xeni — 2014-07-31T13:31:41-04:00 — #1
boundegar — 2014-07-31T14:12:32-04:00 — #2
Inhofe will leave the Senate in a pine box. A whole lot of Oklahomans work in oil and gas, and he's currently trouncing his most credible Democratic challenger 54-27.
wi_ngo — 2014-07-31T14:16:56-04:00 — #3
The best part is how he essentially does the Senatorial version of a mic drop at the end. Awesome.
jorpho — 2014-07-31T14:48:23-04:00 — #4
I suppose "a badass, totally own" is a slight improvement on the likes of "blast" or "destroy". But only slightly.
kimmo — 2014-07-31T15:09:12-04:00 — #5
He starts off slow, but once he gets a head a head of steam up,
mark_estes — 2014-07-31T15:58:47-04:00 — #6
help me out here. I am having trouble getting past the first few seconds. If I am hearing the good senator correctly, he is suggesting we should ignore the failure of the atmospheric temperature models to predict the current extended period of non change.
Is he saying that we should stop using those models or that we can still use what they said before the recent data gave us cause to doubt them to push through a climate change driven agenda and should simply ignore that they are broken?
cannibalchicken — 2014-07-31T16:06:59-04:00 — #7
Did we watch the same clip?
brainspore — 2014-07-31T16:07:14-04:00 — #8
That doesn't mean we have to wait for him to die. You get the chloroform, I'll go get a hammer and nails.
chenille — 2014-07-31T16:07:17-04:00 — #9
Since the current "extended" period of non-change is exactly the sort of thing that smooths out when you do reasonable analysis, I would think not ignoring it would show something is broken.
standard_earl — 2014-07-31T16:25:38-04:00 — #10
Sen. Whitehouse: "I yield the floor."
Sen. Inhofe: "There is no floor."
standard_earl — 2014-07-31T16:27:08-04:00 — #11
help me out here. I am having trouble getting past the first few seconds.
Help you out?
How about this...
Watch more than "the first few seconds" before you comment.
abel — 2014-07-31T16:27:09-04:00 — #12
I'm losing interest on this whole subject-
Is this other guy a quack?
I mean in general all Congress is paid off by someone.
c11 — 2014-07-31T16:32:53-04:00 — #13
Cute, except this devastating proof looks entirely made up. Why is the el-nino warming temp. peak in 1998 smaller than the 2007-2008 peak that... shouldn't even be there since isn't that time period the coldest part of this century so far? Graph the real temperature data and then be snarky about how smart you are. Anybody can post a gif they don't understand.
elusis — 2014-07-31T16:37:19-04:00 — #14
Wow, you seem a bit hot under the collar.
citizen — 2014-07-31T17:10:12-04:00 — #15
I think the important thing we can all take away from this video is that the US Senate has a candy drawer.
jim_kirk — 2014-07-31T17:16:53-04:00 — #16
From what I heard, he's saying that atmospheric temperature only accounts for 3 to 4% of the heat absorbed. So to base one's argument on the (questionable) fact that atmospheric temperature has been stable for several years is to ignore 97% of the problem. Not only that but if you interpret the chart that chenille kindly presented as a series of steps, there is no reason to believe that the most recent step will be the last one.
chenille — 2014-07-31T17:27:20-04:00 — #17
Because the surface temperature anomaly being plotted was higher at the beginning of 2007 than it was in 1998, as shows up in data sets like NOAA and GISS, as well as MSU for the lower troposphere.
Most sources talking about how cold 2007 was seem to be breathlessly quoting Motl on the MSU data, which do show it as colder but only for higher atmospheric layers. Needless to say that is not mean the graphed surface data is wrong. And it does not even mean the upper layers were particularly cold on a larger scale, because here century is really only a puffy term for the last decade.
Maybe instead of assuming I don't understand what my graph shows, you should question whether your sources are giving you an honest picture, because this isn't the first time they have misled you.
jons — 2014-07-31T17:55:31-04:00 — #18
Bookmark this video, and paste it whenever you encounter climate change deniers online.
Whitehouse clearly has this whole thing backwards. As one of the esteemed members of these fora noted several weeks ago: having the consensus (or rather their "agreement", which is totally not the same thing as consensus) of THE group of people who know what they're talking about clearly indicatess that they don't know what they're talking about.
Yeah ... yeah, my head still hurts trying to figure that one out too. If leaps of logic were an Olympic track and field event, Wynn would be a shoo-in for the gold.
Oh, and I see Mark and CII have the good old Gish Gallop up and running. Good show, team. Good show.
jim_kirk — 2014-07-31T18:15:38-04:00 — #19
Well, there's this...
"Revelle's daughter wrote:
Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelle—our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect—remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense—measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle
There's a difference between drastic action, throwing trillions of dollars uselessly at a problem and prudent, thoughtful action. On the other hand, the longer we do nothing, the more expensive any possible solution will be.
sic_transit — 2014-07-31T18:29:24-04:00 — #20
the Senator is saying that focusing on one specific part [roughly 3%] of the evidence which happens to kind of agree with your dismissal of a fact is really very silly when the overwhelming majority of the evidence , and indeed expert analysis and opinion, fully supports that fact.
It's a bit like how your comment is focused on one very small part of his speech and totally ignored the rest of it, and posits confusion based on that tiny part.
It's incredibly easy to convince yourself you are correct when you ignore 97% of the evidence. Tragically the real world continues existing, entirely irrelevant of your ignorance.
next page →