Why God Invented C-SPAN

Another GOPer walks into a wall, eyes wide open.
.
Won’t wonders never cease?

Marsha Marsha Marsha!

I was just watching that video on Wonkette. Al Gore got some nice digs in, especially the last one about whether Blackburn objected to people participating in private business. She was all big and bad at the beginning but by the end he had her playing defense.

Especially when one is a “conservative” @sshole trying to smear the guy who’s been trying to save the planet for 30 years.

Oh, c’mon. She’s just… um…. concerned. You know: For her constituents. I mean, she’s never even heard of this (whatsitcalled?), Kleiner-Perkins, is it? Just trying to get to the bottom of it all, poor thing. Then Big Bad Al has to sigh and laugh and make her feel all small and petty and underhanded — wonder how he did that.

I think every American knows the truth: Al Gore is reponsible for not only the evil profiteering of the environmental movement, but also the general malaise that has settled on our country. His management over the past eight years caused us to become increasingly reliant on foreign alternative energy sources, not to mention the useless war we failed to become involved in and the economic calamity we stupidly avoided by reigning in the financial sector.
.
Wait . . . that doesn’t sound right. I may be mistaken . . .

The esteemed Gentlewoman from Tennessee needs to pull her head out of her rectum.

Another broken Obama promise:
.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/armenian_revenge.asp

Just when I think Republicans in Congress cannot be that stupid. I’m proven wrong, yet again.

Of course it’s Al Gore’s greed that is at the root of Blackburn’s question and the desire of her corporate patrons and benefactors to keep burning down the planet for money.

jsfox — congressional stupidity is an inexhaustible natural resource.

I kind of enjoyed the give and take with the Newt that followed.
.
He submitted 38 “bold and innovative” suggestions in his written statement.
Waxman- “Your ideas are not bold. You are fear mongering.”
and “You say there is not a problem but you have 38 ways to address it and no way to pay for it.”

“I’m not making accusations,” Rep Blackburn explained helpfully. “I’m making insinuations.”

Interesting reading re waterboarding
.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/24/why-dont-they-claim-al-nashiris-waterboarding-worked/#more-4019

Gore in response to Art’s quote “I know exactly what you’re doing” That he was laughing at her was just icing.

What to make of this? http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

Boy, I’m glad they got the guy who was elected president eight years ago in front of a committee so they could go after him for all he did wrong. They should do that more often.

PNNTO: Yeah. The great thing about having Gore on this issue is that he’s not going to be surprised by any Congressional antics.

Hey spob, why don’t you start your own blog? That way when you fling absolutlely unrelated content into a thread for no apparent reason, you’ll have a place to do it that won’t label you rude and hence discredited before you start.

spob:
.
Did you read the full text of his speech? He says at one point: I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.
.
In other words, everyone knows he believes it was genocide, but since Turkey-Armenian reconcilliation talks are currently underway, and genocide is a loaded term for both sides, he elected to refer to the events in the way Armenians themselves refer to it, by calling it the Meds Yeghern, or “great catastrophe”.
.
This was not in anyway a backing off of his campaign promise. It was a nuanced and calculated approach to try to keep things calm so the Turkey-Armenian normalization process can continue.

PD – Actually, the last splooge link was kind of fun. The “expert denied the right to testify” authored an article in the American Spectator on “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS,” and is an absolutely looney-tunes Thatcherite Brit. On the bright side, he like Sudoku, so he can’t be ALL bad . . .

Here’s the guy who wanted to horn in on todays’s Congressional hearings…thanks spob….
.
In an article entitled “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”, written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that “there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”
.
Truly a scientific force to be reckoned with!

sigh

They didn’t allow a gravity “skeptic” to testify either. The fix was in!

I’d imagine that spob frequently dines with climate change deniers, AIDS deniers, Holocaust deniers, round-Earth deniers, Newtonian physics deniers . . . must make for fun dinner parties.

PNNTO – Don’t you feed us that “gravity” non-sense . . . it’s obviously a liberal plot to keep Republicans from immediately rising to Heaven.

spod: Could it be that climate change deniers have all been found wanting for any scientific proof of the claims. Next when big oils’ own scientist come out and say the proof of green house gasses on the warming of the climate if irrefutable I’d say your side of the discussion is in trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2&hp

vastwastelander-You busted me.
I am in the pocket of Big Earth Rotation. Soros pays my salary.

PNNTO – That “Things That Have Been Scientifically Proven” lobby has deep pockets. That’s the problem with liberals . . . they’re all susceptible to being bought off by organizations that advocate Reality, Progress, and Good Judgment. How corrupt . . .

Regardless of what anybody says, its all ACORN’s fault.

God she’s so transparent, and is clearly relying a little too hard on a really bad helpless southern belle impersonation.

Swampland scoop! Please note the update I have just added:
.
UPDATE: It turns out that the Congresswoman and the former Vice President had an opportunity to continue their conversation. A source tells Swampland that when Gore got on his commercial flight home to Nashville this afternoon, Blackburn was sitting right in front of him.

KT . . . At which point Gore pointed out that the excessive CO2 the Congresswoman was expelling could negatively affect the climate in the cabin, and she could help the environment if she stopped breathing.

Regardless of what anybody says, its all ACORN’s fault.
.
I say this wins the thread.

Kwik Kwiz: What kind of slap did Gore give Blackburn? Quick, now!

The British skeptic who wanted to testify before Congress has had his scientific cherry picking of data pointed out by a member of The American Physical Society (APS) forum. 125 errors in a article Monckton wrote in an APS forum newsletter on Physics and Society.
.
The APS allowed Monckton to publish the article with notation that the APS disagreed with the claims, as did the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
.
http:/http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
.
The GOP as become the anti-science party.
.
Much of the funding for Monckton’s “scientific” organization ties comes from Exxon Mobil.

Oops
.
The skeptic’s name is Christopher Monckton.
.
The source used to document the Exxon Mobil funding is from the link below:
.
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

The GOP as become the anti-science party.
.
The GOP isn’t anti-science. They actually adore science…when it agrees with them.
.
The GOP (and those who don’t believe the global warming link with CO2) decide where they stand before looking at the science. Once they’ve settled on a position, they then collect all the science that backs it up. When pressed about the scientific truths to their claims, they then present to you the cornucopia of literature they’ve found, never mind that much of the work is fringe theories or theories already proven wrong by other scientists.
.
Only when the GOP can’t find any science at all to back up their claims do they resort to calling the science “wrong”.
.
Other people, namely those who understand the scientific method (and those dastard left-wing liberal types), actually look at the science before they decide where they stand.

Remember guys, AGW is a consensus. And you know what that means–they don’t know.
.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/bush-saved-hundreds-of-thousands-of.html

Speaking of embarrassing videos.
.
And say what you want about Monckton, Gore’s spouted a lot of hyperbole and just plain nonsense too. An Inconvenient Truth wasn’t exactly known for scientific rigor . . . .
.
And if you’re going to yap about the GOP and warming, don’t forget the Sainted One’s comments about this year’s Red River flooding, exacerbated by an abnormally cool winter in that part of the country.

Remember guys, AGW is a consensus. And you know what that means–they don’t know.
.
They know well enough.
.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.php
.
An Inconvenient Truth wasn’t exactly known for scientific rigor…
.
Can we get over this yet? An Inconvenient Truth wasn’t known for scientific rigor in denier circles. If it wasn’t known for scientific rigor, why was hailed for its sound use of science?
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
.
…don’t forget the Sainted One’s comments about this year’s Red River flooding, exacerbated by an abnormally cool winter in that part of the country.
.
Climate change is about long term changes in global temperature averages, not about instantaneous temperatures at a certain spot. That’s the difference between climate and weather.
.
And for the record, the colder than average temperatures in the US this winter are mostly due to the effects of a La Nina event, not global cooling.
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/

KT, I bet she hit the recline button on her seat just as Al was about to tuck into his in-flight sandwich and G&T.
.
A general point about climate change now is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that natural warming is being exacerbated by human-kind’s burning of fossil-fuels and their release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Geologists are particularly convinced of this, based on their research of organic materials created during past hot and cold periods. Dr. Iain Stewart is especially convincing on this topic, so if you’re interested in the Global Warming debate check out his series of programs made for the BBC.

Right on cue the NYT has a good piece on how Industry lied to the public about global warming :
.
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
.
“For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
…
“But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
.
““The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.”
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

……….Remember guys, AGW is a consensus. And you know what that means–they don’t know.
.
That is the 25-35% of the US public that we have to deal with. Opinion is equivalent to science.
.
Texas Representative Joe Barton thought that he had stumped Nobel prize winner Steven Chu, by asking “Where does oil come from?”. Barton was incapable of comprehending that he (Barton) did not understand Chu’s answer.
.

“And if you’re going to yap about the GOP and warming, don’t forget the Sainted One’s comments about this year’s Red River flooding, exacerbated by an abnormally cool winter in that part of the country.”
.
spob, you have a very, very short memory, don’t you? You got your nuts handed to you in real scientific debate and you need to put this flat earth stuff down.
.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you that temperatures rise faster the farther you get from the equator, and that when that happens the climate gets wetter.
.
Doubt me, maybe you should peruse Ice Ages – Solving the Mystery by John and Katherine Imbrie.
.
There are other books that comprehensively discuss modeling and data relating to climate forcing by increased CO2 (up 40% from preindustrial levels), and the ‘shirttail effect’ where other greenhouse gasses intensify the effect.
.
Of course, as a part of that discussion, the effects of warming, the modeling, and the reliability are a big part of that discussion.

Specifically, you are being intensly disengenuous from a scientific standpoint, spob, when you bring up short-scale local events as an argument against global changes taking place.
.
You know what gets me spob?
.
You know what I just said is true, as intelligent as you are, yet you choose to subjigate the scientific for the policial and, that, spob, is why I consider you even worse, and less worthy of respect than any of your less intelligent peers.

make that …political…

KT or anyone:
.
Is there any details of the continued conversation between Gore and whatshername, the Esteemed Idjit From Tennehehe?

“Barton was incapable of comprehending that he (Barton) did not understand Chu’s answer.”
.
It astonishes me that spob, as well grounded as he is in the sciences, chooses, for poltical reasons alone, to side with the kind of fools that just don’t want to hear scientifically well grounded explanations that are rooted in concepts so well corroborated as plate tectonics.
.
You see, with spob, stupid is a choice.

Blackburn presents a slicker, more articulate version of Sarah Palin’s “Drill, Baby, Drill” philosophy.

Now I know there might be some objection, but in my mind, this is the absolute first time I have seen a good suggestion from the GOP.
.
Global warming would be helped by this approach, too.
.
I’m wary, too, but Lamar Alexander has a good point here, minus the rhetoric:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/25/gop-like-france-us-should-embrace-nuclear-energy/

I’m wary, too, but Lamar Alexander has a good point here, minus the rhetoric
-
ONLY if we can somehow produce the massive steel shells that can be constructed around the reactor chamber itself. As it is there is only one foundry in the world capable of doing so, and it’s in Japan and currently has a three year waiting list. Personally I think it would be awesome to subsidize a steel miller somewhere in the US just to build the shells and undercut the Japanese here. But that right there is an automatic three-year delay on bringing any nuke plant online.

We’re running the risk here of agreeing with a republican. I think it IS a good idea for us to subsidize a steel mill over here to produce the shells. The only problem I see is that if we agree with Lamar, his party will primary him for collaborating with the enemy (reason/science).

We’re running the risk here of agreeing with a republican
-
This is exactly where we can follow the example of Obama. Alexander is allowed to have a good idea here (blind squirrels and nuts and all that). France and Canada have operated nuclear power plants safely for decades now, and have even upgraded and refined the technology. I think there is a definite place for nuclear power if we also remove the legal stumbling block of recycling spent fuel (we’re the only nuke-capable nation that disallows that) and find a safe place for the remainder.

I support nuclear power plants. I think it’s the best technology current available to lessen our dependence on oil (foriegn or domestic). Finding a place to store the spent fuel is the problem. I have a hard time believing that we can’t do it though. I think we should store it in the red states. But that’s just me.

I think we should store it in the red states. But that’s just me.
-
One of the most geologically stable (and least populated) states is, interestingly enough, Wyoming. At least the southern parts far away from Yellowstone are. It was one of the reasons why Yucca Mountain was initially proposed. But that turned into a porkfest that got caught up in too many political considerations. Maybe we can stick it all on Enzi’s ranch.

That works for me.

I would say that this is the first constructive suggestion the Republicans have made, but unfortunately, I’m still in the ‘say it ain’t so’ mode.

53_3, can you read without jumping to ideological conclusions? Apparently not. Nowhere have I suggested that one event says anything about AGW. When I criticized the Sainted One about the Red River flooding, I was referring to his politicization of that event (by the way, 53_3, care to compare Nagin’s performance with the Fargo Mayor’s?). Obama wondered aloud how much worse the flooding would have been if the temps were higher. Of course, warmer temps would mitigate Red River flooding, and this year’s flooding was exacerbated by the cold winter.
.
And say what you want, “consensus” is not a synonym for “proven”. And even if AGW were fact, there is zero consensus that whatever program you guys choose to come up with to enlarge government intrusiveness into our lives will do anything to deal with it.

And say what you want, “consensus” is not a synonym for “proven”.
.
spob, did you even read those links? Read this one. I promise it’s short. I’ll even paraphrase it here for you.
.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing.php
.
Science does not work in absolutes. It is presumptuous to label your hypothesis as unassailable fact — it simply is not done in science — and if any scientist does so, you instantly know not to believe him.
.
So that leaves us with words like “highly likely” and “very probable” and “the evidence suggests”. Proofs lie in the domain of mathematics; they rarely exist in science. All we have now is a 100 year old theory about Global Warming based on the laws of physics, massive amounts of evidence built up over those 100 years, and very sophisticated computer models that can reproduce the observed climate data over that 100 years.
.
That’s simply as close to a proof as you are going to get. What other kind of proof would like to see?
.
As for your comment about proof of the efficacy of programs to reduce C02 emissions…well, I can’t argue that one. You can detail how a reductions of C02 will affect the climate, but proving the effects on our economy is much different. Economic theories are even harder to prove than science theories.

And say what you want, “consensus” is not a synonym for “proven”.
.
And another thing: this argument is spurious. It’s about semantics. I agree that “consensus” is not a synonym for “proven”, but I’m also telling you that in science, you rarely ever get to “prove” theories. Science is about observation and theory; as people independently conduct the same experiments (or observations) and get the same (or similar) results, the theory becomes stronger until so much evidence mounts that the theory becomes widely accepted as the best and “most likely” explanation for actual events.
.
What’s sad about this argument is that you seem intelligent enough to know this already.

spob:
.
You introduced weather to make a point about climate. And that is just plain pulling a stupid.
.
And spob, your last statement is ridiculous in the extreme. Don’t you know that not only can no theary ever be proven, any good theory must be disprovable
.
And this, spob, is the reason why I have no respect for you whatsoever. You might as well claim that alien abductions are real, because even though the concensus is that they don’t happen, it cannot be proven.
.
As for the two disasters, I will make a couple observations:
.
1. The Katrina disaster was far larger in scope and impact. The total damage is on the order of 1 / 300 the magnitude of Katrina.
2. The flooding was predicted and perpared for.
3. FEMA provided help immediately:
http://wcco.com/local/fargo.flooding.fema.2.969707.html
4. The flood was not immediately preceeded by a hurricane, and thus, resources were not already overextended when the levees broke.
5. The disasters are not comparable. They are not only caused by totally different agents, they occurred in completely different environments.
.
With that, in the interests of everyone else, I’ll meet you when a Katrina blog is posted.
.
And, like I said, with you, spob, stupidity is a choice.

nathan7777:
.
What gets me is that spob is an intelligent individual, yet he chooses to ignore obvious tenets of the scientific model. He is always trying to get an equivalance between poll taking and the process of coming to agreement on the causal relationships that surround any physical phenomena.
.
Which is why I love to just jump in and T-bone him.

53_3:
.
Republicans have been promoting nuclear power for a while now. I don’t see how this is a new suggestion. Also, it is disingenuous to present nuclear power as the cure for our energy problems when the use of nuclear power comes with its own unique problems.

nathan7777:
.
I didn’t say it was a new suggestion, I said this was a good suggestion. And I said ‘help’, not ‘cure’. I never considered by any stretch of the imagination that it would ‘cure’ the global warming problem.
.
I’m well aware, also, of the problems associated with nuclear waste disposal and other issues relating to the nuke power industry. I think that with the advances made, we can at least dynamically control the waste problem. Thirty years has seen a lot of useful gains in that field.