My brother Dave lives in Minneapolis and has been interviewing RNC delegates. Here is Barb Davis White in her own words (audio stream here):
White: My name is Barb Davis White and I'm running for the 5th Congressional District against Keith Ellison for the United States House of Representatives, which is called Congress.
Romm: Where are you on global warming?
White: Well, global warming really has not been proven. There are 30,000 scientists, including Al Gore's professor, from Princeton, who says that we are now in a cooling stage. And ev-every -- also every other climate that has been warmed had better grapes.
Romm: So you don't believe in global warming and you don't think that people caused it.
White: No, I think global warming is a scam. I think it's a scam to put taxes -- more taxes on us, and it's called carbon taxes. Our environment has never been so clean, and if we want to push global warming, let's push it on China, where the smog is so thick that you almost need a helmet to breathe. Let's push it on Africa and see how they adapt to it, because they're not going to.
That is frighteningly incoherent, even for a would-be GOP representative. Is this really the best person Republicans can find in Minneapolis? Or, perhaps that's who they are recruiting. So you don't end up totally depressed, there's a second interview at the end with a DNC delegate who is a Minneapolis City Council member. So, yes, the Twin Cities have some sane politicians.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
What to make of the new climate poll
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 7:25 am
04 Sep 2008
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 7:29 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 7:33 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:33 am
04 Sep 2008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060009
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/
It's been running for so long, and usually you only get tidbits here and there.
_
Not to mention, the "Al Gore's Professor" thing is from Solomon's book of "Manmade climate deniers who don't actually deny manmade climate change"
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned- ...
_
And of course, the usual "cooling stage" thing comes from a number of possible sources.
One could be cherry picking 1998 and 2008.
Ignoring the strong positive and negative ENSO's those two years.
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/enso
Another could be this guy's model, which incidentally is NOT a global model. It only covers one continent. And a rather weak continental model at that.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/glo ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the ...
Or it could be way off in right field, and be something like David Archibald. Which isn't even peer reviewed in a physical science journal.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/ ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:38 am
04 Sep 2008
So lets say one were interested in updating that Grist "How to Talk to a Skeptic" list.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/22413/741
http://gristmill.org/skeptic
How would one go about doing that?
It's been over a year since it's been touched last.
__
Oh, and of course, hotter temps would actually make for worse grapes generally. Since grapes usually need fog to grow right.
No fog? Bad grapes.
http://www.lynmarwinery.com/pdf/articles/FinancialTimes_1 ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:40 am
04 Sep 2008
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:42 am
04 Sep 2008
she has no chance to beat Ellison, who is a lunatic Marxist. But, I guess, that is the 5th district.
For the sake of argument, lets say you agree that climate change would cause economic "Damage".
Lets also say that you agree that the earth's atmosphere is not private property.
_
Are you telling me that it's "Anti-Capitalist" to be asked to pay money, to use/degrade a finite resource, which one does not personally own?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:50 am
04 Sep 2008
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:22 am
04 Sep 2008
But anyways onto my previous question,
Is there some way that Grist posters could contribute to making the "Talk to Skeptics" list more up to date?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:18 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:23 pm
04 Sep 2008
It's a breath of fresh air.
Now people can be openly in denial!
The first Denial Congresswoman...and then President?
Who knows, will Denier marriages be recognized?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:02 pm
04 Sep 2008
Here's my reasoning. Grapes require a certain sort of soil and, I think, a long warm summer. But they're not grown in tropical regions, so they must require a certain amount of cool weather as well, though I don't know whether grapes prefer cool dry or cool moist.
So, global warming might permit the growing of grapes at more northerly latitudes, but areas where they currently grow will probably become less hospitable.
There is also the problem of more fungal diseases as the climate becomes warmer and wetter, so the quality and quantity might actually decline. Guess the price of wine will sky-rocket.
Cosider apples. They're grown only so far north or south. The trees have to go through winter in order to set fruit. So, global warming does not mean more apples, just growing apples further north... until one reaches the peat bogs of Canada.
Finally, if the climate warms sufficiently, the flow of fresh water off of Greenland will shut down the Gulf Stream. This has happened before and will send England, France, and other parts of Europe where grapes are currently grown into a deep freeze... pretty much wiping out the grape industry in Europe. Europe will be too cold. Africa will be too warm. The grapes THERE will not be better, but gone.
Looks like California and Australia are becoming more drought- and fire-prone. Probably won't be growing grapes there.
I guess North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the surrounding areas will become premier grape territory! Better stop planting apple trees, though I really like hard cider, and switch to grapes! We harvested some really tastey table grapes this year. But one late frost and we're screwed. That's the problem with climate change... hard to make long-term investment in agriculture.
But hey... the Earth has warmed and cooled before and species have gone extinct before. So what if we can't grow grapes or apples? So what if we can't grow corn or wheat? Species have gone extinct before... perhaps it will soon be our turn. I'm sure the planet as a whole will be fine. We just might not be around to see it. Oh well....
Why are Republicans such simpletons?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:06 pm
04 Sep 2008
How about this.
Name me one significant scientific institution in the entire world which agrees with you. And I'll agree that you are right.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
If you can't, then you can agree that I'm right.
Deal?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:26 pm
04 Sep 2008
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23697
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:05 pm
04 Sep 2008
That's an interesting list of articles you present. Have you actually looked at it or any of the articles?
(1) Peter Risdon states "These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming." Hmmm... so he admits there is global warming. The issue is simply what the causes are. Okay.
(2) The article publication dates range from 1961 (!!!!) to 2008. There are a large number published before 2002. Science has progressed since 1961, over 46 years ago! Those authors might have changed their minds by now. Science has progressed since 2002, over 5 years ago. The debate would have to focus on current research. Risdon might want to limit his list to relatively current research.
(3) It looks like a lot of these articles are not peer-reviewed, but editorial pieces. And they do not necessarily contradict the notion of global climate change as much as how different factors contribute to it. Scientists are still interested in other factors, even if humans are the major contributors. It is important to construct accurate models and know what sort of things we might be able to do, besides limiting CO2 emissions, to minimize the increase in temperature.
(4) Risdon should really provide abstracts. The titles alone do not reveal whether the authors dispute the consensus regarding climate change. Has Risdon even read any of these papers?!
(5) I read one of the articles, out of curiosity... Dangers of crying wolf over risk of extinctions (Nature 428, 799, 22 April 2004) - Richard J. Ladle, Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo & Robert J. Whittaker. It is a letter to the editors of Nature criticizing the publishing of press releases that do not fully explain what a given study suggests. These press releases are picked up by the press, of course, and distorted to create exiting headlines. Other outlets jump on the story and further distort the original study and sound alarmist. The author's point was not that we don't have to worry about threats to species, but that scientists should not release preliminary data, especially without fully explaining the meaning of it. To do so undermines the credibility of other, solid, research. The scientists themselves were not alarmists; the news outlets were.
(6) How many of the articles on the list are actually current and peer-reviewed disagreements with the scientific consensus? I don't think it is up to me to wade through the stuff. If Risdon really wants to prove there is no consensus, he has to give us a list of CURRENT peer-reviewed papers and at least a brief explanation of how the papers support his view. If this is all he has (1961!!!!!), his case must be very very very weak!
I'd say Risdon's list is clear evidence that the science is settled. Climate change is real and largely the result of human activity. He would have provided the evidence against this if it was there.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:30 pm
04 Sep 2008
Exactly what the hell is she talking about!!! Every other climate?
Where are these other climates? Who or what warmed them? Why grapes? And who decided these other climates had better grapes?
Could this be a slip of the tongue? Evidence that Republicans are an alien species from another world and that they are intentionally altering the Earth's atmosphere to grow better grapes? They're upset that we've caught on and might thwart their plans for galactic domination via these mysterious grapes?
If you don't hear from me again... you'll know I'm right.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:47 pm
04 Sep 2008
Cattle mutilation and anal probing got old. What's next to do if you are a parasitic alien species (living inside the brain's of other species) on the rise?
Start a kickass vineyard! Use a whole planet. And no new taxes! Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:50 pm
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:49 pm
04 Sep 2008
Whiskerfish
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:53 pm
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:27 am
05 Sep 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:34 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:11 am
05 Sep 2008
A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created by a user with one point of view, but acts as though the puppet has an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad and generate negative sentiment towards that view. Such sockpuppets will typically advance foolish straw man arguments that their puppeteers can then easily refute. They often act in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner. The effect is to discredit more rational arguments for the same side.
"Mr. Einbold" has stimulated some fine progressive oratory in this thread.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:57 am
05 Sep 2008
Who, exactly, is the puppeteer????!!!! Which Dave? Are you trying to kill me? You won't converse with me through your normal id, but you'll happily argue via a fake one? There are enough real nutters out there wasting our time. We don't need any stinkin' fake ones.
(Quoting another user, these are just my opinions. Peace.)
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:58 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 4:01 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 4:02 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 4:04 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
paz Posted 2:28 pm
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
paz Posted 2:32 pm
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:04 pm
05 Sep 2008
If you don't like the climate up north move to Pheonix. It's about as artificial, engineered and life-destroying place as you can find on the planet. You'll love it there.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:49 am
06 Sep 2008
Permalink