of pork. If he can’t figure out why ear-marking is a corrupt influence in Washington, than he’s not smart enough to pay attention to.

Murf76 on December 3, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Just got through showing my 10th grade students Al Gore’s movie Inconvenient Truth.
I didn’t say anything to them about the guy.
You should have seen the looks on their faces when they were watching this tripe.
Many times they asked me throughout the movie “What has this got to do with global warming?”.
They were actually exasperated by the corny propaganda.
Next week they will watch the movie counter to Gore’s called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It’s a very instructive movie.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM

If 10th graders can figure it out, why can’t the IPCC?

The Inconvenient Truth from the mouths of babes.

You might want to tell your sophomores that Gore’s map of Florida half-drowning is based on a 20-ft (6-meter) rise in sea level. Since sea levels are currently rising at about 1.5 MILLIMETERS per year (and the rate is slowing down), it would take at least 4,000 years for Gore’s scenario to occur.

Except that there was a massive natural COOLING trend during the 14th century (this is historical record), when the Vikings abandoned farming on what they named Greenland when the colonists froze and starved to death. If the climate got much colder only 600-700 years ago, how can Gore be sure that won’t happen again within the next 4,000 years?

Steve Z on December 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I understand–the totalitarian Left (but I repeat myself) has within its DNA this continual movement to grab and consolidate power.

INC on December 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM

He should have included”We Won”.

DDT on December 3, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I was accosted about Kyoto by the owner of the B&B over breakfast in Switzerland last summer.

He said the US was “irresponsible.”

By irresponsible I could only assume he meant because we didn’t just want to hand everything over.

Viva la Swiss, eh?

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Steve Z on December 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I try & guide them as best as I can without trying to insert bias & guide them to the best source material possible so that they can form their own opinions.
But I don’t treat the project they have to do as a debate where they’re trying to convince people to believe what they say.
I ask that they explore both sides of the issues they chose to learn about & then research evidence for & against.
I spend a lot of time teaching them how to access primary source material.
If I didn’t, they’d all be visiting web sites like SierraClub.com & parroting propaganda trash.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

WOW.
Another reason I am never leaving the US.
Plenty of cool stuff to do here thank goodness.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM

poor Al Gore couldn’t be more upset: it has been widely reported that he is “depressed” about Cancun.

Well that right there releases my chakra.

Lily on December 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Except that there was a massive natural COOLING trend during the 14th century (this is historical record), when the Vikings abandoned farming on what they named Greenland when the colonists froze and starved to death. If the climate got much colder only 600-700 years ago, how can Gore be sure that won’t happen again within the next 4,000 years?

Steve Z on December 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM

BTW-I’m reading this book, & though the author is an AGW shill, the evidence he shows explains the opposite.
So far I find it to be a good book.
Without the warm period during Viking times, pre-900AD or so, the Vikings would never have been able to sail to Greenland or N. America.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM

We return next summer, and I can’t wait. I have a list of all the things I want to see but never have. Niagara, Glacier Nat’l Park, Yellowstone are on the short list.

Being stationed overseas for so long in Europe (over five years now) has reminded me how much I love and miss America.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM

God bless ya man and keep up the GREAT work of truly educating our future. BooooooYaaaaaaa!

sicoit on December 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM

I have never been overseas, only to Canada & Mexico.
My cowboy/rancher hubby wants to visit Ireland & Scotland & that is the only trip I would ever take.
Otherwise, the good ol’ USA is full of great stuff to see & do.
You can never do it all in a lifetime.
Are you camping when you go to those places?

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM
God bless ya man Mam *blushes profusely* and keep up the GREAT work of truly educating our future. BooooooYaaaaaaa!

sicoit on December 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

sicoit on December 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Are you camping when you go to those places?

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:34 PM

For Yellowstone and Glacier, yes, but hotel for Niagara.

I hear you about never seeing it all – my brother and I are making plans to try and see our top ten college football rivalry games, along with some minor league baseball stadiums – he wants to see the Durham Bulls and Toledo Mudhens. Hope we live long enough to do it all.

In the meantime, only seven more months before I get to hear the National Anthem live at the start of a game.

It’s the little things.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM

God bless ya woman and keep up the GREAT work of truly educating our future. BooooooYaaaaaaa!

sicoit on December 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Thanks. I do try to let them make up their own minds.
I think credible info is my greatest pet peeve.
I really strive all the time to educate students how to evaluate the credibility & accuracy of information.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:43 PM

It’s the little things.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM

I can only imagine.
When I was an Army spouse, there was one thing I really loved about living on base, before watching a movie at the base theatre, we all stood to the playing of the National Anthem.
I always had tear pricking the corners of my eyes.
It was a wonderful feeling I still get at games.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM

It’s the little things.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM

One thing I loved about living on the Army bases when I was married to the ex-every time before watching a movie at the base theatre we would stand to the National Anthem.
I always got tears pr!ck!ng at the corners of my eyes.
I still do at games.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I’ll be happy when lord god Al is arrested and his fortune falls under ill gotten gains.

Speakup on December 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM

They do that at the theater here, too.

Last time I was in the states, in 2008, my brother and I went to a ball game and just seeing the flags waving in the breeze got me.

There’s nothing like that over here.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Meaning you don’t see flags flying on porches here, like you do in the states.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn’t it part of our responsibility to bring that about?”

-Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit).

iurockhead on December 3, 2010 at 4:02 PM

The best thing I think Bush ever did was get us out of the farcical treaty called Koyoto.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM

2 x SUPERB Supreme Court Justices (Roberts and Alito) gets my vote, but concur on Kyoto…

Khun Joe on December 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

I remember some of the rumblings of my geology profs at UWYO about this very thing.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Regarding the last geological conference I attended: after the second day of papers (a number of them already peer reviewed), I was wondering if we were talking about the same planet.

Yoop on December 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Unfortunately, Global Warming Alarmism will linger on. Scientific truth that challenges the status quo usually requires a generation of scientists to pass from this orb before being accepted. No-one likes to admit they were wrong.

theCork on December 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM

I was wondering if we were talking about the same planet.

Yoop on December 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I imagine it’s about funding.

No-one likes to admit they were wrong.

theCork on December 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM

I tend to see lots of fights btw linguists, anthropologists, & archaelogists.
These guys seem to be especially vitriolic ito each other in their attacks.

Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Alberta’s energy minister was complain that Ottawa was not highlighting the Alberta Oil Sands. They can’t the Canadian Federal Government is too busy apologizing in Cancun for the Oil Sands to advertise them as the bridge to the future.

tjexcite on December 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM

But let me be clear

This is one of those phrases that needs to be killed and buried. Every time I hear it, I can hear Obama saying it.

Unfortunately, everyone seems to be using it.

Common Sense on December 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM

We return next summer, and I can’t wait. I have a list of all the things I want to see but never have. Niagara, Glacier Nat’l Park, Yellowstone are on the short list.

Being stationed overseas for so long in Europe (over five years now) has reminded me how much I love and miss America.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM

I saw Niagara this summer for the first time. Spectacular!

Where are you stationed? I spent three years at Spangdahlem, Bitburg back in the seventies with my family. I was a teenager, but still loved the opportunity.

Nothing beats the good ole USofA though:)

Jvette on December 3, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Ed – the headline states that Inhofe has been “proven right” – right about what, exactly? Meanwhile, the past ten years will likely prove to be the warmest on record, with 2010 possibly in the top 3 warmest years ever recorded in modern times. Do you all still believe that Earth is not warming? We could argue about whether humans are behind the warming, or the appropriate response – but to deny warming amounts to willful disregard of the evidence. Or I guess you could argue that NASA, NOAA, the US Department of Defense and many others are all part of a huge conspiracy. The GOP – antiscience and proud of it – disgraceful.

westernflyer on December 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

DEFUND THE EPA!

Kjeil on December 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Driving home today, listening to classic rock,
Tommy James and the Shondells’ “Draggin’ the Line” comes on. My 11 yo daughter starts singing along “Hide the Decline”.
Thank you Hot Air and the internet. Sniff, sniff. I’m a proud momma.

humdinger on December 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

westernflyer on December 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

If AGW is real, why all the secrecy, fraud, and extortion?

Slowburn on December 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

If AGW is real, why all the secrecy, fraud, and extortion?

By “secrecy and fraud” I presume you are referring to “ClimateGate”. Did you know that several investigations of the East Anglia and US scientists did not find any evidence of wrong doing or fraud? Taking the “trick” statement out of context to mean “deception” was wildly overblown.

What do you mean by “extortion”?

westernflyer on December 4, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Meanwhile, the past ten years will likely prove to be the warmest on record, with 2010 possibly in the top 3 warmest years ever recorded in modern times.

What bullshit.
And here’s the topper: there are no years recorded before “modern times” because there were no instruments to record temperature, nor did people keep charts of it.
Most weather date compilation started around the turn of the 20th Century.
Before that, we’re talking tree rings and anecdotes.

Do you all still believe that Earth is not warming?

Yep, I don’t think the Earth is warming.

Did you know that several investigations of the East Anglia and US scientists did not find any evidence of wrong doing or fraud?

More lies.
That’s because it didn’t happen!

Or I guess you could argue that NASA, NOAA, the US Department of Defense and many others are all part of a huge conspiracy.

Basically they are.
You don’t get the grant and the ad money unless you push AGW and “Green technology.”

The GOP – antiscience and proud of it – disgraceful.

westernflyer on December 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Not nearly as disgraceful as you are who are a Leftist shill using questionable, unproven “science” at best!

Jenfidel on December 4, 2010 at 5:14 AM

there are no years recorded before “modern times” because there were no instruments to record temperature, nor did people keep charts of it.
Most weather date compilation started around the turn of the 20th Century.
Before that, we’re talking tree rings and anecdotes.

Yes, we are talking “the scientific method” – hardly infallible, but the best way we have of knowing how the physical world works.

Did you know that several investigations of the East Anglia and US scientists did not find any evidence of wrong doing or fraud?

More lies.
That’s because it didn’t happen!

What? You are joking, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#House_of_Commons_Science_and_Technology_Committee

Or are all the investigations described there part of the same insidious conspiracy?

Or I guess you could argue that NASA, NOAA, the US Department of Defense and many others are all part of a huge conspiracy.

Basically they are.

OK, now I know the answer to my previous question.

So in your view, if someone presents you with scientific evidence that runs counter to your political views, the science must be bullshit, and the scientists and journalists who report on them are all part of a gigantic nut-ball conspiracy theory. Is this the predominant view in today’s GOP?

westernflyer on December 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

westernflyer on December 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Are you LudwigVanQuixote from Little Green Footballs?

jane1 on December 4, 2010 at 1:09 PM

What do you mean by “extortion”?

westernflyer on December 4, 2010 at 12:36 AM

The methods used to counter articles out of the pier reviewed publications.

Slowburn on December 5, 2010 at 1:00 AM

So in your view, if someone presents you with scientific evidence that runs counter to your political views,

No one’s presented any evidence of anything and what they’re saying runs counter to what I know about Science.

the science must be bullshit,

The “science” such as it is, is bullshit.
Faked hockey stick graphs and secret emails to “hide the decline?”
Please!

and the scientists and journalists who report on them are all part of a gigantic nut-ball conspiracy theory.

It’s a gigantic Leftist nut-ball conspiracy theory that makes the propagators big bucks and is designed to dismantle the entirety of Western civilization.

Is this the predominant view in today’s GOP?

westernflyer on December 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Who knows?
But it’s the predominant view of anyone with sense and a brain.
Given that today’s GOP largely accounts for that group of fine individuals, I’d say “Yes.”

Jenfidel on December 5, 2010 at 1:11 AM

UCoGW DOES NOT SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER – which has ZERO Carbon emissions and is one of the most efficient means of energy production known to man – if not THE most efficient. However, the drawback to nuclear power is that, while it does answer the problem of emissions – it does not address the problem of wealth distribution since nuclear power imposes no energy shortfalls on the industrialized world.

HondaV65 on December 3, 2010 at 2:42 PM

While I agree with your larger point that this whole mess is nothing more than marxist redistribution on a global scale, the concrete that goes into nuclear power plants and the refining process for the nuclear ores themselves are decidedly not without emissions.

fronclynne on December 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM