29 January 2010

Glenn Grothman: wrong for dissembling on Global Warming.

Apparently Glenn was back on the caffeine this week.

At 'public' hearing on energy, the public is relegated to sit in the back of the bus

Never happened. And as the hours dragged on -- and on -- and on -- without a single member of a citizen group or individual citizen called to testify, it sometimes became theater of the absurd, as State Sen. Glenn Grothman and State Rep. Jim Ott put on a show to challenge whether global warming was really happening. If you could keep a sense of humor, what John LaForge of Nukewatch called a Flat Earth Society meeting was kind of amusing -- for awhile.

"The reason to fight global warming is to make it colder," Ott, a former TV weatherman said. "How much colder would you like it to be?" It was, indeed, cold outside, not that it had any relevance.

Grothman, meanwhile, declaring that the last two years had been colder in Wisconsin, asked witnesses how many years in a row it would have to get cooler before they gave up this silly global warming idea.

A representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the last decade was the warmest on record, and explained that climate change is measured in periods of 20 to 30 years, while weather -- which is measured by TV weathermen --- is measured pretty much all the time.

And Glenn isn't embarrassed to say this stuff out loud. How is it 80% of the Republican Party in Washington County thought Glenn would be an improvement over Mary Panzer?


Kevin Scheunemann said...


To say this is the "warmest decade" is not borne out by the data. In fact, since 1998, global temperatures have been steady or in slight decline.

I suggest you pick up the latest issue of Reason. They sort through the temperature data and the the exposed hidden data by climate scientists.

Are you tryng to impose your global warming religious beliefs over the science?

Kudos to Glen for sticking with the science.

Mpeterson said...

Kevin, it's not that hard to twist the math to demonstrate that the world is flat -- which is pretty much what Glenn and Mr. Ott have been doing.

Seriously, if the world is flat, then why can't I see the Rocky's from here?

xoff said...

Call me a loony liberal, but I tend to believe NASA.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


So if I can twist the data that easily, what is to stop you from twisting the "data" to serve your global warming religious belief?

Read the Reason article. You will find the climatologist archiving of the global temperature data from before the mid 1980s enlightening.

It takes "faith" to believe the temperature (and technology) data before the mid 80's to be accurate!

I do admire how fervant you are in practicing your religion....it would make even the most devout evangelicals blush. (Peterson 3:16)

Mpeterson said...

Verification over time, like all science...

What's wrong with you?

Kevin Scheunemann said...


For that "verification" to occur you have to believe the pre mid 1980s temperature data is accurate.

Scientists admit that technology, the refinement and improvement of measuring methods, may be responsible for some(if not all) of the (alleged) data trend. For instance, could one measure a tenth of a degree prior to 1940 with accuracy? No.

If we are talking .15 degees every 10 years on average...much of that could be refinement of measuring methods at many global weather stations, many of which do not have the most current measuring technology yet.

You are taking the data accuracy, prior to 1980 (and post 1980 in my opinion), on a lot of "faith". (because prior to 1980, scientists were running around screaming the "ice age is coming! the ice age is coming!". Proper temperature data gathering methods for the future global warming religious funding were not in place.) What ever happened to the "ice age is coming" religious funding faith in the scientific community?

Are you sure that you are not making a religious donation here...only in a different Sunday offering plate?

This is all about religious funding and the control of our lives that comes with enforcing those religious beliefs with the mechanism of government.

Are you making the argument that your global warming "religion" is better than my "religion"?

Glen (and Ott) are the common sense ones here, soundly rejecting the global warming religion. In fact, they don't go far enough....we should be erradicating this global warming religious talk from the public square. You have been a strong proponent (or so I thought) of keeping religion from infecting the public square.

Mpeterson said...

I'm afraid I believe NASA rather than KEVIN too.

I suppose since you have a right to believe as you wish, and you believe that all the scientific data being misinterpreted by people who understand it better than you do, then the predictive value of your beliefs about global warming are obviously just as valid as those who are depending not on belief, but on thinking.

But I still believe NASA rather than KEVIN.