Appearing on ABC's This Week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the following when George Stephanopoulos asked what the GOP's position is on carbon emissions: "George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide."
:-|
The CO2-causes-global-warming idea was seized by politicians many years ago. Generally, the increase of CO2 gas concentration in the atmosphere is supposed to result in an increase of some sort of 'greenhouse gas' thermal shield to prevent heat from being radiated into space thereby resulting in an accumulation of heat on Planet Earth. Up until 2007, the politicians could point to gradually warming surface temperatures as support for the CO2-concentration-increasing-thermal-barrier idea. Unfortunately, the earth's temperature is mostly affected by heat output from the sun...and that has begun a decline that no one understands but may be leading to another mini ice age that could last for two hundred years or so. Nothing the politicians do wrt carbon dioxide 'emissions' will have the slightest effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration or global temperatures but it might have some sort of beneficial effect on conservation of petroleum which would allow the supplies to last further through an upcoming period of colder temperatures.
"Carcinogen"????
I have to ask why you posted this to this group, though.
Thank you. You are every bit as knowledgeable on this topic as Boehner.
You can learn more about this topic by studying the latest consensus report from real climate scientists using peer reviewed scientific method here:
Those 'real climate scientists' at IPCC don't seem any more open-minded than you do nor do they appear to be scientists. For example, they don't appear to recognize the importance of the sun to earth's climate and the effect of a decline in solar output on that climate. We are currently at the beginning of an unprecedented decline in solar output that is just starting to impact the climate and yet your 'real climate scientists' are absolutely blind to the onrushing train in their tunnel. Even NASA has begun to belatedly recognize the implications:
Mike, this fellow is will use his leadership position to influence cap and trade legislation. I'd like to earn carbon credits for driving my Prius. Wouldn't we all? That isn't likely to happen with uninformed, misinformed or perhaps just plain stupid leadership.
I am an electrical engineer. The link I sent you is in fact the consensus finding, to date, of climate scientist from many countries. Their science is subject to peer review. If you knew anything at all about the scientific method you would appreciate their work.
Had you actually taken the link and read the report you would know that it is scientific, not political. Moreover, you would know it addresses the role played by water vapor and the other gases in our atmosphere. It addresses the sun's radiation.
You must somehow come to understand that we have evolved and adapted to the climate and land mass afforded by the mix of gasses in our atmosphere. Once you do you will realize we are changing that mix and, as a consequence the atmosphere will no longer be suitable for some creatures and the habitable land mass will shrink in the face of our burgeoning population.
I understand. It's just that I've seen other groups get overrun with political posts and would prefer not to see that happen here. I'm kind of sensitive because I'm actually the person who started this group (at Michelle Steiner's suggestion). What we really need is a separate hybrid vehicles and politics group.
Anyway, my real purpose in posting was to say:
"Carcinogen"????
I'll expand on that now. Geez, did that idiot really use the word "carcinogen"?! Is Boehner actually so stupid as to not know what it means?
To those who seek to denigrate and diminish the effects of global climate change, it is a political issue; therefore they believe that all views opposing theirs on the subject are politically based.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political one. Their entire raison d'etre is to compile information on global climate change that supports their political objectives. Any 'peer review' that they claim to have done was done by other non-scientists of a like mindset. In contrast to that, a scientific organization does not have a political view but exists to provide a means of publish and exchange techical information regardless of what 'political' view it might support or disprove. Real peer review does not address the popularity of the results or conclusions but the soundness of the process which was used to arrive at them.
The 'mix of gases' in the atmosphere, the habitable land mass, the evoluion of humans, and human population growth are all topics unrelated to the alleged 'greenhouse gas' impact of CO2, although your reference to them suggests a philosphical orientation that the 'CO2-is-killing-planet-earth' bunch often shares as some sort of ersatz religion which seems to expound on the evilness of mankind's changes to Mother Earth.
Since he thinks cows fart carbon dioxide he apparently is this stupid.
No, it is a scientific body.
Their entire
Doesn't it seem strange to you that scientists from so many different nations have the same political objective? What would that political objective be?
Any 'peer review' that they claim
Not true. The work of these scientists is subject to scientific review.
In
You are putting a political label on science. They have no political motivation whatever.
Our National Academy of Sciences endorsed their findings.
I'm disappointed that you make such stong yet completely unsubstantiated statements. From time-to-time one of the few scientists that disagree with the IPCC published a filing contradicting their work. Each and every one of these challenges has proven false through scientific review. Even the infamous "hockey stick" controvery was laid to rest by our own Academy of Sciences. Still, there are people like you who cling to junk science for reasons I cannot fathom. I'll give you this: If you are wrong and we do nothing the cost in lives and dollars will be higher than anything civilazation has faced to date. If the IPCC is right and we do something, we will be free from the yoke of middle east oil and healthier in the absence of atmospheric pollutants. Take your pick.
In a word, "Baloney!" Rather, it is you critics who have the political agenda.
Do you even know what 'science' is? Scientists ask questions, formulate hypotheses to attempt to answer their questions, and conduct experimental studies to test their hypotheses. If they find something new or interesting, they write about what they've observed and publish it so that others can benefit from their work. 'Politicians' gather up information to support their agenda, commission reports to validate their position, collect helpful endorsements from political allies, declare further investigation to be unneeded, and strike out at anyone that disagrees. Now which category do you think the IPCC and their 'report' fits into?
CO2-is-warming-the-world fans look at a warming climate and increasing CO2 concentration and conflate the two with a circular reasoning process that goes like this:
1) A rising CO2 concentration will cause an increase in the average global temperature. 2) The average global temperature has increased. 3) Therefore, the rising CO2 concentration caused an increase in the global average temperature.I'm looking forward in the next few years to seeing how the CO2-is-warming-the-world fans ill explain our presently cooling climate that began in 2007. I expect their 'explanation' to include a tap dancing segment.
Exacty. This is precisely what the IPCC has done.
'Politicians' gather up
Clearlly the IPCC fits into the first category. Read their latest report. If it is too technical for you, read their executive summary.
Regarding your second paragraph, please explain how a group of scientists from dozens of different nations managed to agree on a political objective and tell us what that objective is? Frankly, you sound a bit paranoid to me. Are you thinking they stand to gain something by reporting the consequences of carbon emissions? If so, what?
Wow, now you attribute motives to me! That is a projection of mental illness extending well beyond the paranoia we observed earlier. It's best I leave this discussion. Get help.
No...they have not. The IPCC 'knows' what the answer is...and so do you. You (and they) have no need for questions, hypotheses, experimental observations, or even time to thoughtfully consider the nature of global climate. You KNOW that CO2 is warming the world and you are posting here for no other reason than to heap your scorn on anyone who disagrees and to agitate for 'carbon emission caps' that you are dead certain will help the 'problem' though you don't appear to have even the foggiest idea of what the mechanism of a 'greenhouse gas' is or how it allegedly prevents heat from leaving Planet Earth.
Clearly, you and they fit into the 'politician' category.
It's obvious that any 'carbon emissions caps' will not have the slightest effect on global temperatures or, most likely, on your lifestyle but they will create economic hardship for disadvantaged peoples.
Yep, yours is real "rock, paper scissors" stuff, there, skippy.
Since carbon dioxide is harmless, let's have Boehner wear a plastic bag taped at the neck ... hummmm this might work for all global warming skeptics.
Bob Wilson
Oh, you're just stupid.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.