Republican Rep. Bob Inglis Blasts GOP For Denying Global Warming

Apparently so, but they are well hidden and only allowed to speak truth when they are on the way out. I would even go so far to say there are more who are keeping silent about this because of pressure being brought to bear on them ( and Democrats as well depending on the districts and states they represent.) That is why making this solely a political issue is so dangerous.

Sadly for JfG, just looking at today's lower troposphere temperatures, you'll find that the
global average temperature at 600 mb is 0.2F cooler than this time last year (AQUA ch05) and is hovering around the average temperature for this time of year.
ch06 shows .76F cooler than last year.
Sea Surface started the year higher than last year's temperatures, but have now fallen to .39F cooler, and near surface temperatures are .21F cooler, and have been constantly cooler than last year's temperatures.

So clearly the planet is not on an increasing spiral into spontaneous combustion. Of course the troposphere has been warming, we all know that and no-one disputes it, and the reasons are well known. But it isn't warming now and hasn't been warming for a while.

But you know when things start looking really bad is when articles such as the one in the link contain words like this, "Looking at observed changes in tropospheric temperature and climate model expectations over time..." We all know climate models have all failed miserably, so why rely on them now?

Meaningless, since the warming does not go in a straight and constant line, but in a zig-zaggy line whose overall trend is upward (warmer), so of course there will be dips - a dip one given year does not negate the trend.

"...a dip one given year does not negate the trend."

Correct. And the reason why some 'scientists' are upset now is because there has been no significant warming for around fifteen years, and temperatures are now falling. This goes against the CO2 = toasty earth theory.
I'm not saying there was no warming, of course there was.

"Here is a question.......why is there no snow here in Chicago? It's almost Thanksgiving!"

Data from NOAA.

"Frequency distribution of snowfall for Chicago. This dataset shows that the most frequent amount of snowfall recorded on Thanksgiving is 0.0”, which accounts for 71% of the days in the dataset. The next most frequent range is a Trace, followed by 0.1” to 0.9”. The highest amount of snowfall recorded on Thanksgiving occurred on November 27th, 1980 when 3.0” of snow fell. Last year, no snow fell."

Significant snow around Thanksgiving is not all that common in Chicago. Using the
"White Christmas" standard of 1 inch of snow on the ground on the holiday, the city has logged only 11 "White Thanksgivings" dating back to 1884.

So you are arguing that it is not comon to have snow in Chicago before thanksgiving?!!1?.

Read what I wrote, you work it out.

Yes, but these changes took thousands of years, even tens of thousands of years, whereas today they are taking just a few decades.

Absolutely incorrect, as any geologist would tell you.
For example the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene warming took several decades but occurred in steps of sudden warming periods often less than five years. Compared to historical climactic changes our current temperature has been extremely stable for well over a century (variation of less than 1 degree Celsius). The data is available in GRIP and GISP2. You're looking at warming in that period of around 6 - 7C in a few years, and an overall warming of somewhere in the region of 10C.

How does it feel to work for the evil empire?

Nice propaganda! The Koch brothers are proud of you!

Keep worshiping big oil.

you obviously have no education in science.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/at-113-degrees-downtown-la-hits-al...

You must live under a rock.

I would like to see where the thermometers were standing. If they're like most other ground-based thermometers they'll be inadequately sited and therefore giving inaccurate readings.
However, I'll swap your "weather is not climate" story with this one.

"Two north-west Queensland towns have recorded their coolest temperatures on record.
Croydon and Julia Creek both reached 25 degrees Celsius yesterday, 13 degrees below the November average, and breaking a 49-year-old record.
Cloncurry also recorded its lowest minimum temperature on record last night when it reached around 12 degrees Celsius.
Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Michelle Berry says the cooler weather is set to continue. "

Burn any books lately?

Yes, couldn't agree more on that. How telling .

So just keep burning fossil fuels and polluting away. Keep on clear cutting and mountain topping. Hopefully it isnt your house in the way when the next ash pond full of heavy metals gives way. Nobody does anything in this world without a profit. A Carbon tax will make clean energy a profit driven enterprise. I think you would be amazed at how quickly new technologies are developed if there was a profit motivation.

As a resident of a mountain state I am completely against mountaintop removal.

You incorrectly assume that because I don't believe into the global warming sham that I don't care about the environment. You would be 100% wrong.

I am also for investing in new technologies. I hate that we are held hostage by oil and coal. However, that is our current system and enacting economy killing regulations based on manipulated science just isn't good policy.

Did you fail to mention that this petition of 31,000 was from 1998? Or that many of the signatories were doctors and scientists with no relative experience or research?

People aren't laughing "with" you... ;)

So you only care about environmental issues when you can understand them?

Every single advance for enviromental or worker protection has been cast in the light of an economy killing excess.

I was more posting it for the picture.

Calling oneself a scientist or climatologist at this point really lends no credibility to your argument anyways. Especially after climategate where scientists were caught blatantly manipulating data.

I care about environmental issues that are based in fact rather than rooted in theory supported by manipulated and skewed data that supports a money making scheme.

climategate. Perfect denier prop. a couple emails from ten years ago that involved minor data. Please refer to my link on deniers again as it explains this particular gambit to attempt to discredit an entire group of people by the actions of a few.

Wow, you really are scared of moral responsibility aren't you? And another one who sees Al Gore everywhere they go. I think some of you need therapy to help you with your obsession. I haven't seen Rep Inglis's name mentioned once in this nor the fact that he represents a very important factor in all of this: that this is not a partisan political issue, but Republicans on the whole have made it one so THEY could be the ones to scare people then be hypocrites about it by saying Democrats are scaring people with the big bad word, TAX. It's the oldest tactic in the book. Now, I'm not too thrilled AT ALL with the total lack of moral responsibility and leadership by Democrats and this current administration on this, but Republicans on the whole far surpass them in outright irresponsibility and ignorance regarding this.

Firstly, any sort of revenue neutral ACCOUNTABILITY FOR POLLUTERS would not hurt consumers. It would actually benefit the economy and go towards those renewable energy sources you claimed you were for that in turn would lower cost with increasing demand. You know, the ones you want but don't want to have to DO anything about to have. It would also hopefully spur RESPONSIBILITY among industries to decrease their levels of CO2 and other GHGs in order to give a future to our children and grandchildren and actually bring business to them because on the whole, consumers WANT ethical business and WANT action on this. It would not break the economy but rather spur jobs in those renewable industry sectors and more than likely as in British Columbia, Sweden, etc finally bring energy sources like solar into parity with dirty disease making fossil fuels that are dragging our quality of life and our planet's health down. Of course, we can't have that can we? We can't actually want to spend money for clean energy that brings health, security and works to balance our climate rather than fossil fuels, disease and war. How ridiculous your scaremongering looks in comparison to the benefits.

I don't know if it is more a factor of religion, ideology, or just plain stupidity when it comes to understanding basic science on this. For me, it seems to just be that Republicans just don't like Al Gore ( which actually means he is doing something right) and they think to admit this is real means they would have to agree with him... more stupidity. I do know however, that there is a great moral disservice being done to this planet and it's inhabitants of all species by you and all of those who claim to "care" but clearly don't. And you can take your so called list of 31,000 WEATHERMEN and shove it. That is old news, has no relevance, and cannot compete with the scientifically backed peer reviewed facts backing up that this is indeed happening and being excelerated and exacerbated by the human footprint on this planet.

NOTHING you can spew from these tired worn out talking points will change the REALITY. To those who say science can be wrong either way, of course that is always a variable. However, when you see the effects manifesting themselves in ways that make it clear that the science behind this is more right than wrong, coming down on the side of caution is common sense. And as so many have mentioned, transitioning to renewable energy is no longer something we can sit and twiddle our thumbs about as if we have a choice. Peak Oil is upon us, and it will only be those who wish to ignore this and use this for their own greed who will be responsible for the consequences of their lack of action. And after hearing Rep Inglis speak on this, it is heartening to know that there are those of all politics who understand and see the big picture instead of being bogged down in their petty biased political hatred and grudges that have done absolutely nothing good to further progress in this country.

Sigh, talk about spewing worn out talking points.

Like I said, thankfully your harmful and misleading ideas have been widely discredited. You are in the extreme minority and none or your policies have a chance of passing.

You talk about propaganda and then post that supposed link who calls out "deniers." That's funny.

What minority is that? Those with a moral conscience? And what harmful ideas? Clean energy? End to war? Health? You find them harmful? What kind of monster are you? Is that the best you can do? Sad.

Eat locally-grown food and wear warm clothes in winter. This will solve much of the problem.

Among the 31,000 signatories of that petition there was not a single climatologist, a handful of scientists who had nothing to do with climate, and thousands of students and assorted people who were in no way qualified.

The IPCC saw it fit to publish work from mountaineers and students, and used data from many people who were unsuitable or unqualified to contribute to a document that had/has the potential to change global policy in many ways!!!

I wouldnt expect you to comrehend anything that describes your thoughts and methods to a T. Utilize the methods of a denier to deny that you are a denier. Now thats funny.

I think most sensible people stopped listening to alarmists' predictions years ago.
Over 110 years of the most laughable predictions have passed by without incident, why should we listen to the next batch of laughable predictions?

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds." Written in 1922, long before man's CO2 emissions could possibly have had any effect.

ironic that you accuse somebody else of being fradulent.

He is probably still fixated on that one email from ten years ago.

Please refer to my link on "deniers" it explains 100% of your arguments.

yeah because it's science that oppresses the people. (facepalm)

trololol

Spam.

Are you going to SPAM this vapid cartoon in every thread? And once again, Al Gore is not in the article, and the person who is, is not named Al Gore. I guess the fact that he is a Republican has some all discombobulated because it ruins their political BS line.

Given the amounts of CO2 that we're pumping out vs how much can be or is processed by the environment, it is technically a pollutant. In a similar fashion, anything can be toxic to the human body if you have too much of it, even things we need to survive. Water toxicity is a wonderful example of too much of a necessary thing is very bad.

"CO2... is technically a pollutant"

No it isn't. Even if you doubled the concentration in our atmosphere it still would not be pollution. What you really want to avoid is getting CO2 concentrations down below 200ppm, that would really cause problems.

CO2 at 3%, (combined with O2 at 35%) is highly beneficial in the treatment of acute mountain sickness, therefore showing that CO2, even at relatively high concentrations, is neither poisonous nor dangerous.

How would you like to experience CO2 at 1000ppm? Easy, you've already done it, just sit indoors sometime, preferably with a room full of people, and you may even get that concentration up to around 10,000ppm which is considered the safe limit for 8 hours exposure. In some industrial environments you may experience 30,000ppm, which is considered safe for 15 minutes exposure.

So, whereas you're correct in stating that anything can be toxic to the human body if we have too much of it, we're a long way from being swamped by dangerous levels of CO2.

That's because acute mountain sickness is partially caused by hyperventilation. As far as the whole CO2 is toxic, you are assuming that I meant to the human body, but I will give you that because I did not do a good job at separating the idea that too much CO2 in the environment acts as a pollutant and the metaphor I used with the human body and how necessary things for survival can be toxic in too large a dose.

By the way, if you are going to use a quote of mine, don't edit it or shorten it in a manner that cuts out a part which can change the entire context of what I was writing. As I wrote, "Given the amounts of CO2 that we're pumping out vs how much can be or is processed by the environment, it is technically a pollutant." I did not claim that CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be eradicated at all costs. However, we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate faster than it can be effectively absorbed. It has not adversely effected humans in an immense way yet, but it is effecting more delicate organisms and ecosystems.

And as far as having serious issues for people, as well as other creatures, if CO2 falls below 220ppm, is there really any serious danger of that happening?

AMS is caused by a lack of oxygen. Hyperventilation removes CO2 from the blood and depresses ventilation.

"I did not claim that CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be eradicated at all costs."
I didn't suggest you did!

"However, we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate faster than it can be effectively absorbed."
And so is nature. If you want to spend your time more usefully, campaign against real pollution, not CO2 which at current levels is extremely healthy for the planet.

"It has not adversely effected humans in an immense way yet, but it is effecting more delicate organisms and ecosystems."

CO2 hasn't affected humans in any way, and until we have a concentration of something like 50,000ppm it's not looking likely we will have any adverse reaction to CO2 at all.
As for delicate organisms, of course some forms of life will be affected by all manner of changes that occur on this planet, but what do you expect, a never-changing planet were there is absolute balance? The world and it's inhabitants are wildly different now to what it was a few thousand years ago, and the whole thing will be different in another few thousand years. Is that a bad thing?

"Given the amounts of CO2 that we're pumping out vs how much can be or is processed by the environment, it is technically a pollutant."
The quote I shortened. You asserted that CO2 was a pollutant, I merely shortened your quote to reflect what you wrote. It was a valid cut and did not change the meaning.

"...if CO2 falls below 220ppm, is there really any serious danger of that happening?"
Probably not, I'm happy to say :) And if you're going to quote me, please quote exactly what I write. The figure I wrote was 200ppm, not 220ppm, not that it makes much difference!

There's some truth in what you said.

Honestly, I think that many people just don't believe in global warming simply because they realize that politicians are liars and also that climate scientists allowed the scientific process behind the "science" of global warming to become politicized in order to recieve grant money from big businesses.

I do agree that science can be and is hijacked by big business and profit but it's mostly on the sides of big oil who want us to continue to do nothing about our problem. What is it like 95-97% of the worlds scientist who believe that global warming is real and is man made. That would have to be a huge conspiracy and A LOT of money. Who exactly would be funding this? What would be their motive? Add on to the fact that about 99% of the world's scientist identify as atheist or agnostic. what do you think that means?

It doesn't take very many scientists to manufacture consensus, and it only takes one or two scientists to lose their jobs to make the others fall in line.

This isn't complicated stuff, plus we found out last year that oil companies like BP and Shell were actually funding climate scientists.

Of course they were to find ways to refute it! Big oil is not stupid. If u believe Shell and BP really wanna do something about global warming, I guess you believe that Phillip Morris and Joe Camel our trying to help you quit smoking.

You may be right . Taught blind faith is a virtue from childhood , I suspect depresses critical thinking skills , making them dependent on others to form opinions . It makes sense to me . Possible . Historically , it plays out as well .

Just keep in mind, global warming is only a theory, like evolution, gravity, or the shape of the planet...

Just kidding. Though I do subscribe to the idea of man made climate change, I do yield that it is possible that it is not at all what we think it is. However, I like to think of it this way. If the worst case scenario is that there really is no such thing as manmade climate change, then the worst we are doing is making sure our environment stays clean and healthy. If, on the other hand, manmade climate change is not only real, but much more serious than we take into account, by ignoring it as a possibility we are both literally and figuratively fucking ourselves six ways from Sunday. Basically, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. If you prepare for the worst but the best happens, then preparing for the worst was still not a wasted effort; however, if you prepare for the best and the worst happens, your preparation will be entirely a wasted effort.

yeah, the ones that said global warming is a hoax.

I agree.

When congressman state that global warming is false and then quotes bible verses to prove that God promised to never again destroy the earth you know it is a lost cause.

No, calling the religious zealots who argue against science "flat earthers" is NOT taking a religious tone.

It is taking an anti-religious tone.

Monney goes into the DENIAL side man. On the REAL science side that talks about the problem all they get is PR type money so the corporations look good.
I work periphirally with many of those corporations and i see that every single day.

BP and shell do that for PR, nothing else. Do you understand PR?

I do believe there is Climate Change but I also dont see it as something that is man-caused. I would more logically see the sun playing a larger role in the rising and extreme temperatures in our planet

The problem i have is with the world leaders who are trying to find a solution for global warming. So far they've proposed a Global CO2 tax which will not stop pollution, but redistribute the wealth from richer nation to the poorer nations in form of a carbon credit. The richer nations will pay more for the CO2 they emit and the poorer nations will be able to pollute more. So basically just evening out the pollution.

Another problem I have is that people think that we can actually do something to stop the or control the earths temperature. I mean how can we expect to control and sustain the earths climate indefinitely? I mean even if you created a world government and stopped all the man made pollution. You would still probably not be able to stop the climate from changing. That would seem like something outside of human control

But my point is. There shouldnt be any high level policy making based on the shaky science of climate change.Sure its good to go green. But i still wanna drive my turbo diesel duel exhaust truck to work. and the government shouldnt force me to by a prius.

Wouldnt being strictly anti-religious be religious in itself? And cant flat earthers be non religious too?

No, being anti-religious is not a religion, just like being a cancer doctor is not a disease.

I suppose it's theoretically possible for someone to believe the earth is flat for some other reason, but historically most based their beliefs on Genesis.

I know right so silly

First this is america even if the earth is going to explode no one is going to stop u from driving your gas guzzler to work. Just like with health reform and people believing all that "death panels" nonsense i guess we've found the next boogie man. I dont quite understand you want to be able to pollute more than we already do? I haven't heard of any gobal co2 tax id love to see the link for where this info comes from. Of course you wont be able to stop the climate from changing it has a cycle i know that! But we can stop speeding up the process I dont want my grandchildren to have to breathe brown air.