Climate Change Denier Admits He Accepted Science Until he Saw the Cost of Remidiation

[Todd Ianuzzi]

You cannot make things like this up.

Inhoufe of Oklahoma, the leading global warming denier in the Senate, said this to Rachel Maddow:

“I was actually on your side of this issue (accepting the established science of climate change) when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...lobal-warming/

I like what Michael Kingsley said, "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

[blue adept]

You cannot make things like this up.

Inhoufe of Oklahoma, the leading global warming denier in the Senate, said this to Rachel Maddow:

“I was actually on your side of this issue (accepting the established science of climate change) when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...lobal-warming/

I like what Michael Kingsley said, "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

Todd, the new republicans will believe this BS because they want to. If you go to TED.com and listen to experts on the environment, you would be very afraid for the human race. We are raping this world worse than locusts, and if we do not wake up, we will no longer exist.

[HoosierHelen]

You cannot make things like this up.

Inhoufe of Oklahoma, the leading global warming denier in the Senate, said this to Rachel Maddow:

“I was actually on your side of this issue (accepting the established science of climate change) when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...lobal-warming/

I like what Michael Kingsley said, "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

Part 2 of that interview with him and Rachel again references this topic and how he is upset that the public schools in Oklahoma are teaching his grandchildren about global warming. This reference comes toward the end of this interview on Part 2. The first part of the interview deals with his recent book and the misinformation he included regarding Rachel. Most entertaining and yet disappointing to watch his duck & dodge responses to her very direct questions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1352937.html

[Todd Ianuzzi]

Todd, the new republicans will believe this BS because they want to. If you go to TED.com and listen to experts on the environment, you would be very afraid for the human race. We are raping this world worse than locusts, and if we do not wake up, we will no longer exist.

I can understand, but not accept, why the oil and gas deny the science. There are huge financial implications for them.

I was skeptical about 20 years ago, but three independant things have convinced me that the planet is warming and human hydrocarbon and carbon burning has caused it.

1. The scientific evidence is well established. My wife is a biology professor and basic environmental biology texts teach anthropogenic global warming as established science. Climatologists universally accept the science and only a handful reject the anthropogenic cause.

2. Neutral barometers of climate change are present everywhere. When I lived in Minnesota, opossums were extending their range north in to Minnesota. Thirty or forty years ago they could not survive there because of the sub-25 degree winters. Tempatures have warmed and they react to the changes. Many other plants and animals have changed habitat because of these changes.

3. It took hundreds of millions of years to store all of the carbon and hydrocarbons (coal, gas and oil) in there huge underground concentrations. A time scale we cannot even imagine. But in only 150 years or so, humans have consumed and released much of this carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that not have a major impact on the climate?

[Todd Ianuzzi]

I can understand, but not accept, why the oil and gas deny the science. There are huge financial implications for them.

I was skeptical about 20 years ago, but three independant things have convinced me that the planet is warming and human hydrocarbon and carbon burning has caused it.

1. The scientific evidence is well established. My wife is a biology professor and basic environmental biology texts teach anthropogenic global warming as established science. Climatologists universally accept the science and only a handful reject the anthropogenic cause.

2. Neutral barometers of climate change are present everywhere. When I lived in Minnesota, opossums were extending their range north in to Minnesota. Thirty or forty years ago they could not survive there because of the sub-25 degree winters. Tempatures have warmed and they react to the changes. Many other plants and animals have changed habitat because of these changes.

3. It took hundreds of millions of years to store all of the carbon and hydrocarbons (coal, gas and oil) in there huge underground concentrations. A time scale we cannot even imagine. But in only 150 years or so, humans have consumed and released much of this carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that not have a major impact on the climate?

One other neutral barometer. When I was a kid and young adult, we generally planted corn and beans the first week of May. Planting in northern Indiana has been move back until late April. Right now, Amishmen are disking their fields. Soil tempatures may allow planting in mid-April. I will seed cold weather garden crops next week when I usually do not seed until early April.

[blue adept]

I can understand, but not accept, why the oil and gas deny the science. There are huge financial implications for them.

I was skeptical about 20 years ago, but three independant things have convinced me that the planet is warming and human hydrocarbon and carbon burning has caused it.

1. The scientific evidence is well established. My wife is a biology professor and basic environmental biology texts teach anthropogenic global warming as established science. Climatologists universally accept the science and only a handful reject the anthropogenic cause.

2. Neutral barometers of climate change are present everywhere. When I lived in Minnesota, opossums were extending their range north in to Minnesota. Thirty or forty years ago they could not survive there because of the sub-25 degree winters. Tempatures have warmed and they react to the changes. Many other plants and animals have changed habitat because of these changes.

3. It took hundreds of millions of years to store all of the carbon and hydrocarbons (coal, gas and oil) in there huge underground concentrations. A time scale we cannot even imagine. But in only 150 years or so, humans have consumed and released much of this carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that not have a major impact on the climate?

My wife is a biologist also, and here we differ. I believe if man is part culprit, it is to delay a natural cycle. For the past hundreds of years we have added millions of tons of soot particles to the atmosphere which would in effect delay what is happening now. I believe the last little ice age was the beginning of a cycle that was averted in a partial way by the actions of man. The warming cycle that we now going into, while natural in nature, will be much more intense due in part to man. For anybody to deny what is happening is just ludicrous, and shows the depths of their self denial, [again, religious thoughts that God will not allow us to destroy ourselves].For us to think we can do anything about it, is I believe naive at best, dangerous at worse. I believe as stewards, we should marshal our resources better, even if it is more expensive, but, I am, after all. just one little guy of modest means.

[blue adept]

This is the kind of talks I have been watching.


http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hanse...te_change.html