Joe Barton (R-TX) Added to the Official Moron Registry
At Yesterday's hearing on climate change adaptation before the House Energy & Commerce Committee Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) made all sorts of ridiculous claims about global warming, the most idiotic being a suggestion that us humans will deal with the issue by finding some shade.
Such a ludicrous and ill-informed claim leads me to two possible conclusions, either Barton has completely lost it, or the $2.5 million he recieved in donations over the years from the oil, gas and utility lobby is doing its magic.
I suspect it's a bit of both.
What makes Barton look even more ridiculous is that his claims appear to be based on evidence provided to him by a gentleman named Christopher Monckton who he cites in his statement. Monckton is not a climate scientist, has never published any scientific research and is in fact a journalist by training.
The biggest thing Monckton has done in his life appears to be making a boardgame puzzle. This is the same Monckton whose answer to the AIDS epidemic was:
I wonder who Barton turns to for advice on health care policy? The local flowershop? Any responsible lawmaker uses the best available experts to inform policy decisions. If Barton was to do that he would see that the likes of the US Academy of Science or NASA (both organizations are at his disposal) are very concerned about this issue and have decades of research to justify their concern.
Here's the video, watch it and laugh because it is nothing more than a complete joke. So much so that I have made a request that he be added to the Official Moron Registry. I think he might actually have a shot at Moron of the Year - maybe even the decade!
And I'm not the only one who thinks Barton is officially a moron: Joe Barton is dumber than you thought possible
Is an interesting analogy for how Congress should be treating climate change the moment that the United States entered World War 2?
I mean, without digging too deep into the causes for the war and the relationships between Japan, the US, and Europe, there was an obvious path before us and the Senate voted unanimously to go to war.
But now, for whatever reason, the path isn't so obvious, apparently - but still needs to be confronted. And now a House Representative (I admit, not a Senator, but there are a few Senator-deniers too) is turning to deniers and a horrible perspective and essentially ignoring the issue.
It stings, especially with all of Joe Romm's talk about World War 2 level efforts required.
David Bellamy is a contender for crackpot of the year.
From George Monbiot via Deltoid
How sad, I used to find this guy entertaining. Now he's just another denialist, and
completely bonkers.
Funny, reading Monbiot, it is Monbiot I find to be the crackpot and bonkers.
-- bi
ah yes, the dubious warm period...monckton as qualified as the world renowned climate scientist algore or whats his name the train engineer at the un
Yeah, I get this 'right-wing logic' thing.
Premise: Monckton is just as qualified as Al Gore.
Conclusion: Therefore, Monckton is completely right, and Al Gore is completely wrong! It's so obvious if you think about it (but not too much)!
-- bi
no frank, as usual you dont get it...i'll go slow....the article states "that makes Barton look even more ridiculous is that his claims appear to be based on evidence provided to him by a gentleman named Christopher Monckton who he cites in his statement. Monckton is not a climate scientist, has never published any scientific research and is in fact a journalist by training." sooooooo...the article is ridiculing barton for citing monckton. this is a major part of the story...i'm saying the pot is calling the kettle black.. your sides most famous liar (who has a 140' boat) is neither a scientist nor journalist yet he is the backbone of your movement. granada is saying that to cite moncton is ridiculous. I'm saying all of you quote algore and he has no worthy titles either.you can't have it both ways. I'm not saying this guy should or shouldn't be quoting monckton but the smog guy is....how can he (smog) actually be making this point? then granada goes into the $$$$. algore has a campaign that is spending 300,000,000. how does this compare to a paltry 2.5?
As usual mascara eyes doesn't have a clue. Barton was not "citing Monkton." The discount Monk was actually invited by idiot Barton to make a scientific argument at the hearing.
I hope you can do better when you need advice on treating a patient.
so where it says and i quote " who he cites in his statement" i guess in your morphine dripped world doesn't mean that he was citing him? and yes ian i am a dentist. no i dont look up people's ip addresses. and way to answer the important questions i bring up......like what about gore's $ 300,000,000 or is gore a climate scientist?etc etc. all you and kevin do is berate the people but never answer the questions.....what about the $300,000,000. why is that ok but 2.5 is terrible. give me a break. how old are you anyway? a serious question if you could answer.
Old enough to recognise your ignorance, stupidity and arrogance and young enough to have fun at your expense.
start with the "dubious" warm period. after you warm up (hehe) with that one then perhaps u could ANSWER why its ok for algore to campaign witha 300M warchest but our side cant receive $$ from exxon?
then perhaps u could ANSWER why
Because your 'facts' suck and your 'logic' sucks, and we can't be bothered to argue with idiots who ignore facts and logic and simply throw out a bunch of talking points.
So far you've yet to marshal even a single actual argument to explain why Monckton is completely right and Al Gore is completely wrong.
-- bi
there was so much logic and so many facts in that response i dont know where to start....let's start here....I never said who was right or wrong. I commented on the fact that smogger was ridiculing this guy for citing monckton when he wasn't even a climate scientist. my point was that neither is algore. now exactly where was i saying who was right or wrong. you are obviously a moron. logic? try to follow yours. what fact did i ignore? that the warm period was dubious? i'm sure you dont think the hockey stick was dubious at all...
mascereye,
I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I personally never quote Al Gore. It's been my experience that the majority of the Al Gore quoting comes from deniers. Al Gore has indeed thrust himself into the spotlight, but the difference is that he is not the source of the information upon which we base our understanding of our climate. He is simply a vessel. Like everyone else, his information is largely based on the vast amount of research that has been conducted by the world's climate experts. That's not to mention the fact that Monckton's assertions are not at all based on real science, and have been debunked many times over.
It's almost exclusively deniers who invoke the name of Al Gore at this blog. Anyone who takes AGW seriously here cites the science, not the messenger. What makes Monckton such a joke is that he is wildly delusional about his own scientific qualifications and influence.
The discount Monk was not the only one to bring ignorance and prejudice to the hearing.
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner stated: "I speak to you as a theologian and pastor, a former professor of social ethics, and the national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a network of religious leaders, scientists, and economists dedicated to bringing Biblical world view, theology, and ethics together with excellent science and excellent economics to address simultaneously the challenges of economic development for the very poor and effective stewardship of creation".
Here is another quote: "The naturalist, atheistic world view sees Earth and all its ecosystems as the result of chance processes and therefore inherently unstable and fragile, vulnerable to enormous harm from tiny causes. The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and providential preservation and therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating–like the product of any good engineer who ensures that the systems he designs have positive and negative feedback mechanisms to balance each other and prevent small perturbations from setting off a catastrophic cascade of reactions".
There are 11 pages of this drivel so I wont quote anymore.
Anyone who wants to read it all, and the material presented by the other witnesses (including the discount Monk's) can find them here:
http://tinyurl.com/cdmzlx