James Inhofe Takes the Climate Conspiracy Theory to New Heights—While His Home State Reels from Record Heat

Mon, 2012-02-27 07:29Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

James Inhofe Takes the Climate Conspiracy Theory to New Heights—While His Home State Reels from Record Heat

James Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, has a new book out. It is entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

I have not read it yet. So I cannot say much about its contents, but I can say this: The title suggests that Inhofe, like Rick Santorum, is endorsing the global warming conspiracy theory. Indeed, where Santorum only muttered the word “hoax” without a great deal of elaboration, it looks like Inhofe is going to put some real meat onto those paranoid bones.

Let me once again reiterate why the global warming conspiracy theory is, well, just plain ridiculous.

To believe that global warming is a “hoax,” or that there is a “conspiracy,” you must believe in coordinated action on the part of scientists, environmental ministers, politicians, and NGOs around the world. It won’t do just to situate the hoax in the United States and its own scientific and NGO community, because the idea of human-caused global warming is endorsed by scientists, and scientific academies, around the globe.

Any one of these could blow the whistle on the so-called “hoax.” That this has not happened either means there is no hoax, or that the degree of conspiracy and collusion—among people who are notoriously individualistic and non-conformist, by the way–is mindboggling. We're talking about some serious cat-herding going on.

Oh, and by the way: You also have to believe that the colluding hoaxers have nefarious objectives—basically, they want to kill capitalism and strangle economies. This is even less plausible.

In other words, there is no hoax, and to believe in one is to be a conspiracy theorist. Inhofe himself uses the word “conspiracy” in his subtitle, so I do not think it at all unfair to describe him in this way. Either he is actually right in  his claims–not likely–or else he's conjuring a conspiracy where none exists. It's that simple.

I point this out, incidentally, because I am continually amazed that our national discourse basically shrugs at conspiracy theories. That's saddening evidence that we live in an “anything goes” political culture that has become unmoored from reality.

And how did this happen? Here’s a hint: Inhofe will debut his book on Fox’s Sean Hannity program tonight.

Let me end this post with a dose of reality. Inhofe, the climate conspiracy theorist, not only hails from but represents the state of Oklahoma. Here is what has been happening, climatologically, to Oklahoma lately, according to NOAA and other sources:

* The summer of 2011 was the hottest summer on record for the state. According to the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, “Oklahoma experienced the hottest summer of any state since records began in 1895 with a statewide average of 86.9 degrees.”

* July 2011 was the worst. Says the Oklahoma Climatological Survey: “July’s average temperature was 89.3 degrees, becoming the hottest month for any state on record, besting over 67,000 other months.”

* August also fried Oklahoma, and was the hottest August on record.

* This, of course, caused serious damage and monetary losses: “Agricultural damage alone from the drought and related heat has been estimated as high as $2 billion.” 

From the perspective of Inhofe’s constituents–say, an Oklahoma farmer–the global warming conspiracy sounds like an intellectual dalliance that the state simply cannot afford.

[By the way, here’s a great graphic from Grist showing eloquently why the global warming conspiracy theory makes no sense. I don't think the fossil fuel conspiracy theory makes sense either, by the way, but that's a tale for another time.]

Comments

In the late 18th century a cabal of would be scientists decided the earth is too far from the sun to be as warm as it is. “It’s something in the air”, they announced to a credulous public. The cabal had great fun getting people to believe this nonsense until some real scientists began to identify the components of the air. In dread of having their claim to fame destroyed, the cabal asked one of its members, J.Tyndall, to measure oxygen. He tried it, but was forced to announce, “No way, the oxygen stays cold, nobody will believe us.” Then he tried nitrogen, with the same result. In despair, the cabal suggested carbon dioxide. “There’s only a teensy amount of CO2  in the air, so nobody can prove us wrong.” So Tyndall announced in 1850 that carbon dioxide is what keeps the earth as warm as it is. Thus the cabal grew and grew, always in secret, passing their heritage down from father to son or daughter, until the late 20th century. By now there were thousands of faux scientists so they established climate “science”. They attacked anyone real scientist who outed them so successfully that it came to pass that mighty governments quailed in fear of a heating planet, just because of a few automobiles. Only a few government officials or politicians, like the brave James Inhofe, dare speak to expose the ancient fraud.

GingerLadySlipper, that’s got to be the wildest conspiracy theory I’ve ever read.  You’re the first denier I’ve come across who’s prepared to publically deny physics as simple and well proven as the greenhouse effect. Inhofe can make enough of a fool of himself without any help from you, but please carry on making both of you a laughing stock.

I think she’s just having fun.

Keith,

Heel, boy, heel! Where’s your sarcasm?

First read her other thoughtful posts throughout DeSmogBlog, then fall to your knees & kiss her ginger lady slippers.

I’ve been spending too long on the blogs of Delingpole and Booker.  It must have given me an irony deficiency!

 

I haven’t laughed so hard since the last time I tied little newspaper booties around my cat’s foot.

dupe

Or add to the Amazon page of Inhofe’s book as a review to the book.

It is insufficient to just point out the absurdity of climate change deniers’ conspiracy theories. We continue to let deniers like Inhofe off the hook by not confronting them and making THEM explain how their conspiracy theories are supposed to work. It is the one way to make deniers make fools of themselves trying to explain themselves.

I think it is time to challenge deniers to explain themselves rather than just try to rebut them.

Are you inferring that Chris Mooney et al get paid to spread this stuff around the internet?

Shame, double shame, haha!

It’s all a big game for these guys and huge amounts of money (or resources, to use the industry phrase) is at stake.

“The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer, by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions.”

There, fixed it for you.

btw,

DeSmogBlog may find itself newly infected with denier swarms from WUWT, etc. who click “-” to “hide” legit comments from interested viewers.

“Denier Swarms”…….  sounds like a good title for a Sci-Fi movie, haha!

Why don’t you guys go over to WUWT and joinn the discussion? That’s better than sitting here whining about it, don’t you think?

chas rasper asks:

Why don’t you guys go over to WUWT and joinn (sic) the discussion?”

The answer is very simple. When Watts and his cabal of deniers find honest discussion of science (which is the opposite of what he encourages) they censor it. Of course he claims that he does not censor posts but we all know how much of a liar he is. See BEST for example.

Shadow blogs, etc. 

 

Lol, thats funnt Chas, go over to WUWT.

(snipped by moderator)

Failed to follow ideology and exposed flimsy denialist arguments.

Any tips on fitting in, with the in crowd? I keep getting snipped.

1) Mention Al Gore & how much it’s his fault?

2) Mention its a big hoax?

3) Mention its a big scam?

4) Say the words “warmist” or “alarmist” a few times?

5) Say “its all over” or “the game is up” several times?….each week….for years?

6) Say “outstanding work Anthony!” …even though you know what he has said is verifiably false within 5 secs of googling?

7) Say AGW is political not scientific and that the dems or enviro’s are orchestrating the whole thing?

8) Mention how much the enviros are destroying the planet?

9) Mention how it’s big green that stands to make millions out of a carbon tax, but ignore the irony that the worlds richest companies are oil companies who make many more billions in comparison?

10) Declare scientific observations or emprical evidence that is simply not there and have no citation for?

I think I am ready for WUWT now. I just have to don my T-Shirt with the elephant on it and adjust my tin foil hat.


 

No-one is disputing climate change. Us skeptics/deniers/cranks, or whatever you want to villify us, next, dispute that the major cause of climate change is caused by human emissions of Co2. I’m not a scientist but I am a well respected engineer in my field. Engineers have to have solid facts to enable safe systems to operate. We do not deal in wooly suppositions, we deal in facts. When someone can supply me with definite proof, not models, that manmade global warming is a fact then, yes I will accept it. Until then I would rather believe in pixy dust.

All I see on sites like this is unscientific rhetoric by a cabal of those who wish us to return to a pre-industrial agrarian society.

When the rolling blackouts occur, and the central heating fails, the food in the fridge rots, and your children are dying for lack of medicines. Ask yourself. Was I to blame?

First off, the oft-repeated claim that “no one is denying climate change” is manifestly incorrect.

“Skeptics” have been denying climate change persistently, and at great length for the past 15 years or more. The whole basis of the WUWT site is that the temperature record in the US (and, by extension, the world) is unreliable, and that the warming it records is an illusion. Skeptics have also denied repeatedly that the physical manifestations of climate change to date - for example, the loss of ice mass from the Arctic Ocean - is not, in fact, occurring. Moreover, every time there’s a cold spell anywhere, skeptic columnists pop up pouring scorn on the idea that global warming/climate change even exists. That “skeptics” who have gone down that road, as so many have,  go on to pretend that “nobody is denying climate change” only highlights their intellectual dishonesty.

There are multiple lines of evidence supporting the AGW thesis, without any recourse to computer models - for example the cooling of the stratosphere, which is hard to explain without reference to an amplification of the greenhouse effect. And the anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been quantified using empirical obervations and fundamental physical equations, the kind that have been with us since the 19th century.

If all this is not enough to conclude that AGW might indeed by a reality what would the “definite proof” you talk about actually look like? I have asked this question of skeptics many times, and I have never received an answer beyond “I’ll know it when I see it.” If you cannot conceive of a “proof”, you have no business asking for it.

And, when you’ve answered the above point, can you also give me a “definite proof” of the Theory of Evolution? Or maybe the Theory of Gravity? Nobody else has managed it yet, of course. So … two more examples of “pixie dust” to add to your list.

I am an engineer as well, and I used to be somewhat suspicious of the concept of climate change, at first glance anyway.  Nevertheless when I approached the issue from a logical risk management perspective, I came to the conclusion that my decisions should be informed by the peer reviewed science general conclusions.  Furthermore, I decided that a manageable policy risk now is far better than saddling the future generations with a largely irreversible risk.  I feel that the scientific process is a great thing, and the National Academy of Sciences assessment is a culmination of the information gathered from that process.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

So, ask yourself, Filthy Engineer, why do you disagree with the National Academy of Science and the vast majority of practicing climate scientists on the fundamental aspect that CO2 can cause pretty significant warming?  Ask yourself honestly whether you are projecting your disdain for the proposed solutions and policies on the science.  Is there a policy or some form of climate change solution that would suit your needs?

Have a good one.

My house is powered by wind.  No rolling blackouts.. even in the cold winters of the northerly tar sands.

As an engineer, you will of course be able to provide an exact source for your statements.  Citation please?   (Didn’t think so.  You guys never have anything.)

Also, as you know, the numbers will lead the way.  Right?  You’re an engineer, so you don’t go by hunches or use advertising to make decisions, right?

The numbers have always and consistently pointed to the injection of CO2 in our atmosphere as the leading cause of global warming.  There are no other numbers adding up to that.

On the plus side, at least we’re at peak oil.  And ‘yes’, I will blame you.

Here’s Hansen’s ground breaking paper;

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm

So your house is powered purely by wind. In the Uk we are now being inundated with onshore and offshore wind farms supposedly supplying 7% of our electricity needs. It was interesting to see in January when we had a very cold spell caused by a high pressure system how effective that wind power was. Bearing in mind that wind turbines rarely achieve more than than 30% of their rated output at best (Load factor), (Look it up yourself) The total amount of wind generated from figures published by DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) was a staggering 0.9%.

Since we have been forced to have green energy, my energy bill has increased by 18% in the last year. yes you did read that right, 18%.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/2309-dukes-2011-chapter-7-renewable-sources.pdf

Not only such a pathetic figure of supply, but the British Taxpayer was also obligated to pay the wind turbine owners for the non supply of energy. We also had to feed back electricity to the non turning turbines in order to lubricate the gearboxes.

You might also like to see the stats for turbine failures. Our offshore wind turbines which were predicted to have a life of twenty years, are failing after eight. mainly due to poorly thought out monopile grout and scouring of the sea bed.

https://eeweb01.ee.kth.se/upload/publications/reports/2006/XR-EE-EEK_2006_009.pdf

So you might think again about wind power.

And peak oil. Sorry, cheap oil yes, peak oil no.

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/article.aspx?articleid=86242&categoryid=13

Of course we could start fracking for shale gas………………

Over to you.

 

“Since we have been forced to have green energy, my energy bill has increased by 18% in the last year. yes you did read that right, 18%.”

It’s funny how deniers so often add 1 + 1 and get 3. Let’s not look at facts eh TFE? Like……errr, I dont know…..say the fact that our houses are now filled with more energy sucking appliances than ever?! That we leave on standy, or leave the heating/cooling on all day or night? Noooo, it couldn’t be that, it’s the big green monster….that, with your engineering degree and trained logic is the only explanation.

The fact that you are so keen to avoid is, that it is our modern lifestyle that requires vastly more energy that is the cause of the cost increases. Oh….but doesnt the free market ensure that competition will force down prices and level things out? Not if you allow fossil fuel companies to convince you that there should be no alternative and that only their product should be used. If cleantech was allowed to compete with subsidies removed from fossil fuels, then yes….your power costs would definately go down.

Here are experts in the industry explaining that it is the costs of upgrading the transmission and distribution networks that are costing us more in power prices.

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/overview/419/Power-Play

“Energy bills have been rising significantly for the last five years.

Experts say different factors are behind the price hikes - higher demand, inefficiency and ageing infrastructure to name a few.”

http://www.utility-exchange.co.uk/upgrade-of-transmission-networks-will-increase-energy-bills-further-14698/

http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2011-12-13-electricity_ST_U.htm

“And peak oil. Sorry, cheap oil yes, peak oil no.”

The only place that believes the “drill baby drill” philosphophy will lower petrol/gas prices is on denier and conservative blogs. Elsewhere in fact world and reality, the story is different.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-more-drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/2012/03/01/gIQALNBtkR_blog.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/more-us-oil-drilling-wont-help-gas-prices_n_858473.html

Even if there is 1000’s of years fosil fuel supply. The costs will only rise, whereas cleantech will fall.


 

It’s funny how deniers so often add 1 + 1 and get 3. Let’s not look at facts eh TFE? Like……errr, I dont know…..say the fact that our houses are now filled with more energy sucking appliances than ever?! That we leave on standy, or leave the heating/cooling on all day or night? Noooo, it couldn’t be that, it’s the big green monster….that, with your engineering degree and trained logic is the only explanation.

Exscuse me for daring to argue. I have added no new equipment into my house. It’s the green tariff that has put up my bills. I did state that it was a rise of One year. The green imposed charge is stated on my bill.

As for:

“Here are experts in the industry explaining that it is the costs of upgrading the transmission and distribution networks that are costing us more in power prices.”

Of course it is. When you have intermittent energy supplies from green sources such as wind turbines then the control of such sources need very expensive forms of energy regulation. if you have one turbine with a generation frequency of 40 hz and another generating at 60 hz (wind speed dependant), then you will have to spend money to adjust the frequency of supply.

Please look up the practicalities.

The only place that believes the “drill baby drill” philosphophy will lower petrol/gas prices is on denier and conservative blogs. Elsewhere in fact world and reality, the story is different.

You obviously didn’t bother to read the link. Do keep up.

I’ve been accused of not linking. I have now, An element of curtesy would be to atleast read them before replying with a knee jerk reaction.

“I have added no new equipment into my house.”

Right, so you are the only customer that the power stations, transmission and distribution network cater for? So you have bought no electrical appliances in the past few years and can guarantee that no one else in your town has either?

“It’s the green tariff that has put up my bills.”

Oh yes, that is the only explanation isn’t it? The transmission and distribution providers sell their hardware and labour at the all fantastic price of $0.00. How profitable would that be eh? An entrepreneurs dream.

There couldn’t be any other explanation for adding a green tariff? For example, my house is powered by solar. I actually get credited back for 3 out of 4 quarters of my yearly bill. The winter quarter it costs me around $50-100 because there is less sun and more heating costs. Your costs on fossil fuels will only increase. Mine will only get better after the pay back period and my power is created onsite. I am largely self sufficient. My solar panels were subsidized, but hey, its putting les strain on the existing power generators and I have been paying for fossil fuel subsidies for years anyway.

Governments are encouraging more cleantech energy generation because it means people are more self sufficient and power costs under fossil fuels would only go up. Are you going to tell us, that before the green tariff came in, your power costs were actually going down each year?

“Of course it is. When you have intermittent energy supplies from green sources such as wind turbines then the control of such sources need very expensive forms of energy regulation.”

Are you saying that, if we had just stuck to fossil fuel generation, the prices would have magically gone down, there would be no requirement for upgrades to the transmission or distribution networks and peoples energy demands would actually go down?

“You obviously didn’t bother to read the link. Do keep up. I’ve been accused of not linking. I have now, An element of curtesy would be to atleast read them before replying with a knee jerk reaction.”

I did. I just didn’t want to embarrass you further. The morningstar link said:

“We do think oil prices are likely to increase as oil supply begins to tighten”

The paper, was just some guys thesis submitted to no peer review and your Department of Energy and Climate Change link straight out debunks your conspiracy theory…….if you had of just read it.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/aes/impacts/overall_impact/overall_impact.aspx

what affects our energy bills?

  • Recent increases in energy bills have been driven by rising international prices for fossil fuels, particularly gas, not energy and climate change policies
  • Energy bills are likely to continue on an upward trend over time, with or without policies, as a result of rising fossil fuel prices and network costs.
  • DECC policies – designed to deliver low-carbon, secure and affordable energy supplies, help households and businesses save energy and to support low income and vulnerable consumers – will have an impact on energy consumers across the UK.
  • The impact on households and businesses will be through changes in prices for goods and services and changing patterns of consumption, in particular for energy.
  • If fossil fuel prices rise faster and further than DECC’s central projection, the impact of policies (such as the EMR) on businesses will be reduced (and the benefits for households increased) as Government policies help to shield energy consumers from rising fossil fuel prices. However, if fossil fuel prices fall, then the benefits of policies would be less and the costs greater.
  • Global fossil fuel prices (particularly gas prices) are the main drivers of retail energy prices in the UK (and elsewhere) and if, as expected, they continue to rise over the coming years, energy bills will likely continue on an upward trend with or without policies. Were the UK to do nothing, our energy supplies would become much more dependent on imports, more vulnerable to volatility in global fossil fuel prices, and there would be a far higher chance of costly and disruptive blackouts.
  • Policies which help decarbonise the UK’s energy supplies (such as the Renewables Obligation (RO)) will reduce the vulnerability of UK energy prices to movements in fossil fuel prices but will add costs to retail prices in the short- to medium-term.”

You provided that site as evidence, it debunks you. What do you attribute your perception vs reality is down to?


 

I just renovated my stock 1950s bungalow (the same as every other one in Canada) and renovated the basement adding 60% more usable space, and I put in floor heating in the basement.

I upgraded my 1950’s behemoth furnace… with a 97% efficient furnace, and my gas bill went down a healthy 20%.

I still haven’t upgraded my insulation which as any 1950’s bungalow owner in Canada can tell you is paper.

You are aware of the solution to wind turbine frequency adjustment?  I mean.. you’re an engineer pretending problems are unsolvable which have already been solved in the past tense.   Not exactly a sound position for an engineer.  You could do a little leg work at least.  Look it up maybe?

Now that I think about it, I don’t think I’d buy something you designed.

As you know, GE has switching electronics on the generators which allow them to switch induced current frequencies.  So they can match grid frequency no matter what the blade spin is.  This is in production to my knowledge.

Here’s the 100% practical patent on it from 100% trained logic.  Go ahead and read it, appearently you will learn something new.

http://www.google.com/patents/US5083039

It’s strange but this latest Mooney article only appears on Desmog if you are logged in. What is that all about?

Are you trying to avoid the ‘Denier Swarms’ Chris?

It’s working now…

noticed the same myself.  Likely a bug with the web site implementation.

Or the ‘Denier Swarms’ hacking away.

Hahaha! Right!  :)

see http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/ .  Overall she’s fairly approving of what Lindzen has to say.

Lindzen should be compared with scientists actually involved in research. He does not come out as so reasonable compare to Schmidt et al.

And I don’t vist Joe Romm’s site all that often so I am not in a position to make adequately informed comments on him.

Seriously, you guys remind of the ‘Ministry of Truth’.

Since you don’t understand the reference, I’ll let you know that their purpose was of course the exact opposite.

Climate scientists get put through grillings by the likes of Inhofe. How do we put denialists like him through grillings and expose their evasions? The only opportunity right now that I can think of would be in a civil libel case. And I think a class action suit against Inhofe for libel might be good idea. American over emphasis on free speech would work in his favour in the US but claims of fraud, arrived at by willful blindness, might be enough for a finding against him. Outside the US if the book is like I expect it to be a libel case should be winable.

One thing. Questioning him about his motives by a conservatives who see his actions as irresponsible would be more effective than questioning by a progressive. They’d be more likely to go after the actual motives for his denial.

Actually, many denialists cross the line into slander and libel. A fund to pay for suing them might be a good idea.

Notwithstanding all the other valid reasons why Inhofe is wrong, is there any reason why this guy should be given any air time?  I mean, it’s not like there is any honest person on the planet that takes him seriously.  Even Inhofe doesn’t take Inhofe seriously.  It’s just a game he plays to assuage his fossil fuel funders.

Shouldn’t critical thinking play a role in modern society?  One sometimes wonders.

Bevis & Butthead, you know.

Star of the show.

James Delingpole of The Telegraph joins Rick Santorum in longing for the 11th Century:

“Why I am so rude to Warmists”

Feb 28, 2012

“Does anyone imagine that back in 1012 they were all agonising about how the children of the future might cope in 2012, what with all the scarce resources being used up at an alarming rate to make ships and spears and light warning beacons for the next Viking raid? Somehow I don’t think so. Yet this is precisely the kind of unutterable boll***s you hear being advanced almost every day by people like this liberal-leftie media type with whom I had my big row.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100139690/why-i-am-so-rude-to-warmists/

By the way, ‘intellectually raped’ is what Dilingpole said in describing how he felt after being asked a single question from Sir Paul Nurse, a scientist and president of the Royal Society.

(About 60 seconds in.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0

In the mean time I wish him well in going to to his barber for a good blood letting.  That should cure him, and that’s what we did back then.

The disengenous way to attack an opposing view is to castigate the messenger. Is that science or just a quasi religious fervour similar to the inquistion that burned witches? The more I see of this site is the lack of inquiry in lieu of dogma. Science is never settled. Lets face it Einstein’s theories are being questioned. “Science is never settled”. True science moves on to find answers. Unless it does the earth remains a flat sphere being circled by the sun.

reminds me of a new posting on WUWT:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-theory-is-not-settled-science/ 

apologize for citing a WUWT source, but the comments by Robert Brown of Duke are very interesting.  His final sentence:

“In the meantime, it would be so lovely if we could lose one single phrase in the ‘debate’. The CAGW theory is not ‘settled science’. I’m not even sure there is any such thing.”

“”In the meantime, it would be so lovely if we could lose one single phrase in the ‘debate’. The CAGW theory is not ‘settled science’. I’m not even sure there is any such thing.”“

Only deniers use the term “CAGW” to exagerate the position of climate realists. The term is not used anywhere else but denier blogs and is used as a strawman.

 

“Lets face it Einstein’s theories are being questioned. “Science is never settled”. True science moves on to find answers. Unless it does the earth remains a flat sphere being circled by the sun.”

Great idea! Lets put all science on hold in case someone 50-100 years down the track updates or replaces the theory.

It’s a strange piece of cognitive dissonance where deniers one one hand are saying they are benig told the “science is settled”, therefore you would think research would stop. Yet, on the other hand, they complain that so much tax payer funds are being used on research into AGW.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that if scientists believed it was settled, they would stop research now and draw a line in the sand and say, thats it, case closed? Instead of continuing to research AGW and risk discovering answers that oppose their current position?

 

Lets just ignore gravity until then, OK?

[x]

There are enough articles on the “myth of peak oil” floating around the Internet to fill a book; and there are enough books on the subject to fill a small library.  One of the common threads throughout these publications is their lack of credible sources, because not only is peak oil real, but we’re rapidly approaching that threshold. 

An example that is smacking the United...

read more