PDA

View Full Version : Wind is a finite resource - Tea Party congressman Joe Barton; TEXAS



Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:15 AM
http://injusticebydesign.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/windharnessing.jpg

Tea Party Republican Joe Barton’s warning that squandering natural resources might slow winds down has created panic about a possible wind shortage in the future.
Ridding the world of tornadoes and hurricanes might be a blessing and save America billions of dollars a year, but breezes on hot days will be sorely missed. Imagine grandfathers in the sweltering heat reminiscing: When I was young, you had to hold onto your hat some days. Tell that to the windless generation and they don’t believe you. Flying kites made a man out of you.



The wholesale destruction of cultural artifacts and allusions is also of extreme concern. What meaning will be lost forever in movies like Gone With The Wind? Will the children of a windless world be impoverished by their inability to grasp the subtext of Wind in the Willows? Will future pacifists look in vain for the answer to “How many times must the cannon balls fly before they’re forever banned?” And what the hell will risk-takers throw caution to?


Because we can’t predict the impact of still air on our planet, the expert advice is to adopt the precautionary principle. Keep burning fossil fuels lest future generations never feel the cool wind in their hair. The only people that could possibly benefit from this are people with comb-overs.

http://injusticebydesign.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/gone-with-the-wind/



This Ladies and Gentlemen is a proud Untied States Congressman from Texas :laughing4:

hanger4
10-10-2013, 07:29 AM
Would be nice if this quote could be sourced

by someone other than a nobody blog at wordpress.

Until then I'll put this in my circular file.

jillian
10-10-2013, 07:34 AM
Would be nice if this quote could be sourced

by someone other than a nobody blog at wordpress.

Until then I'll put this in my circular file.

you mean like Time magazine?

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html

it could be sourced. it has been sourced. you chose not to source it.

google is your friend.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:35 AM
http://www.criminalthinking.net/ct/content/image/Pins/pin_denial%281%29.jpg

Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:35 AM
you mean like Time magazine?

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html

it could be sourced. it has been sourced. you chose not to source it.

google is your friend.

Search Engine Deep :laugh:

Chris
10-10-2013, 08:29 AM
you mean like Time magazine?

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html

it could be sourced. it has been sourced. you chose not to source it.

google is your friend.


Except your source doesn't do that now does it. It says "In a 2009 hearing, Barton implied that wind is a "finite resource" and that harnessing it would "slow the winds down" which would "cause the temperature to go up.""


Matters little, Barton is the Al Gore of the GOP.

jillian
10-10-2013, 08:32 AM
Except your source doesn't do that now does it. It says "In a 2009 hearing, Barton implied that wind is a "finite resource" and that harnessing it would "slow the winds down" which would "cause the temperature to go up.""


Matters little, Barton is the Al Gore of the GOP.


except that it does do that, chris..,. it proves he said it. what is your point other than to interject?

as to al gore. who is talking about al gore?

try to stay on topic.

patrickt
10-10-2013, 08:33 AM
I'm not sure I care. Guam isn't going to tip over and sink either. The congressman's logic sounds eerily like that of the AGW hysterics, doesn't it. For now, I'll stick with the Democrat Rep. Connelly who asked the IRS agent testifying if she "consorted with the devil".
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/irs-official-consorted-devil-20517933?.tsrc=operaweb

hanger4
10-10-2013, 08:34 AM
you mean like Time magazine?

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html

it could be sourced. it has been sourced. you chose not to source it.

google is your friend.

Sorry jillian that's cigars job, its his thread.

jillian
10-10-2013, 08:38 AM
Sorry jillian that's cigars job, its his thread.

it's his job to source... which he did.

your not liking the source then makes it up to you, imo, although commenting on a particular source you don't find credible is something we all do.

does that split the baby well enough for you?

Chris
10-10-2013, 08:40 AM
except that it does do that, chris..,. it proves he said it. what is your point other than to interject?

as to al gore. who is talking about al gore?

try to stay on topic.

"Implied" is interpretation.

Al Gore is comparison.

Chris
10-10-2013, 08:42 AM
I'm not sure I care. Guam isn't going to tip over and sink either. The congressman's logic sounds eerily like that of the AGW hysterics, doesn't it. For now, I'll stick with the Democrat Rep. Connelly who asked the IRS agent testifying if she "consorted with the devil".
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/irs-official-consorted-devil-20517933?.tsrc=operaweb


There's all kinds of nutters in the government. Government is a nut-magnet. But I still say Al Gore takes the cake.

Mainecoons
10-10-2013, 09:48 AM
This is what Time considers a gaff:


1. Barton is a long-time denier of global warming. He's called it "a triumph over good sense and science" and in 2007 hearings he told Al Gore, "You're not just off a little. You're totally wrong." In railing against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's passage of global warming legislation last year, Barton said: "You can't regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress can regulate God."

Read more: http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html#ixzz2hKYPHhfO

Clearly the raging liberal who penned this hit piece must thing the Democrats can regulate God and the weather. The language of it is replete with loaded leftist semantics.

And Fat Al's hockey stick wasn't off just a little, it is fraudulent.

What has been cited here is a highly biased hit piece from a highly biased source. When you all are prepared to provide the quote in context from a credible source, I'll take a look at it.

Chris
10-10-2013, 09:53 AM
This is what Time considers a gaff:



Clearly the raging liberal who penned this hit piece must thing the Democrats can regulate God and the weather. The language of it is replete with loaded leftist semantics.

And Fat Al's hockey stick wasn't off just a little, it is fraudulent.

What has been cited here is a highly biased hit piece from a highly biased source. When you all are prepared to provide the quote in context from a credible source, I'll take a look at it.


Problem is, as shown earlier, liberal progressives accept that biased spin as fact.

nic34
10-10-2013, 09:53 AM
Clearly the raging liberal who penned this hit piece must thing the Democrats can regulate God and the weather.


must think

.... and yes, the democrats CAN regulate God and the weather... didn't you know?

Mainecoons
10-10-2013, 09:56 AM
must think

.... and yes, the democrats CAN regulate God and the weather... didn't you know?

Given how delusional you are, Nic, I'm not surprised you believe so.

:rofl:

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:57 AM
except that it does do that, chris..,. it proves he said it. what is your point other than to interject?

as to al gore. who is talking about al gore?

try to stay on topic.

Deny Deny Deny Deny ... :grin:

But there's NO Denying ... he's a US Congressman ... from Texas :smiley_ROFLMAO:

hanger4
10-10-2013, 10:00 AM
it's his job to source... which he did.

your not liking the source then makes it up to you, imo, although commenting on a particular source you don't find credible is something we all do.

does that split the baby well enough for you?

Sorry jilian I prefer legitimate sources such as the one you CYAed cigars with.

The wittle blog cigar sourced didn't even source it's statment.

You and I both know any thing can said on the internets.

nic34
10-10-2013, 10:09 AM
It's real easy to get into political weeds about this, as Gore and Palin have shown.

Being objective is difficult even for the experts as factcheck points out:

Palin vs. Gore Climate Showdown

On Dec. 9, an op-ed by Sarah Palin on climate change ran in the Washington Post. Al Gore responded to Palin’s piece and made some fresh claims of his own later that day in an interview with MSNBC. We find that both engaged in some distortions and have been rightly called out by experts in the field.

■Gore said that 40 percent of the polar ice cap is already gone. That’s an outdated figure — it has recovered in the last two years, and is now about 24 percent smaller than the 1979-2000 average.

■Gore’s claim that all Arctic ice would "go completely" over the next decade is greatly exaggerated. The scientist he is citing was actually talking about nearly ice-free conditions, and only in the summer months.

■Gore and Palin both left out information when discussing the economic impact of climate legislation. Gore dodged a question about job losses, and Palin ignored the potentially severe effects of doing nothing.

■Palin misrepresented the contents of the leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit, saying that they show "fraudulent scientific practices." That’s not the case.

-----

One e-mail exchange between Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory scientist Edward Cook and University of Virginia scientist Michael Mann shows what scientific debate can look like in the climate field. After some back-and-forth about Cook’s temperature reconstruction and his conclusions about the medieval warming period, Mann writes: “Lets figure this all out based on good, careful work and see what the data has to say in the end. We’re working towards this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc. and will keep everyone posted on this.” Cook sums up:

I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don’t want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/

Cigar
10-10-2013, 10:22 AM
If you have to choose between Sarah Palin and Climate Scientist ... or Al Gore supporting and Climate Scientist finding ... wtf are we choosing :laugh:

Mainecoons
10-10-2013, 10:23 AM
It's a shame Nic's thoughtful post had to be followed by a juvenile, partisan hack from Cigar.

Why would anyone rely on either Gore or Palin on this topic? Neither are scientists.

Chris
10-10-2013, 10:25 AM
If you have to choose between Sarah Palin and Climate Scientist ... or Al Gore supporting and Climate Scientist finding ... wtf are we choosing :laugh:

We shouldn't be choosing between politicians on climate science, why would you even want to? And believe me, Gore is the last politician you want to defend.


Oops, mainecoons already said it.

Chris
10-10-2013, 10:28 AM
It's real easy to get into political weeds about this, as Gore and Palin have shown.

Being objective is difficult even for the experts as factcheck points out:

Palin vs. Gore Climate Showdown

On Dec. 9, an op-ed by Sarah Palin on climate change ran in the Washington Post. Al Gore responded to Palin’s piece and made some fresh claims of his own later that day in an interview with MSNBC. We find that both engaged in some distortions and have been rightly called out by experts in the field.

■Gore said that 40 percent of the polar ice cap is already gone. That’s an outdated figure — it has recovered in the last two years, and is now about 24 percent smaller than the 1979-2000 average.

■Gore’s claim that all Arctic ice would "go completely" over the next decade is greatly exaggerated. The scientist he is citing was actually talking about nearly ice-free conditions, and only in the summer months.

■Gore and Palin both left out information when discussing the economic impact of climate legislation. Gore dodged a question about job losses, and Palin ignored the potentially severe effects of doing nothing.

■Palin misrepresented the contents of the leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit, saying that they show "fraudulent scientific practices." That’s not the case.

-----

One e-mail exchange between Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory scientist Edward Cook and University of Virginia scientist Michael Mann shows what scientific debate can look like in the climate field. After some back-and-forth about Cook’s temperature reconstruction and his conclusions about the medieval warming period, Mann writes: “Lets figure this all out based on good, careful work and see what the data has to say in the end. We’re working towards this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc. and will keep everyone posted on this.” Cook sums up:

I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don’t want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/



Agree, neither is a good source of facts on climate change, they're politicians. This is what I mean by the clown in the OP is the Al Gore of the GOP.

Then again factcheck is not a good source of facts either, it's opinion.

Go to scientists instead.