Inglis “Warming” to Climate Change
Written by Sam on November 8th, 2007
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), once a skeptic of global warming, got a hint that the political winds might be shifting when a long-time supporter warned that he might vote against Inglis if he “didn’t clean up his act on the environment.”
The warning came from Inglis’s eldest son, Robert Jr., now 22.
His daughter was no less blunt about the congressman’s refusal to embrace the view that global warming was being caused by human actions and that a serious response is needed. “I have three more kids coming up—and they seem to share the same view,” said Inglis.
Family pressure worked. Inglis traveled to Antarctica and, most recently, to Greenland to witness the effects of rising CO2 levels and temperatures. He now believes the science behind global warming. And he believes the politics are equally conclusive: Republicans will “get hammered” if they do not reckon with the issue soon.
First off, I am going to correct the author, because the bold part in the above passage should read “witness the ALLEGED effects of rising CO2 levels,” because that is a theory, not a fact, and not everyone in the scientific community subscribes to it.
Secondly, I am sorry for Inglis that his children are so easily brainwashed, most likely from their college.
Having said all of that, I don’t think anyone with any sense denies that global warming is occurring. I certainly don’t. The winters today are noticeably warmer than when I was a kid. However, that doesn’t mean I am falling into the clap trap of believing we have anything to do with it. Global warming has occurred before as well as global cooling. They have been natural cycles of the earth. For groups like these U.N. “scientists” and nut balls like Al Gore to force the idea on all of us that our lifestyle is destroying the planet while completely excluding the past occurrences of this phenomenon is dishonest. Hell, the founder of the Weather Channel just came out and said that man made global warming is the greatest scam in history. (Maybe other than Y2K)
Remember, these people are the same ones that told us 30 years ago we would all freeze to death from global cooling.
Don’t get me wrong, I am an environmentalist. My next car will likely be a hybrid because less pollution is just good overall and we need to end our dependence on importing oil from people who want us dead. But, one thing I won’t be is hoodwinked by the perpetrators of the modern day Inquisition.
9
AM
It’s also a “theory” that the age of the earth exceeds 6000 years and that the earth revolves around the sun, right Sam?
9
AM
Oh I get it because we are Republican and conservatives we follow lock step with the flat earthers.
Good deflection. Now try debating the point of Sam’s post. I know its hard but i know you can do it.
9
AM
I dont consider CO2 pollution, I consider it plant food. I will continue to drive a gas-guzzling SUV until it is forcibly taken from me by the liberals.
9
PM
Misleading statement #1: “Global warming is a theory”. As I posted earlier, “theory” in science doesn’t mean what “theory” means in general conversation. Before a scientific hypothesis reaches the level of theory, it must have overwhelming evidence in support of it, which global warming does.
Misleading statement #2: “Not all scientists accept that global warming is happening”. This is true- only about 98% of them do. Despite the best efforts of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to interject the idea that there is significant debate in the scientific community on this issue, there really is not.
Misleading statement #3: “Warming has occured before, it’s a natural cycle” Yes, that’s true, but what we are seeing now is WAY outside the norm of that cycle. The correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rise is convincing (but not proof) in itself, but when combined with dozens of other comparisons, the conclusion is irrefutable: human activity is messing with the natural cycle and making the planet warmer.
Misleading statement #4: UN “Scientists”. Because these people aren’t American, clearly their opinions can’t be trusted, right? Almost everyone who studies the climate agrees that global warming is happening. COnservative political pundits say it is not happening. Who should we believe? I personally choose to believe the people who are actually trained in the field and actually study what’s going on. Are some of them “nutjobs”? Sure. Most of them are not, though.
Misleading statement #5: CO2 is plant food, not pollution. I’m honestly not sure if Dave is being sarcastic or just being incredibly dumb, but if plants could deal with extra CO2 being put into the atmosphere, we wouldn’t have more CO2 than normal in the atmosphere. Plants would use it and it would be O2. Maybe it’s the thousands of acres of rainforest a day that are being cut down.
Republicans almost have me listening to their ideas, particularly on immigration and foreign policy, but then one of you pulls something moronic like claiming that global warming or evolution isn’t real. Stop it. It makes you lose credibility. People who actually know what they are talking about on this issue, of which many are conservative, have agreed- this is in fact happening.
9
PM
You are free to point out at any time the passage where I stated global warming isn’t real.
And what the hell does any of this have to with evolution?
9
PM
You said global warming “isn’t fact” and is “just a theory” and that people who believe in it are “easily brainwashed”.
What does this have to do with evolution? Both are backed by overwhelming amounts of science but rejected by large parts of the Republican base because they are seen as either anti-business (global warming) or anti-religion (evolution). Neither are seriously doubted by anyone who actually studies them, only by conservative political pundits.
Science is apolitical. It is a pure, untainted truth. Do Democrats exploit it to pander to their base? Certainly, and I find this extremely distasteful. But Republicans either distort facts or flat out lie to pander to theirs, which is far worse.
9
PM
“You said global warming “isn’t fact” and is “just a theory” and that people who believe in it are “easily brainwashed”.”
I am talking about MAN MADE Global Warming, Shiff for brains. That is what my entire posting is criticizing, the man made theory. That’s pretty clear particularly based on the beginning of my third paragraph in which I said “I don’t think anyone with any sense denies that global warming is occurring.”
Science is apolitical. It is a pure, untainted truth.
Science has become just as political as anything else. Why do you think Galileo was such a controversial figure in his day? Because the politics of the day did not support that the sun might be the center of the solar system. 98% of scientists back then thought the sun revolved around the earth. Guess they were wrong.
98% of scientists at one time thought the earth was flat. Guess they were all wrong. 98% of scientists thought Louis Pasteur was a big ass clown. Guess they were all wrong too.
What 98% of scientists do not support is the theory that man’s activity is causing global warming. Do a majority of them believe that? Probably, but there is plenty of dissension in the ranks and judging by the history of scientists’ accuracy, I’m just not quite convinced, even if 98% actually do think it.
9
PM
Sam, don’t insult David. You may disagree with him, but at least he debates respectfully- unlike another liberal visitor to our blog.
No one can possibly dispute that the Earth IS warming (by about 0.8 C over 100 years), but like Sam I am skeptical about WHY it’s warming.
David, I have to take issue with what you said about this warming cycle being WAY out of whack with previous cycles. Especially considering that previous cycles have included such things as Ice Ages! In fact, how do we know that the Earth isn’t simply pulling out of the “Little Ace Age” and going back to the Medieval Climate Optimum?
Also, how come when the Earth starts warming everyone calls it “man-made”? But when Mars, Jupiter, one of Neptune’s moons, and Pluto (PLUTO!) start warming at the same time, it’s just as natural as can be?
Finally, the reason Sam placed “quotes” around his UN Scientist comments isn’t because those people aren’t real scientists, but because there is no doubt in my mind that the UN has an anti-American and anti-capitalist agenda. I think anything that comes out of the UN has to be taken with a grain of salt.
So there you go- a few reasons why I’m a skeptic on this stuff. I’ll keep an open mind when reading your response though. And by the way- I go to a Southern Baptist Church and strongly believe in Evolution.
10
AM
Let’s summarize:
-Scientists have sometimes been wrong in the past
-People who are American who criticize your viewpoints are liberals with a secret agenda
-People who are not American who criticize your viewpoint also have a secret agenda.
In other words, nothing anyone can say or do can change your mind. That must be nice to be so certain of something.
Also, Celtic, it’s not what I’m saying about the present warming cycle being “way out of whack”. It’s what the evidence says. I’d be happy to provide you with citations if you’d like, but it sounds like you guys won’t listen to them anyway because they come from someone with a secret agenda (i.e. someone who doesn’t agree with you).
10
AM
Woo Hoo Nice posting David!
The problem with Conservatives is they are not free thinkers. No offence guys, I really do think you have the best conservative blog site. But I do think that you are brainwashed by religion.
10
AM
I’ll spare you conservatives chastising this latest poster. I don’t think that religion has anything to do with this particular issue, and yes, she spelled “offense” wrong.
Here’s a secret that’s little-known among conservative activitists: There are really very few legitimate scientists who question man-made global warming. The Wall Street joural editorial pages say that there are. Fox News says there are. But there are not. The science is in. A multi-year, multi-national, multi-million dollar study (the U.N. intergovernmental panel on climate change) just came out. Did some people participate who are anti-American and anti-Capitalist? Probably. However, Americans also particiapted, as did many of our allies. It’s not just the radical environmental fringe- which I am NOT a part of- that accepts this anymore. It’s the mainstream. I was a skeptic after hearing some of those radical lefties talk about man-made global warming, but this report settled it for me. It is happening.
10
PM
Well, now I’m beginning to regret chastising Sam for insulting you, David. Tallytowngal gets a pass because she lives in Tallahassee and probably doesn’t know any better, but based on your previous posts I expected more from you.
You have yet to answer why other solar system objects such as Mars and Jupiter are also warming at the same time (could it have something to do with heightened solar activity?).
You have yet to explain why the Earth entered a period of high temperatures during the Middle Ages (the Medieval Climate Optimum) and then gradually became much colder (The Little Ice Age), all without the benefit of massive carbon emissions. The Earth’s temperature has been yo-yo-ing for 4 billion years in massive fluctuations that are far greater than what we’re seeing now! The only difference is that now we’re around to actually SEE the changes.
You’ve got a lot of nerve telling me I’m closed-minded. I’m willing to accept the possibility of man-made global warming, but you’ve better come after me with something more than a discredited hockey-stick chart and a bunch of scientists pushing each other out of the way get grant money and recite apocalyptic apologias on CNN.
There is absolutely NO PROOF that mankind is causing global warming. There is only speculation and thought. And if you think otherwise, tell me what caused the ice ages, the climate optimum, the Permian-Triassic Extinction event, the breakup of Pangea, and everything else the Earth has experienced during the over 4 billion years that humans DIDN’T live on the planet.
11
AM
Mars and Jupiter, like Earth, and Venus, and all the other planets (except Pluto, which apparently isn’t a planet anymore) have natural warming and cooling cycles. The Earth is presently on a warming cycle. This is true.
However, human activity is exacerbating this natural warming cycle.
The hockey-stick graph is indeed now discredited- the data that guy used was sketchy at best (15 ice cores from one forest in Northern Europe), and it was academically dishonest of him to conclude that there is a worldwide issue from such data.
However, we no longer have the problem of patchy data. Ice cores, tree ring data, coral chemistry, and a variety of other paleoclimate reconstruction techniques replicated dozens of times in dozens of different places all around the world all tell exactly the same story- what is happening now is WAY out of whack with natural cycles. Advanced multivariate statistics show that this is highly correlated with increases in industrial pollutant gases, and while statistics can certainly be used to lie for political purposes (and are, by both parties, fairly regularly), the scientific community does not tolerate such distortions of data. That is why the hockey stick was discredited- it got picked up by the mainstream media, but the scientific community discounted it until there was way more data to corroborate those conclusions.
In science, we never can actually prove anything. We can just attempt to explain things and have evidence that supports such a view. It is when things are disproven that careers are made. If man-made global warming wasn’t real, some ambitious young scientists would have demonstrated it by now, and would be famous. While some scientists are liberal partisan hacks, most follow facts and evidence.
I’m starting to ramble because it’s past my bedtime, but I wanted to respond to Celtic’s questions. Let me know if I left out anything.
12
PM
David,
Politics enters science because of the money. Ask a scientist today if he has any hope of getting a grant to refute the theory of man-made climate change. There is little or no chance. The only studies that get that get the majority funding have a premise of man-made climate change.
Some courageous scientists have gone against the grain. the most recent by 500 hundred scientists was glossed over and not reported.
This on the heals of 17,200, yes 17,200 scientists signing a petition “stating that current scientific data do not support the conclusion that global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon.”
You can also look to the remarks of Heidi Cullen, chief meteorologist at the Weather Channel. She advocated the removal of the Seal of Approval by the American Meteorological Society of any TV meteorologist who did not believe in man-made climate change.
Personally I am skeptical of UN Scientists because of their numbers. In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is .8. Why?
In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a study and chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Also answer for me why with nearly 160,000 glaciers on the planet, most of which have never been studied, can we say that issue is closed. What is the harm of further study? Why do so many scientists deem the issue settled.
In the last 20 years we have experienced the highest levels of CO2 emissions. Why then have global temperatures actually decreased over the same period.
For expediency (I do have a job) I pulled some of this info from http://boortz.com/nuze/200702/02022007.html. I will be happy to find the originals.
Conservatives are not the ones closed minded on this issue. We just see the agenda of the radical environmental movement. I believe in conservation. I believe in limiting what companies can pollute. What I will not accept is that man is the only cause of global warming. Science tells a much different story.
12
PM
David, the Earth has a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 chance of being placed where it is in the Universe to support life. With those odds I will side with the Creator.
12
PM
Michael,
As for your creationism comment, I’m not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, other than to say that I consider myself religious and have no issues with evolution. Religion answers “why”, science answers “how”. I’m happy to discuss this in more detail, and am in fact writing a book on it.
As for your global warming stuff, there’s a lot here and I’ll try to address it as I can. If I forget something it is because there’s a lot here, not because I’m conceding the point.
Money for scientific research comes primarily from the government, and I doubt very much that the same administration who told NOAA scientists to avoid mentioning man-made global warming has issues funding studies that refute aspects of it.
I think that Heidi Cullen’s remarks go against the spirit of free scientific inquiry and that she is to be criticized for that. I acknowledged that some scientists are liberal partisan hacks. She would certainly count. For one thing, man-made global warming has nothing to do with meteorology. Meteorologists can barely predict the weather ten days in advance with any degree of accuracy. It’s a different science.
I was unaware of this Hudson institute study and don’t wish to comment too much on it, other than to say that the biography of the founder has a complimentary quote from Donald Rumsfeld. If you can question the U.N.’s bias, I can certainly question the bias of a group supported by neocon whackos.
In other words, if the U.N. is anti-capitalist in it’s bias (your words, not mine) than a pro-capitalist bias must also be questioned. I am not saying that capitalism is bad (I love capitalism), but with respect to the issue of man-made global warming, industrialists have a large bias.
As for this OISM petition, I am wondering when it came out. If it came out before the recent IPCC report, I agree that there wasn’t enough evidence.
I don’t know where your numbers (0.3 and 0.8) are coming from, could you please let me know so I can help answer your question about why they are different?
Removing the Medieval warming period is certainly misleading and dishonest, and I don’t know a good reason why they would do it. However, that period was far LESS warm than what predictive models are showing for the near future.
Would you really like us to study 160,000 glaciers? As a shark behaviorist, I’ve been bitten by half a dozen bonnethead sharks. I don’t need to put my hand in the mouth of 10 million more of them to know that if you put your hand in their mouth, they bite you. In science, as in political polling, we lack the resources to measure everything. We take a sample and predict from there.
Yes, the radical environmental movement has an agenda. So do industrialists- they don’t want to lose money by following environmental standards. Their bias should also be questioned.
And once again, none but the radical environmental fringe believe that human activity is the only cause of global warming. Human activity is taking a natural cycle and amplifying it.
Did I forget anything?