TPM LiveWire
Dobbs: 'Who The Hell Does This President Think He Is?'
Jillian Rayfield | December 2, 2009, 12:19PM
Lou Dobbs
Share
Send to a friend!
As Think Progress first pointed out, things got a little heated on Lou Dobbs's radio show Tuesday when Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) brought up the climate summit in Copenhagen, and posited that President Obama will commit to the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill, even though he doesn't have the authority to do so since the bill has not yet passed the Senate.
Dobbs responded: "Who the hell does this president think he is?"
Inhofe apparently became concerned about the President's intentions after he "had an interview" with a station in Copenhagen, and found "that they were all under the assumption the president could unilaterally" commit to the emission standards given in the Waxman-Markey bill. According to Inhofe, this is the main reason he intends to attend the summit himself, "to make sure that countries were fully informed that we are not going to be passing legislation that will accomplish what President Obama I believe is going to tell on the 9th."
That's when Dobbs gets mad. "Senator," he says, "this begs the question, if I may put it forward right now: Who the hell does this president think he is?"
Inhofe responded: "I don't know, because you can't do that. And I think it's certainly disingenuous to mislead countries into thinking that a president . . . You know, this is not a kingdom. He's not able to do that."
Dobbs scoffed, "Not yet!"
In a previous statement on the President's trip, the White House contradicted Inhofe's "unilateral" claim, saying that the President's planned commitment will be "in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation."
Here's the full audio on Dobbs:
And in other Dobbs news from today, a CNBC spokesperson has confirmed that Dobbs will not be hired by the network, following reports that the two had recently engaged in talks.
Dobbs, for his part, denied such talks had even taken place.
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Odel Roo
December 2, 2009 2:33 PM
The whole "ClimateGate" story about the emails and other documents from the hacked servers at Climatic Research Unit - University of East Anglia in Britain has been out on the intertubes for more than a week and nothing at all at TPM.
like the song says, Things that make ya go hmmmm...
Sorry has nothing to do with this topic but, I couldn't help myself. Besides how is Lou Dobbs statement news worthy? Tabloid, maybe... just sayin
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 2, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to Odel Roo
Yes, well this is a liberal site and vitually all liberals have bought into the Global Warming hoax hook, line and sinker. While I respect Josh and many contributors here for their obvious intelligence, and share common policy aims in other areas, they are wrong on GW. Don't expect the Climategate thing to change that very quickly. Its too easy to ignore it, as it is being blacked out of the media for the most part. They are not going to publicize it here if they don't have to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
December 2, 2009 2:55 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
I don't claim to be a scientist, so I need to rely on people who are. And since nearly all scientists who study climate science (including a friend of mine) agree on the issue, I defer to them, regardless of their or my politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
December 2, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
If you want to read nefarious intent into those out-of-context bits of e-mail correspondence, you'll find it in there. Naturally. But there's nothing sneaky or questionable about any of the "controversial" passages I've seen quoted. Global Warming "Troofers," as usual, lavish attention on anything that they think supports their case, and go to great lengths to ignore everything else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
December 3, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to de TOQUEville
Ahhh... i get it... nothing to see here move along huh. I guess this is just another "don't beleive your lieing eyes" kinda things huh.
As a disclosure, i'm very skeptical, not a "denier" and don't go out of my way not to beleive. Remember the "ice age is a comin" from the 70's? They believed too.
I'm simply skeptical because I KNOW that the weather CANNOT be accurately be predicted 2 weeks out and yet I am supposed to beleive that the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket. I also think it is fairly arrogant to beleive that now in this micro second in all of earths history we have so polluted earth delicate balance to wipe out the planet. I don't think she is that delicate of a flower. Of course I could be wrong.
As too the new "climate-gate" issue. I think it is a big deal only because there has apparently been quite abit of credence given to the findings of CRU and that will possibly affect US policy and the whole Tax and Cap BS that in my opinion is nothing more than a ruse to create a GIANT Enron. In my view it's all about money!
What I found out about through this "climate-gate" issue that was most intriguing was that apparently the data and methodology of how they came to their conclusions have never been fully released. I always thought the hole idea behind science was to have a theory about X, and then go about to prove your theory. Once you proved it. Put it out so others could re-create your methods to prove your theory. If it get smacked down the I guess you would have a bad theory and would have to start over again. Am i wrong?
Well if these guys at CRU have not given out all the data and methods to for others to prove their findings how are their findings considered good science?
The emails show a willful process of withholding the data and programs. and a kind of jury tampering if you will when it comes to peer review.
So I will remain skeptical - I do find it odd however as this is a very big story and yet little coverage. Even Mann has stepped down. But hey Lou Dobbs is a better story right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
December 2, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
I'm just trying to imagine what it would feel like in my head to believe that thousands of respected scientists are in on a hoax, each scientist expending considerable time, energy, and money perpetrating it.
I think the question in trying to understand these people is "what's at stake." I get the stakes for the "evolution-deniers." They think that if Darwin (and countless geologists, biologists, and paleontologists) are right, then the bible isn't the word of God, so they'll fight the Theory tooth and nail. But Climate-Change-Deniers? If the Climatologists are right, then we're going to have to change our CO2-spewing ways. So what's at stake is, what--their SUV?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 2, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
The 90 megabytes of email and data files provides evidence that leading figures at East Anglia were covering up or massaging data that disputed global warming, particularly land surface temperature records, and the evidence of a period of warming temperature well before the industrial era, known as the medieval warm period. What had them upset was that the slight upward spike in surface temperatures over approximately two decades preceding 1998 has disappeared from the land surface records, and for the past approximately 8 years there has been a cooling trend that has largely eliminated the previously alleged 0.6 degree centigrade increase in the "global averaged temperature" over the previous century.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 2, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
What's at stake is billions of dollars and euros being pumped into GW "science". There are plenty of examples in history of scientists being either corrupted by money, toeing anti-science ideological lines to preserve their privledged positions, or simply going along to get along.
The reality of what's at stake is this: Since its first promotion in 1975, the claim has been that carbon dioxide emissions from industry will warm the planet, melt the ice caps and fry or drown us all—therefore human beings would have to do without. There never was scientific proof, and the argument went against all competent understanding of climate science that it is the Sun and the variations of the Earth-Sun orbital relationship which is the principal determinant of climate variability. The explicit intent in promoting this and other anti-science hoaxes has been to halt the development of scientific and technological progress in order to drastically reduce world population, perhaps to the level below 2 billion persons that the World Wildlife Fund's Prince Philip has proposed as desirable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Milton Wiltmellow
December 2, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
I don't understand it at all!
There's too much noise!
I'm going out to my garage and sit in my soundproof Lexus and listen to some soothing music. Then I can really relax.
I better keep the car running because my garage isn't heated and it can get cold in December.
I certainly hope I don't suffer any ill effects from "the variations of the Earth-Sun orbital relationship".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 2, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to Milton Wiltmellow
I'd say try smoking a doobie, too, but that would increase your carbon footprint, wouldn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
December 2, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Sorry, you need to pay more attention.
The imperative was to discover and develop other energy sources so that we wouldn't HAVE to do without, in the event of another oil embargo, or price spikes caused by lack of supply. Or just plain running out - being almost totally reliant on fossil fuel, particularly petroleum, would be a catastrophic scenario for the USA, a la Mad Max.
That's what Carter's energy initiatives were about - the ones that Reagan took a dump on, and eliminated. You know, the incentives and federal grant funding that were supposed to bootstrap an industry in this country that we could export to the rest of the world.
And now we're 30 years behind the curve in that technology - and 20 behind the rest of the world, when we could have been out in front.
By the way - inputting real temperature data is not "massaging". In the instance I have read about, and which seems to be the source of the brou-ha-ha, they used real temperatures from 1960 forward for two basic reasons:
1. That's what the actual temperatures were in real life, so why not use them in order to be more accurate (because that's the whole point)
and
2. because, for whatever reason(who knows, maybe elevated CO2) the information they were using, which was derived from composition of tree rings, was pretty accurate up until 1960, at which time the model showed temperatures getting lower - even though in the real world, they got higher.
There's plenty of evidence demonstrating the warming that has taken place, and the results. And those results demonstrate that the "alarmists" have been right about a lot of stuff so far.
I do hope Inhofe goes to Copenhagen, and opens his mouth, and gets schooled. It would be nice if he was publicly demonstrated to be a willfully ignorant fool on this topic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
you are a troll and science-denying ignoramus. get out please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 2, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to ilovebacon
Oh, by all means. The great ilovebacon has spoken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cleo
December 2, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to ilovebacon
I think Unmitigated is an Inhofe staffer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkeeterVT
December 2, 2009 5:04 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
If there's been a cooling trend over the past eight years -- seven of those eight under the Bush administration, I hasten to add -- then why are our winters getting milder?
I live in Vermont. It's the second of December, and it's in the 40s outside my home right now -- a good 20 degrees warmer than normal for this time of the year.
I can remember when we've had snow as early as mid-October. So far this season, however, we've yet to see any significant snowfall. The ski resorts have been forced to delay their opening (Traditionaly the ski resorts open Thanksgiving weekend) because the weather's been too mild to even run the snowmaking machines.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to SkeeterVT
where are you in VT, skeeter? i was thinking of moving there. nj is too damn muggy now from global warming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
December 2, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to SkeeterVT
Don't buy into the "cooling trend over the last decade" garbage, and don't use the phrase in any fashion that grants it an air of legitimacy.
1998 had the highest temperatures in recorded history, an unanticipated and so far unexplained spike that is way above the trend. While the 00's so far have not gotten quite as hot, the years 2001 through 2008 make up 8 of the top ten hottest on record. 1997 comes in at number 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
Another look, with some context beyond just temperatures:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm
Oh - 1934? That was for the United States, not the world. Small detail often ... overlooked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
December 2, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Yeah, all that science we have bought into hook line and sinker. And the melting ice cap.
What dupes we all are!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
December 2, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Yeah, flat earth too, around which everything in space revolves. What is it with you trolls that makes you gullibly swallow every dipshit fake worldview that Rush tells you to believe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nowukkers
December 2, 2009 4:40 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Oh well. I guess we can tell the ice-caps to stop receding, and the glaciers to stop melting. The global warming nay-sayers are less convincing to me than the tobacco company "scientists" who denied the causal link between cigarette smoking and cancer. We all know how that ended don't we.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 5:11 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Uhm. The icecaps are melting, the past decade is the hottest in 2000+ years, Australia and California are on fire, and islands have begun to drown. Most European conservatives accept that global warming is occurring. Many American conservatives bury their heads in the sand, but, accept it or not, global warming is currently scorching the earth and will continue to do so at a greater pace.
The so-called "climategate" is nothing more than a couple British scientists rounding up numbers ten years ago and joking about the death of a hack global warming denying scientist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 3, 2009 10:58 AM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Sometimes scientists are wrong:sometimes things are far worse than they had yet discovered:
"Deep below the glistening surface of a frozen Arctic lake, something is bubbling—something that could cause global warming to accelerate beyond all previous projections. Dr. Katey Walter Anthony steps onto the ice, to tell us why.
"The bubbles are methane, a strong greenhouse gas that's 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide," Walter Anthony explains. It's being released at an accelerating rate from thawing permafrost, frozen soil that holds vast amounts of carbon. When the Earth's rising temperatures cause it to suddenly thaw, lakes form. "All that carbon was locked up safely in the permafrost freezer for tens of thousands of years," Walter Anthony says. "Now the freezer door is opening, releasing the carbon into Arctic lake bottoms. Microbes digest it, convert it to methane, and the lakes essentially burp out methane."
Scientists estimate that permafrost holds up to 950 billion tons of carbon. As it thaws, 50 billion tons of methane could enter the atmosphere from Siberian lakes alone. "That's ten times more methane than the atmosphere holds right now," Walter Anthony notes. "Since methane traps heat so efficiently, temperatures will rise higher, faster." In the atmosphere methane spreads rapidly too, circling the globe in just one year."
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/explorers/walter-katey-09.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mad Dog Rackham
December 2, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to Odel Roo
I think it has to do with people having looked into "climategate" and found no there there.
It's a manufactured "controversy." Manufactured by people uneducated in the field, who misinterpret technical jargon, and think that flip comments in inter-office back-and-forth somehow trump peer-reviewed science. The sort of ignorant people who think that science is about discovering "the truth" rather than being a messy process that evolves towards working models.
It's rather similar to those who argue that the "theory of evolution" is somehow suspect because "it's only a theory," i.e., they grasp at one meaning of a word while ignoring the proper meaning as used in context.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
December 2, 2009 3:11 PM in reply to Mad Dog Rackham
EXACTLY.
It's hilarious to read the breathless commentaries from doofuses who obviously don't understand what they're reading.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
December 2, 2009 7:48 PM in reply to Odel Roo
Monbiot in the Guardian has a must-read essay about the hacked e-mail thing ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
December 2, 2009 2:41 PM
Doesn't the executive have exclusive power to negotiate treaties?
To Lou Dobbs:
Who the hell does Obama think he is? He's the fricking President of the United States, you douchebag, unlike you, who is a two-bit radio host recently canned by CNN for being insane.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 2, 2009 2:46 PM in reply to jenesq
Dobbs is a douche, no doubt.
However, the Senate must ratify treaties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 3:06 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Not a treaty. Just a promise that the US will start to curb CO2 emissions. What the dang is the big whine about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 2, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Yeah, but they can only ratify (or refuse to ratify) what the president, or his representative, has negotiated. Inhofe and Dobbs have it ass-backwards, which I guess is not surprising.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
December 2, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
...and does anyone actually believe that Obama is going to agree to a formal "treaty" in violation of the Constitution?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 2, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to jenesq
Yeah, well, who pays any attention to that piece of paper known as the Constitution, anyway?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
December 2, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to jenesq
Exactly. The executive branch negotiates treaties, and even signs them (see Kyoto), but ultimately it's the responsibility of the Congress to ratify the treaty and make them law in the United States.
It's our system of checks and balances, and I'm shocked that a sitting Senator isn't aware of the concept.
I think a better question is "Who the Hell does Inhofe think he is?" He's speaking for the entire legislative branch by saying we won't pass climate change legislation, and not only is he not the Majority leader of the Senate, he's not even the Minority Leader or even the Minority Whip. He's a senior (minority) member of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Inhofe needs to STFU and keep his nose out of climate change negotiations, thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sully18
December 2, 2009 8:14 PM in reply to jenesq
I love your comment about Lou Dobbs.My question to him,if I may:"Who the hell are you Lou, the poor man`s Rush Limblah ?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MillardFillmore
December 2, 2009 2:49 PM
I get really annoyed when people do not use the phrase "begs the question" correctly like L Dub did on his radio "show." Begs the question is used when an argument improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for. For example, “This car is a lemon because it is obviously a piece of crap.” The statement just asserts the crappiness of the car without presenting any evidence to demonstrate that it is in fact a crappy car. Many people believe (incorrectly) the phrase means that a statement requires that a question about it be asked. Although use of "begging the question" in its original sense today uncommon, using it in the newer sense is an affront to those who value the use of English.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
December 2, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to MillardFillmore
Thank you! That annoys the hell out of me, as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 2, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to MillardFillmore
I hear ya. It's a peeve of mine, too, but I sort of figure that protesting that particular incorrect usage is like spitting into the wind.
Me, I'd be almost content if people could just learn to use apostrophes correctly. I always thought apostrophes were pretty straightforward; we learned about using them in third grade--or was it second? When did people start treating them as something as incomprehensible as integral calculus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarryMo
December 2, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to slb
The mis'us'e of the apos'trophe has' got to s'top.
It s'ure drives' me s'illy.
My real name ends' with an "S" '.
You s'hould s'ee the variety of ways the pos's'es's'ive is written.
It begs' the ques'tion - where did thes'e people go to s'chool?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cleo
December 2, 2009 3:00 PM
I'd like to ask Inhofe the same question. Who the hell do you think you are Inhofe? Going against the President of the United States just because you're about to lose all that payola from the energy companies. You big drunk, STFU and sit down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
December 2, 2009 3:46 PM
Inhofe has just wrapped himself up with a little bow!
The phrase that pops into my mind is, "Hoist with his own petard."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarryMo
December 2, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to farnsworth
In other words,the comment was "petarded"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 2, 2009 4:06 PM
Lou discovered that hate and ignorance sell on TV or radio, and he's been selling it like hot cakes ever since.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
suydam@yahoo.com
December 2, 2009 4:07 PM
Poor Pudgeduck Dobbs, just can't get it thru his head that he's not important! A true Ass. Inhofe is embarrassing to other human beings. Boy - all the crackpot come out at Yuletime. Sing it, Sarah........
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
December 2, 2009 4:49 PM
Regarding the whole "Climate Gate" thing, and trusting thousands of scientists to not be wrong...there is a continuing problem in the scientific community - especially when the subject has significant political impacts.
It's the "don't rock the boat" mentality. Peer-reviewed journals tend to ignore any paper (and therefore evidence) that either flatly contradicts, or too zealously proves the perceived 'common understanding' of the subject. I heard a story on NPR where science done on both sides of the issue has been rejected because it is too 'radical'.
Part of that is to keep journals from being flooded with every crackpot paper full of bad science put forth with purely political motivations - by either side. But it does a disservice to the subject, and can lead to bad conclusions.
Personally I say screw temperature data - it's just too variable, too small, and too slow an indicator of change. There are other more noticeable changes happening. Let's see if there's some correlation between those changes and human activity.
Frankly, though, it's less about what's really happening and more about what people think and believe. Even if Americans won't believe that humans are causing climate change, a lot of the rest of the world is already convinced. If nothing else we can exploit that by selling them green technology - but only if we super-charge our research and development. Besides, would it be so bad if more of our energy came from wind and solar than coal? Ask people who live down-wind from coal fired power plants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to Forrest
Downwind from coal plants. How about upwind? Maine gets huge windcurrents of coal smoke from Ohio. Smog is a bigger problem in ME than even OH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
December 2, 2009 5:28 PM
Stage lights fade as a baby spot illuminates Lou's associate producer:
Once,
You won't remember
If you said Washington, his was the face
You'd think of.
His face on every billboard,
In just a single week he'd get ten
Thousand letters.
Nuts would offer
Fortunes for a smirk from his visage
Or a few strands of thinning hair.
Today
He's half forgotten,
But it's the media that got small.
He is the greatest star of all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 5:35 PM
Lou Dobbs = over-thawed sausage
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
December 2, 2009 5:41 PM
Is one academic institution, (East Anglia) the definitive group of scientists at the fore front of GW? Seems one set of questionable emails does not a global conspiracy make. Besides temp. records, we do have photographic and physical evidence that is undeniable. As far as money motivating climate scientists, what about the financial motivation to do nothing. We should have just left Love Canal alone and tap burning rivers as a new energy source. I've heard that NAOA has some pretty strong "American made" evidence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 2, 2009 9:10 PM
Lou Dobbs eats immigrant kidneys for supper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
December 3, 2009 1:05 PM
This is interesting... guess it is not just me.
"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely. "
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?