Congressional Discussions on Climate Change Would Be Hilarious If They Weren’t So Tragic
Once you get past the fact that U.S. lawmakers are doing a pitiful job mitigating climate change, there are two distinct elements of the congressional discussion that really are amusing as hell.
One, of course, is the appalling ignorance of even the most basic elements of science that many of these people have. Over the years, we’ve had some real dillies, in terms of groundless statements made on global warming. Perhaps most memorable was Rep. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) snowball, presented as evidence that climate change is a hoax (because there’s still snow).
Yesterday we had this stunner: Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL — pictured) explaining to a scientist at a meeting of his Committee on Science, Space and Technology (where he vice-chairs a subcommittee), “Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up.” Of course, he was immediately corrected by someone who knew what he was talking about, but isn’t it truly remarkable how this dialog becomes more ludicrous each year?
The other thing that I find astonishing is that people who know less about science than an average 12-year-old kid would stand up in a room full of scientists and present an idea for which there is zero scientific evidence. My point isn’t that some of these ideas are stupid, or that this is a stupid thing to do (though they both certainly are); it’s that such a brazen act requires a jaw-dropping level of completely shameless effrontery. Would you go into a meeting of oncologists and assert that cancer is caused by vigorous exercise and that it’s cured by eating raisins? I wouldn’t begin to know how to do something like that.
Author, zoologist and surrealist painter Desmond Morris was on Marco Werman’s syndicated radio show “The World” yesterday and did an extraordinary talk about our ever-expanding use of the word “surreal” to describe so many of the things we see around us. I hope you’ll check out the podcast; it’s at about 45 minutes in, and he sure nailed it.
Craig,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying the ocean beds and Geo-phyisical surface of the planet is fixed and permanently stable ?
Could you please refer me to the scientific body of evidence supporting your astonishing assertion ?
Rep. Mo Brooks may have put his question badly, (and boy, don’t you delight at sneering at his ineptitude in phasing) but he’s speaking the truth. over the last few centuries there is evidence of a widespread rise in the oceanic sea bed.
The reasons are complex and mostly speculative, but important because such movements have widespread repercussion with coastlines, tides, and more importantly currents.
The sea bed is, and always has been, in a constant state of movement. Islands rise and disappear, once harbours and ports over the course of time find themselves inland.
These movements of the oceanic sea bed and land masses are not the fantasies of conservative politicians, nor evidence of “climate change” but well documented, observable scientific phenomena.
As for your unshakable faith in advocates and pundits, well now,… of course all their predictions and pronouncements are correct, until proved wrong which is often the case.
Marcopolo,
Please just give it up you pathetic troll.
It wasn’t a “poorly phrased question”. It was blathered stupidity. The scientific community hasn’t been sitting around with their thumbs up their asses all these years watching the sea rise and never once pausing to wonder “Hmm.. what percentage of this rise could be attributed to sediment deposit?”
When I first heard the quote – which still shocks me at the mind numbing stupidity… I did a quick back-of-the-envelope guestimate and assumed it would be no more than 10 microns.
Want to know how close I was?
It took all of 40 seconds to google a well-researched estimate for annual global sediment erosion into the seas: about 20 billion tons/year. If we are generous, and assume density of about 2 g/cm3, or 2 tons/m3.. then you have about 10 km3 of sediment deposition into the oceans every year.
The surface of the world oceans is ~361 million km2. So we have a result of ~2.77E-5 meters rise as a result of global soil erosion… or ~27.7 microns. I was wrong. It was 3 times as much as I had supposed…
Or put another way: soil erosion comprised ~0.8% of total sea level rise, while global warming – between ice-sheet melt and sea level warming, comprised 99.2% of that same sea level rise.
This post took me 7 minutes. That is probably not any more time then you took to make a complete fool out of yourself for defending an absolute moron.
Glenn,
Good grief , what an angry outburst !
I’ve always noted loud abusive tirades emanate from persons who are so busy thinking of what they are going to say, they weren’t listen to what others actually said.
I asked Craig, ” are you saying the ocean beds and Geo-physical surface of the planet is fixed and permanently stable ? ”
I then proceeded to a much larger, (and more interesting) subject of the causes for oceanic and Geo-physical moments of the planets surface.
I surmised Congressmen Brooks may have been alluding to such phenomenon, albeit in an inept and clumsy manner. Like most people fumbling with an unfamiliar subject he seemed misinformed as to all the causes of rises and falls in the oceanic terrain, and the relatively minimal; effect of ” Seafloor spreading” (Seafloor spreading is a process that occurs at mid-ocean ridges, where new oceanic crust is formed through volcanic activity and then gradually moves away from the ridge).
Congressman Brooks is not a politician with whom I share many positions, or beliefs, but I fail to see how vehement abuse is helpful when attempting to persuade anyone, even politicians to a more enlightened way of thinking. In fact, I would imagine it’s fairly counter-productive!
Scientific debate about Plate tectonics, and theories relating relating to dynamics of Earths outer shell, as well as other effects such as the effect of additional weight created by Ice melt compacting sea floor sediment (a factor you seem to ignore in your calculations)and altering volcanic patterns, etc is certai8nly not conclusive conclusive, nor definitive.
Other factors such as the effects (if any) of an expanding planet affecting the lithosphere resulting in changes in to asthenosphere, etc are exceedingly important and are in need of far more extensive research.
So maybe, just maybe, you might find it more rewarding to forego your Pavlovian reaction to bark loudly anytime you sense the a juicy bone of contention, coupled with your overwhelming need to show how smart you are by yelling loudly “Troll” “Moron”, and other slogans.
You may discover, that it’s you who’ve missed the point !
Glenn,
Well, I didn’t expect an apology, but I expected at least some response. Although why am I surprised ? I’ve always found when confronted by loud, blustering, abusive persons. a calm measured response is more effective than matching anger with anger.
As I originally surmised, you seem to have no real interest in environmental ocean science, your interest, like most acolytes is more attacking and deriding others whom you regard as possessing less knowledge than yourself.
That’s a shame, because often knowledge can be gleaned from the most surprising of sources.
In the same time as it takes you to arrogantly hold others to ridicule, you could find out why they believe what the believe and either introduce them gently to enlightenment, or maybe learn something you hadn’t previously known.
But, that requires listening patiently and helping others to clearly express their opinions, a skill you seem to regard as far beneath your exalted status.
Nonetheless, I did appreciate the modicum of research in your reply, even if it was a it irrelevant. Still, I thank you for the effort.
Craig,
It would appear that in at least one persons mind, my reply to you was a defense of Congressman Brooks position. That wasn’t my intention at all, in fact it baffles me why someone with so little scientific knowledge would choose to sit on such a committee.
My reply was to highlight the danger of ridiculing the Congressman’s beliefs in such a vehement fashion. Sneering at politicians is hardly edifying and unlikely to engender support from moderate constituents. (no one likes a smarty-pants).
My question to you was intend to seek your opinion(s) on the subject of rises in sea levels.
I know the Pavlovian reaction of die-hard global warming adherents, but I believe the dynamics of oceanic volume levels are not as simple as GW adherents would have us believe.
In fact the dynamics are very complex and difficult to measure with any accuracy. The danger of attributing “global warming” as the sole cause, is the search for other factors ceases. Any anomalies discovered are ignored or forced conform with existing GW dogma so as not to disrupt or diverge from global warming orthodoxy.
This is a very dangerous trend in any intellectual process, when an orthodoxy becomes established and those precepts must be defended at all costs.
The dynamics of the ocean on the planet’s Geo-physical surface and substructure is fascinating and only just starting to be understood and researched. The rate of expansion of the planet itself and the causes for that expansion are equally interesting, especially if as the data seems to indicate, the rate of expansion is erratic. (although that may be due to incomplete or erroneous data).
I guess my real point is these subjects need far more research. To fund that research, scientists need the sort of funding and resources only governments possess. How does alienating those in charge of the public purse with tantrums of abuse and dogmatic truculence assist in persuading politicians and others who don’t believe this sort of expenditure to be a priority, change their support ?
At some stage, advocates like yourself must ask yourself the question, what is more important, gaining broad support or the luxury of feeling righteous ?