“Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated,” Ken Buck said yesterday, The Coloradoan reports today. “The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.”
Even if you think global warming is a hoax, like Ken Buck apparently does, it’s inaccurate to say that that “more and more” people share this view, at least the people who count the most: scientists.
“The trend in the scientific community has been to make more and more certain statements about global warming, and more importantly that it’s caused by pollution,” said Dan Lashof, Director the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center. “The claim that more and more scientists are saying this is just a lie. The U.S National Academy of Sciences this year affirmed the science [supporting global warming] in a comprehensive study called America’s Climate Choices”
The Colorado Independent points out today that Buck’s views on global warming put him once again on the scientific fringe, continuing a trend from Sunday when he called sexual orientation is a choice.
Buck, who’s described himself a global warming skeptic in the past, also apparently stepped up his anti-global warming language for the ears of Inhofe, raising legitimate question again for reporters about his willingness to say whatever he thinks he needs to say to gain the love and support of the specific audience that’s in front of him. I can’t find a case where Buck has said that global warming is the “greatest hoax that has been perpetrated” or anything quite this extreme on the topic. Let me know if you find this, please.
Reporters should ask Buck for his views on other scientific topics (e.g., evolution, extraterrestrials, health/tobacco, food labeling, endangered species) and whether he is uncomfortable being at odds with mainstream scientific thought-and whether his other views on other scientific topics, like is thoughts on global warming, are even more extreme than previously expressed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Air Slash
IN: Battle for GOP Chair, Sans Dave Williams, Gets Underway
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Air Slash
IN: Battle for GOP Chair, Sans Dave Williams, Gets Underway
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Gun Rights Groups Losing Their Damn Minds Over New Magazine Limit Bill
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Battle for GOP Chair, Sans Dave Williams, Gets Underway
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: Gun Rights Groups Losing Their Damn Minds Over New Magazine Limit Bill
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Thorntonite
IN: Gun Rights Groups Losing Their Damn Minds Over New Magazine Limit Bill
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
How often does Ken Buck ignore … thinking?
It’s probably a good idea to ask Buck about scientific topics he can’t explain away as attempts to distract him with “social issues” too:
How do airplanes stay up? Where are the wires?
Magic voices come out of my cell phone Explain please?
Why don’t telescopes reveal chariot that moves sun across sky? Is there a government cover-up, maybe the biggest one in history?
Your scope is too small.
How do they work?
but no faucet in sight. What gives?
Why did the rock star cross the road?
What is the difference between X and a catfish?
How often does Ken Buck ignore mainstream scientific thinking?
Buck has stated that he believes that the globe may be warming. He believes the link between the activity of man in its causation is less certain. I seem to remember some scientist who were acting not very science like in overstating the correlation.
Buck introduces Imhoff and describes Imhoff’s view and says more and more pople share that view. Instead of trying to refute that statement, you chose a subgroup of people, scientists, and then quote a partisan group, the NRDC, as if they speak for scientists.
You then confess that Buck has never said that Global warming is a hoax.
Your critcal thinking skills are as weak as your research.
Buck said global warming is a hoax.
Not manmade global warming.
Not anthropomorphic global warming.
He didn’t say “the earth is warming, but it’s probably because we’re falling into the sun.”
He said there’s no global warming (though he weasel-worded it), which even Exxon-Mobil doesn’t dispute anymore.
Who are you going to believe, Buck and Inhofe or your own lying thermometer?
Neanderthal Man was a hoax
H-man, perhaps you can tell us about what you “seem to remember?”
I’m asking because your claim is in direct contradiction to what the world’s practicing climate scientists have been saying.
2007
2001
1995
Which brings us back to 2007:
This election is not about climate change.
It’s about jobs. And women knowing their place. And gays choosing to be alcoholics. And shoes. And drill baby drill. And cutting taxes. Raising taxes. Amending the Constitution to repeal the 17th and outlaw abortion. And eliminating the NEA and the Dept of Ed. And privatizing the VA and Medicare. And repealing the death panels.
But absotively, posilutely not about climate change or energy independence. Burn more coal. Call it clean, but dig it up and burn it
Once you choose your partner, and with that choice turn yourself into a social pariah, you really have no choice but to become an alcoholic.
What is more screwed up on this post the Global Warming hoax or Salzman’s definition of main stream?
I guess he forgot all those little emails that were leaked discrediting all of the “stats.” And that is all I ever hear is how people are so tired of this Global Warming and asking each other “How is the global warming today?”
I love when far left ideologues forget that just because their small group of booger eating friends in the library all believe something that it does not make it main stream. They are nothing more than flat earthers.
The phrase of the day is “The new green is the old red!” Aint that right Comrade Salzman?
I guess someone “forgot” that one, two, three, four independent investigations exonerated all of the scientists who had email communications illegally stolen.
As for the question
Perhaps this will provide a partial answer, using just one of numerous independent lines of objective evidence using publicly available data?
Note how recent sea ice volumes are more than 2 standard deviations below the trend.
From Polar Science Center
But, if you screw your eyes sufficiently tight, and keep repeating to yourself “There’s no truth like a repeated lie” maybe it will all go away. Go nuts No2Truth.
Oh, wait, it must be high tide.
But on a serious note, I found a 3″ dead fish on the seawall, all dried out and dessicated. Not so unusual, except it is definitely one of those deep sea critters with no real tail, just body extension. And little forward fins almost like legs. It was perfectly upright, not on its side.
It’s on my kitchen windowsill next to my red Buddha.
>What is more screwed up on this post the >Global Warming hoax or Salzman’s definition >of main stream?
You don’t have the facts on your side. How do I know? Because you have to resort to personal attacks. Forget scientists for a moment. A majority of non-scientists think that global climate change is real. This matters. Inhofe, his buddy Buck and junior partner Cory Gardner are out of the mainstream. The election number one issue is jobs. A good source is clean energy jobs right here in Colorado. Buck’s extreme views on the ‘Global Warming hoax’ have given a boost to the relection chances of Rep. Betsy Markey as her views on a new energy economy are well known and more mainstream than yours. Face it, the Republicans did Michael Bennet a real favor by nominating Buck in lieu of Jane Norton.