Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman Believes in Global Cooling
Bob Stallman, head of the American Farm Bureau Federation, has declared that the earth is cooling in testimony Tuesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. So it must be true.
Using the Frank Luntz approved language of “sound science,” Stallman argues against any Congressional efforts to fight global warming.
He has a good name for the cause, eh? Stallman? It’s par for the course for the Farm Bureau to deny, delay and attempt to kill any action on climate change, despite the risk to farmers of ignoring the issue.
Despite pointing out himself that climate data “clearly indicate an identifiable warming trend” and that “carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing and that man-made emissions have increased for a number of decades,” the stall man argues that “those aren’t the only facts, and they don’t tell the whole story.”
True. Missing entirely from Stallman’s testimony was any mention of the many significant challenges farmers will face if we FAIL to address climate change. Droughts, torrential rains and storms are just a few examples of global warming consequences that will negatively affect agriculture. Farmers could pay a steep price for the stall-and-kill lobbying efforts of the Farm Bureau if Congress fails to pass strong, science-based legislation to combat climate change.
Brad Johnson over at The Wonk Room takes Stallman to task over his denial of the fact that “the last ten years have been the warmest decade by far — significantly warmer than the previous decade of 1989-1998, which had been the warmest, itself significantly warmer than 1979-1988, then the warmest decade in the last 150 years.”
Johnson even includes a nice, pretty graph for Stallman to review and hopefully come to the conclusion that he’s wrong.
But, as Stallman himself says, “facts are stubborn things.”
Stallman also testified that “leadership only occurs when people are following you.”
Dues-paying members of the Farm Bureau who disagree with Stallman’s stance on this issue should voice their disapproval of their main lobbying group’s efforts against climate action, and stop following him.
"He has a good name for the cause, eh? Stallman?"
Kevin posts an ad hom attack, and my pointing it out elicits your canned nonsensical reply above. If you two are representative, it's not surprising the public isn't buying it.
Since Kevin led off with ridicule and the ad hominem attack, it's perfectly fair to comment.
And you, John, may be under the impression that what passes for your writing style is more than bluster, but that's only your own opinion, and it's highly overrated.
The public is indeed speaking, and the message that you need to deal with is that they aren't buying what you're trying to sell. Rather than come unglued, why don't you ask yourself why? If the science is indeed settled, then perhaps the fault is with the salesmen, and their techniques.
Like ad hom attacks on a persons name.
Like pulling out the same canned bluster when you get called on it.
You're falling far short of your goal.
As far as your bluster being "unique", visiting the local middle school lunchroom would cure you of that mistaken belief very quickly.
If you truly believe in your cause, you should face the reality that you and Kevin, with your schoolyard taunts, cheap trash talk, and fact-deficient polemic, are not productive. Why don't you quit and let someone with more knowledge and a better vocabulary step up? Based on your performance here, there should be lots of candidates.
Why does the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee accept testimony about science from non-scientists?
Or is it that in order to get the correct answer: i.e. the answer that matches Inhofes conclusions that are already decided upon, they only call witnesses to give the correct testimony?
Apostrophe not working
Good question really. Why not bring in some paid lobyists from the CEI or Cato? The public is just as clueless about who these people are most of the time, all they hear is Dr. in their names and think the person must be right....Perhaps the point really is just to score news clip highlights anyway so it doesnt much matter who you bring in to support your point of view?
Are we reaching a point where climate graphs have become totally and absolutely meaningless? If anyone wants to go on a 1 minute graph hunt on the internet, they can prove current warming and cooling, increasing and decreasing storm activity, flattening and rising sea levels, warming and cooling Oceans, hockey sticks and nothing special going on.
Graphs prove absolutely everything and absolutely nothing.
Can you believe it ! these people are trying to stop this wind farm!!
www.palmerston-north.info
Recent data shows that the sky us definately getting darker.
No wait, it's getting lighter. No, I was right the first time, it is getting darker.
Now it's lighter, the long-term trend is obviously lighter, but mainly in the east. The scientists don't see this trend because they lack commonsense.
Wait, darker. This decade is obviously darker. I'll post an update in the morning.