| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Robert Cohen" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2006 04:25:19 PM |
| Object: |
U.S. Senator Debunks Global Warming |
I am playing advocate's devil, as I perceive Senator Imhoff is so full
of dioxide that he can't see the melting glaciers for the ocean:
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
.
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Senator Debunks Global Warming |
26 Sep 2006 05:16:44 PM |
|
|
I am playing advocate's devil, as I perceive Senator Imhoff
JAMES INHOFE
Never heard of him either. Must be rightard energy state, Texas,
Oklahoma . . . Wait, I'd have recognized a name from Texas. I'm
Feeling Lucky. Guess was correct.
End of discussion.
Bret Cahill
"You tell me whar a man gits his cornpone, en I'll tell you what his
'pinions is."
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Senator Debunks Global Warming |
26 Sep 2006 09:49:27 PM |
|
|
He makes a lot of very valid points, especially about the media and how it
operates today and how unreliable it trully is, and his general thrust of
doubting/questioning the future "model projections", and
doubting/questioning that GHG are proven as the only or main cause of the
current recorded avg temp rises is also VERY valid.
That doesn't mean therefore that GHG are not a problem of concern or aren;t
contributing to gloabla warming and existing climate changes, only that it
is not proven beyond all doubt as yet scientifically .......... even the
IPCC report of 2001 says as much. It says where the uncertainites are, and
says the models are only various senarios of what if's based on incomplete
data.
It would have been nice if he also said better resourced science would
provide better models to consider.
However his own political spin of implanting doubts about the science just
because the media in the past and present operates on promoting alarmist
type senarios is as devoid of scientific rigour as he claims the media to
be.
But hey, he is a politician, and they do have opinions and their own axes to
grind. Same as individual scientists as well. But no ever knows what ended
up on the editing floor when people like Hansen at NASA are interviewed, now
do we. ;-))
Reminds me of the Intel Estimates that politicians also fail to mention when
it suits their purposes and personal opinions about what realtity is.
Expect more of the same, I'd say. ;-)
I'll be reading the fine print myself when the 2007 IPCC Report is released.
I won;t believe the scientists being interviewed, or the media in general,
or the environmentalists, or the politicans or the ex-politicians. I read it
myself and draw my own conclusions about it's value, and make up my own mind
on the matter.
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159305916.046715.116190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am playing advocate's devil, as I perceive Senator Imhoff is so full
of dioxide that he can't see the melting glaciers for the ocean:
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Senator Debunks Global Warming |
26 Sep 2006 10:26:34 PM |
|
|
He makes a lot of very valid points,
There is only _one_ major entity that still denies AGW, and that's
ExxonMobil, and that is because their lawyers can hear the trial
lawyers saying, "Exxon knew or should have known . . ."
EVERYONE else agrees. Even energy shills like Dr. Convection ("CO2 is
good for you") on sci.environment gave up the ghost more than a year
ago.
especially about the media and how it
operates today and how unreliable it trully is,
The _New York Times_ is the only daily with real science writers.
and his general thrust of
doubting/questioning the future "model projections",
Yea, right, like I'm REALLY going to ignore the independent scientists
in _Nature_ and believe some ignorant greedy senator getting paid by
Exxon.
and
doubting/questioning that GHG are proven as the only or main cause of the
current recorded avg temp rises is also VERY valid.
He can also question if the world is round . . .
That doesn't mean therefore that GHG are not a problem of concern or aren;t
contributing to gloabla warming and existing climate changes, only that it
is not proven beyond all doubt as yet scientifically ..........
It's beyond all doubt.
It's only a "controversy" in the way creationism is a controversy.
.. . .
It would have been nice if he also said better resourced science would
provide better models to consider.
He ain't interested in better models. He's only interested in Exxon
cutting him a check.
However his own political spin of implanting doubts about the science just
because the media in the past and present operates on promoting alarmist
type senarios is as devoid of scientific rigour as he claims the media to
be.
BINGO!
But hey, he is a politician, and they do have opinions and their own axes to
grind.
their own bribes to accept.
Same as individual scientists as well.
Most scientists have no conflicts of interests. If fact, many were
risking their careers to tell the truth.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Senator Debunks Global Warming |
26 Sep 2006 05:28:19 PM |
|
|
This Senator isn't acting in his state's interest but working for the
last big denier of global warming, ExxonMobil, whose lawyers are scared
to death of tobacco style litigation.
BretCahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
