Comments on: Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into Suppressed Climate Change Report

By: Paul Wenum

Paul Wenum — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:46:34 +0000

Rob, I’m waiting for your response or do you have to look up a quote wherein you cannot think for yourself? Quit making fun and a mockery out of people that deeply care in their beliefs. Oh, that’s right, that’s how your ilk won the election where we now may have Cap N Trade. Later!

By: Paul Wenum

Paul Wenum — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:15:27 +0000

Rob, your comments are exactly why we cannot stomach people that do not read both sides. You use, as most people that have no answer, words that are condescending. “Yonder, Betcha etc. You defiinitely showed your colors tonight. You obvoiusly will never change. You proved to me once again that you are nothing but a schill from the left without doubt!!!!! Do you really have a job?? Or are you waiting for the entitlements???

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:41:57 +0000

Gee, Ron from Texas- I guess the schools down yonder are a lot better than ours up nort here ya betcha. Cuz what you just outlined so nicely is not just basic science- it is either A. advanced science, or B. a load of crap.

Thanks for playing.

By: Paul Wenum

Paul Wenum — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:47:26 +0000

Thank you Ron. I thought that Neil and I were the only one’s left out there! I agree. You don’t have to be a climatologist to read the facts from ones that are experts in their field. Gore is a profiteer, not a climatologist. He’s no different than you or I. He profits, we pay. It’s that simple. That said, you will never hear that in the media as it is today.

By: ron from Texas

ron from Texas — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:11:56 +0000

I get so tired of the argument that we people can’t discuss global warming because we don’t have a certain set of degrees that signify us as “climatologists.”

Science is available to anyone. And it’s been proven that AGW based on CO2 is wrong, using science I learned in 8th grade. And, without fail, those that defend AGW can’t do it with any facts or scientific methods. They always and forever change the track of the discussion with polemic and their failsafe, “well, I’m not a scientist and neither are you.” Fine, neither is Gore or the directors of the IPCC and neither is your messiah, Obama.

CO2 follows temp rise, not leading it. CO2 only absorbs 3 frequencies. You could double or triple the amount of CO2 and it will still only absorb the same amount it absorbed before. Increasing CO2 does not increase the number of frequencies it can absorb. If there is only x amount of IR a mass of CO2 will absorb and re-emit that x amount and that’s it.

Really, basic, basic science.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:07:44 +0000

Rob:
You know it’s funny how facts have no bearing on your point of view. I am not going to argue these things with you because they are meaningless to the scope of this website. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion about them, I do, but that’s not why I’m here.
The reason I am here is because there is a big lie going around that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the Earth to warm due to the so called greenhouse effect. And there are politicians and social elitists that are using that lie to bring about draconian changes to our society and economy, and this is the place for me, and anyone else, to speak out against it.
So, if you don’t want to talk about the climate and RELATED political and social issues, I suggest you find somewhere else to pedal your pap.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:44:20 +0000

Rob:
The planet is not warming, and in fact is cooling.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:20:42 +0000

You know exactly what I meant. You bring a whole new meaning to the word anal, Neil. For being so, you sure have huge blinders on.

And it is G.W.B. with much Republican help, who stole two elections- not to mention the Supreme Court (the majority right-wingers) who “selected” him for Us to begin with.

You are assuming the “investigations” of ACORN are not frivolous charges, or so minor as to be silly. They are being politically hit.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:08:01 +0000

Rob:
I did not say Republicans. I said Republican, or Conservative ORGANIZATIONS.
So, are you saying that the poor, minorities and the lower middle class, did not have the right to vote, and ACORN endowed them with that right?
Because, as I pointed out to David E., I am a little anal when it comes to meanings of words.
To enfranchise means:
1. To bestow a franchise on.
2. To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote.
3. To free, as from bondage.
Are the poor, minorities and the lower middle class barred from voting?
These people were not disenfranchised.
The only people in this country that are actually disenfrachised are most felons.
Oh, and it is demonstrable that ACCORN is under investigation in many places including Florida, Las Vegas, and Wisconsin, to name just a few. I would hardly call that propaganda.
But who cares right? As long as it gets Democrats elected it’s OK. The ends justify the means.

By: Rob N. hood

Rob N. hood — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:26:43 +0000

Gee, Neil, you’re right- no Republicans are being investigated for anything. How could I be wrong about THAT? You correctly believe the propaganda about ACORN. It’s being attacked because it was successful at enfranchising the poor, minorities and the lower middle class re: voting. Outrageous! Not in my America!

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:01:49 +0000

David E:
Hey, no biggie. Like I said I’m a little anal when it comes to meanings. I am glad you took that in the spirit with which it was intended.
I am a horrible speller. I always have to go over what I’ve typed and correct my spelling. And sometimes I still miss some. So, I am by no means trying to say that I write with any kind of perfection.

By: David E.

David E. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:47:37 +0000

Neil. You know, you are exactly right. I would call that a middle-aged brain toot on my part. I have always used anthropomorphmism to describe those who depict a fawn in the woods as the humanized Bambi characterized by Disney. Another example might be the cute little polar bears who look pitfully at the audiance as their diminishing ice flows melt in An Inconvenient Truth, as if their little faces question how humans could have done this to them. A definite slip-up on my part. Anthropogenic is the word I should have used, but, apparently, in the absence of the youthful cognitive editing skills I used to posses, my aging mind defaulted to a similar word. Thanks for picking up on this.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:44:43 +0000

David E.:
Thanks for that comment, and I agree with you 100%
That said, there is one thing that I feel I have to take issue with. Call it an anal adhearance to the meanings of words, only because words have meanings, and I cringe every time I read an incorrect usage.
You called it anthropomorphic global warming.
Anthropomorphism is “Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.”
In other words you are descibing global warming as having some kind of human characteristic or atribute.
You are not the first person I’ve attempted to correct on this. Jason Lewis, a talk radio guy from St. Paul, who just recently had his show go national, used to call it anthropologic global warming. Anthropologic is describing anthropology which is ” The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.”
I sent him an email. I don’t know if it was me that corrected him, probably not, but I did explain that it is called anthropogenic global warming.
Anthropogenic simply means “caused by humans”.
Please don’t take this as an insult, I just think that it is important that the right words are used especially when the meaning of the word is so crucial to what is at the center of the whole debate.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:32:11 +0000

I’m sorry. I’m no scientist. I don’t know what I was thinking posting that last bit. Professor Happer is not with the IPCC, and he don’t work fer Jim Hansen neither. I guess I’m only assuming that he said that………….

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:22:48 +0000

Here’s what at least one scientist says:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/in_search_of_an_intelligent_en.html
“Professor William Happer’s statement to the US Senate on February 25, 2009. Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He was also the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990-93, where he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. His statement includes the following:

The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.”