About drasties
Contact Us
Chat RoomDE BOER KOEKOEK VAN DE AMERIKAANSE POLITIEK.
Debat over de opwarming van de aarde is noodzakelijk. Helaas beginnen tegenstanders van de theorie dat de mens verantwoordelijk is voor ‘global warming’ dezelfde fanatieke trekjes te vertonen als Al Gore. We denken in Nederland bijvoorbeeld aan mensen als Paul Scheffer en Simon Rozendaal. Zij zoeken hun eigen feitjes bij elkaar en negeren het grote geheel. De Amerikaanse senator Inhofe gaat nog verder. Hij liegt en bedriegt. Hij zit in de zak van de grote oliemaarschappijen en is de boer Koekoek van de Amerikaanse politiek: ‘kwee nie wat het is, maar ik ben er teugen’.
Sen. Inhofe’s misleading climate denial ‘report’.
Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a ‘report‘ claiming that ‘over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims in 2007′. The Washington Times described the report as ‘Scientists doubt climate change’. But, according to TAPPED’s Kate Sheppard, many of the scientists quoted in Inhofe’s report don’t actually doubt that ‘climate change is real and a problem‘:
The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man-made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren’t all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem - many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming. Others simply cited phenomena that might be causing warming in addition to that caused by greenhouse gases.
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Al Gore, told the Times that “25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.” Adam Siegel has more debunking of Inhofe here.
UPDATE: Joe Romm takes a closer look at some of the members on Inhofe’s global warming deniers list.
december 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
The Unbelievers.
Dat zijn de ongelovigen.
Zij geloven er helemaal niks van. Zij geloven niet dat de temperatuur op aarde significant is veranderd, maken zich absoluut geen zorgen, en vinden al helemaal niet dat de mensheid zich schuldig hoeft te voelen.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Al Gore doet niet aan wetenschap. Hij doet aan politiek en gebruikt daarbij wetenschappelijke argumenten. Hij wil vooral zijn idee op een overtuigende wijze aan de dag leggen. Omdat het voor het grote publiek mag hij niet de wetenschappelijke twijfel tonen. Het zou het publiek nog verder verlammen. Zover ik weet staat ook zijn docu vol fouten. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat het onderwerp nu ook bij mensen besproken wordt die, hoe onvoorstelbaar ook, nog nooit van het broeikas effect gehoord hadden. Dat is op zich een knappe prestatie!
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:04 am
Gore pretendeert ook niet wetenschapper te zijn.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Je scepsis over Gore’s argumentatie (en die van andere klimaatgoeroes) is terecht, maar de argumenten van de “klimaatsceptici” snijden volgens mij minstens zo weinig (of nog minder) hout. Meestal zoomen die selectief in op (a) onzekerheden en ambigu
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Ze hebben niet per se ongelijk (en de onzekerheden in klimaatwetenschap worden misschien te weinig door anderen gethematiseerd), maar de conclusie die daar vervolgens uit getrokken wordt, dat bijvoorbeeld een onderneming als het IPCC ‘onwetenschappelijk’ bezig zou zijn, doet meestal geen recht aan de complexiteit van het wetenschappelijk bedrijf.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Unsurprisingly, they took their quote-mining techniques and their ability to cherry pick ‘facts’ straight out of the Creationists’ playbook -that other section of the Republican base
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
It takes an incredibly simple-minded moron to believe anything this Jack Inhofe says.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 am
Scientists funded by Bobby Kennedy Jr. and the National Resources Defense Council are beholden to the enviromental lobby. They can’t be considered objective.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Scientists funded by Bobby Kennedy Jr. and the National Resources Defense Council are beholden to the enviromental lobby. They can’t be considered objective.
Comment by mandolin
Yeah, you’re right. Now if you can just discredit the other 99.9% of weather related scientists who back climate change theory you might really have an argument.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 am
We hebben het bij global warming over onvolledige kennis, maar wel kennis. De vraag is is het zoveel dat er actie moet worden ondernomen? En heeft dat zin.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
‘Now if you can just discredit the other 99.9% of weather related scientists who back climate change theory you might really have an argument.’
Here is a link to the 400 who discredit Global Warming
http://epw.senate.gov/ public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Please provide me with a link to the 399,600(99.9%) scientists who think it is real.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Not a report - just a blog post lie
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
‘Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.’
Morano was ‘previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine.’
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
everyone knows how evil those non-profit enviro-groups are, what with their billions in quarterly profits, and entanglements in foreign policy and their crazy light bulbs and what-not
(puh-leeeze) couldn’t you find anyone dirtier and more powerful to stick up for, Mr. Mandolin? or anyone smaller or more disadvantaged to pick on?
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
What is the difference between being funded by exxon and being funded by the sierra club and the National Resources Defense Council?
Comment by mandolin
Seriously? Oil companies have only one agenda, make more money by selling more oil. Sierra Club and other environmental orgs have only one agenda, improving the environment that we live in.
Of course, these two types of organizations have opposite goals. But the former doesn’t give two sh1ts about you or me, just our dollars, while the later does care about you, me, and everyone on the planet. The former are greedy corporations, and the later are humanist non-profits.
Shall I go on?
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 am
I must admit, global warming supporters have been very accurate with their forecasts. Look at the hurricane season for example. Global warming scientists accurately predicted that we would have record numbers of hurricanes hitting land this year and
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 am
The average annual number of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
According to a September 15 U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) press release, the change occurred as global sea-surface temperatures increased over the same period.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Fact is that Inhofe wouldn’t recognize a scientist from a congressional page - except if he wanted to molest him, that is.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 am
‘And mandolin, even if the water temperatures were not warming dont you think alternative methods would be a good thing? Sitting on a highway during rush hour sucking fumes cant be good for us.’
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 am
‘And mandolin, even if the water temperatures were not warming dont you think alternative methods would be a good thing? Sitting on a highway during rush hour sucking fumes cant be good for us.’
Comment by Xisithrus
Then come up with a serious alternative to oil. The world will not run on farts and gummy bears. Solar power will NEVER be able to power the world.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Solar power will NEVER be able to power the world.
Comment by mandolin
Why not?
A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity
http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
How many hurricanes hit land 200 years ago?
Comment by mandolin
I’m curious about something Mandolin. What do you have to lose, personally, by a reduction of CO2 and a general cleaning up of the environment? I don’t understand how anyone, other than various corporations, can be against a cleaner Earth to live in.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
‘I’m curious about something Mandolin. What do you have to lose, personally, by a reduction of CO2′
Comment by Namtillaku
The US economy.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
The US economy.
Comment by mandolin
I said YOU, personally. The U.S. economy is already being destroyed by the occupation of Iraq.
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 am
Namtilly,
The US economy affects me because I LIVE IN THE U.S.!!!
Can you discuss anything without throwing in Iraq?
december 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
Hard to discuss the economy without mentioning Iraq. Think how bad things would be without all the billions of tax dollars pouring into the Military industrial complex. Tax cut for wealthiest, tax breaks for oil companies as they set record profits. How about a little effort to improve all our lives and the economy in the process.