Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

yeah, she was pretty hot.

 

she was no kwanzaa mcdaniels.

 

Ouch...

OddsOn, I would be interested in your retort. I find your posts entertaining.

In other news...

WASHINGTON — U.S. Jim Inhofe, who earlier said a criminal investigation "probably should be'' conducted into allegations the EPA suppressed a climate change report, said Tuesday he is not qualified to make that determination.

"I have no way of knowing,'' the Oklahoma Republican said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090701_16_A1_WASHIN600382

 

But innuendo of impropriety established?

Check!

 

who is, really?

(i laughed out loud, by the way)

 

I and others have posted pages and pages of data, charts and links to full reports. I have described in detail exactly the role of CO2 and how we are, as a species, loading the dice of future climate. Links to every kind of data set you could want have been provided, and you have shown no interest in anything but the tiny outliers or statistical noise that support both your alleged viewpoint (I don't believe that's your real viewpoint, by the way) and also the established energy industry (that motivation I believe, and I sympathize with one supporting their work niche.)

Best wishes, and thanks for using my favorite nickname.

 

Post your best source, please. Just one. Can you do that?

 

I remember seeing that nut Inhoff sp? who cares? on the Senate floor saying that God i.e. the Bible required Judaea and Samaria to be under Jewish control prior to the second coming so he could not support a two state solution.

 

Excerpt:

In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a sea level rise of between 19 and 59 centimetres by 2100, but this excluded "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow". Crudely speaking, these estimates assume ice sheets are a bit like vast ice cubes sitting on a flat surface, which will stay in place as they slowly melt. But what if some ice sheets are more like ice cubes sitting on an upside-down bowl, which could suddenly slide off into the sea as conditions get slippery? "Larger rises cannot be excluded but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood," the IPCC report stated.

Even before it was released, the report was outdated. Researchers now know far more. And while we still don't understand the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers well enough to make precise predictions, we are narrowing down the possibilities. The good news is that some of the scarier scenarios, such as a sudden collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, now appear less likely. The bad news is that there is a growing consensus that the IPCC estimates are wildly optimistic.

The oceans are already rising. Global average sea level rose about 17 centimetres in the 20th century, and the rate of rise is increasing. The biggest uncertainty for those trying to predict future changes is how humanity will behave. Will we start to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases sometime soon, or will we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere?

Even if all emissions stopped today, sea level would continue to rise. "The current rate of rise would continue for centuries if temperatures are constant, and that would add about 30 centimetres per century to global sea level," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. "If we burn all fossil fuels, we are likely to end up with many metres of sea level rise in the long run, very likely more than 10 metres in my view."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html?full=true

 

Rashmon, the reason I'm done posting links and data: (edit for the reading impaired -- I will not post further info in these. That is in no way equivalent to "cannot" or similar transparent distortions.)


The disingenuous request to prove that CO2 has caused the temperature rise is akin to asking one to prove that cholesterol alone causes heart disease or that loose monetary regulation, in isolation, led to the current economic fiasco.

And since it's not super simple, the denial crowd will always have a little unpainted corner from which to generate the scientists-as-political-schemers-or-collective-idiots conspiracies. Oh well. Somebody slap me if I ever post in one of these warming threads again. Am not Sisyphus, or not often.

 

You can't provide a single article that bolsters your point, B-Bob? Your best article. Just one. You can't do that?


What does that say about your opinion? Is it informed?

 

Jorge, I'm about 5 minutes away from filling this page with articles, don't make me do it. It's time-consuming for me and most likely a waste of time. And it's (I assume) embarrassing for you.