Image from WUWT reader “Boudu”
This QOTW is from Congressman Henry Waxman, who is pushing (or maybe bribing) the carbon cap and trade bill through congress. The statement made by Waxman can be corrected by a third grader; it is that bad.
From an interview on NPR as relayed by Tavis Smiley:
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
That’s probably the scariest statement on “science” ever uttered by a Congressman.
Let me go on record by saying Waxman is stunningly and stupidly misinformed and intellectually inadequate for the tasks at hand that bears his name: The Waxman-Markey bill
This is what Waxman works on in Congress:
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Chairman)
* Subcommittee on Health
* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
* Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Write or call your US representatives now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Waxman:
I’ll take Arctic geography for a 100… billion tax payer dollars…Art!
(of course, I don’t believe Shimkus is presenting a massive piece of legislation related to the issue…)
Lubos Motl (10:31:14) :
In the past, I used to think that Czech politicians – and not only politicians – were extraordinarily stupid. I no longer think so. The silliest recent example of ignorance we’ve seen was an interview with the #2 member of the Czech Green Party, Ms Kateřina Jacques, who was unable to clarify what biomass is and in what form it can be burned in environmentally friendly heating systems (gas? biowaste?).
But this Waxman dude seems much worse.
Sadly, Waxman is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Mike, Al Gore is not revered much here either (more considered as a bad joke), and this is his home town! (Nashville, TN).
starzmom (12:18:26) :
Thank you for that, starzmom. I believe you are referring to Section 172, for Non-Attainment Areas in general. That section does not require cost considerations. However, section 112 that deals with hazardous air pollutants from major sources, area sources, and stationary sources, also requires costs to be considered. It is interesting, because “prohibitions of emissions, where achievable” is in the same sentence with “taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction…”
Clean Air Act is very complicated, as you probably know.
I found these in “Schott’s Original Miscellany”. They are taken from “The Demon’s Dictionary” and thought them appropriate here. “Influence”-def.- in politics, a visionary “quo” given for a substantial “quid”. “Politics”_ def.- the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
Green Energy solutions are surprisingly retrograde. Wind power, a key component of all green energy solutions, was the main energy source – sailing ships and windmills – prior to the invention of the steam engine. Battery operated electric cars – the supposed solution to the transportation fuel shortage, – was the dominant car technology up to 1913, when internal combustion engine driven cars took over because of their superior performance and cost. Electric propulsion is a partial solution at best. While it may be suitable for short range passenger cars, it is totally unsuitable for trucks and airplanes
Andrew P (11:44:53) :
John Edmondson (11:14:39) :
This man is a genius compared to our “primeminister” the one eyed scottish idiot.
Gordon Brown is far from perfect, and his government has got it wrong on many key issues, but I don’t see what him having only one eye or being Scottish has got to do with his abiliity or intellegence (or lack of). I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.
The reference to “one-eyed Scottish idiot” is a quote from a remark made by Jeremy Clarkson describing the aforementioned prime minister. I believe it was on Australian
TV. He late apologised for the one-eyed Scottish part.
By my count, Waxman has 4 wrong out of a possible 3. OK, maybe 3-1/2 if you give him half credit for evaporating instead of melting.
Another classic quote from Waxman in the same interview:
“Waxman: Well, I think we’re going to be a lot more innovative when we put the profit motive – the market mechanisms in place that will give a very clear incentive. If we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we’re reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it’s in their profitable interest to figure it out.”
In other words, “You guys go figure it out. But remember, you can’t use any fossil fuels and nuclear is not an option. You must use wind and solar since it’s so much more efficient. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Oh, and by the way, don’t forget to send us your taxes.”
Why did Tavis Smiley embarrass Representative Waxman (D-of course) by posting this amazing display of Waxman’s ignorance? Is Smiley a mole at PBS working for the vast right-wing conspiracy?
This reminds me that somebody (I think H L Mencken) when asked to explain what “tautology” means, said:
“It is when you say the same thing twice but with different words, like ‘ignorant politician'”
For evaporation to occur in that region temperatures would have to increase by 15-20C above present (April average). For any substantial or dangerous evaporation to occur the temperature needs to increase by 35C or more over present. Not going to happen unless a fireball the size of our planet passed very close.
One thought, as Mr. Waxman is in a leadership position within his party he may possibly be one of the brighter ones ?
I posted the following before in another thread so my apologies but on refelection it seems to be much more at home in this one. The scariest part is that some people are so taken in by the warmist hoopla that they are making life changing decisions based on it. It’s very sad.
I wonder if Al lies awake at night worrying about the size of his carbon footprint or whether he and Tipper should not have had all their kids ?
I doubt it somehow, the green movement gone mad has a lot to answer for.
“The stakes are higher for his wife, Mimi. He says having a second child could have too high an environmental cost. “We’ve had the discussion of, ‘If we have another biological child, it means we never fly,’” plus doing other things to offset the child’s carbon footprint, said Mimi Ikle-Khalsa. “I’m 40, so my clock is going Boom! Boom! Boom! Sometimes I just roll my eyes and go, ‘Come on, honey, think about who our child could be!’”
http://www.startribune.com/nation/43652517.html?page=1&c=y
Andrew P
“I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.”
Actually that was a near quote from good old Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame. He subsequently apologised for the Scottish and blind (one-eyed) references.
Anthony, feel free to bin my previous comment. Green Genes already covered it!
And the howling left laughed at Sara Palin!!
When making things up about the cost of AGW, “peer review” and “publication” becomes not so important.
This short read is a stunning example of academia feeding the Waxmans garbage.
Enjoy.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/UO+study+finds+huge+costs+from+warming.-a0195939986
“The study has not gotten an independent review and has not been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal peer-reviewed journal Refereed journal Academia A professional journal that only publishes articles subjected to a rigorous peer validity review process. Cf Throwaway journal. . But Doppelt said the methodology and results were reviewed by experts on the climate economics steering committee”
We continually elect lawyers (or at least people with law degrees) to political office in America. Is it any wonder they nothing about science?
Unless the curriculum has been further watered down since I got my master’s degree in the mid 90’s, the only science requirement for a BA (the minimum prerequisite for law school) is a first year lab science.
Arts students do not take physics or chemistry as a rule. They usually take intro biology, ecology or geology. Most colleges even have “special” sections of these for non-science majors where the curriculum is watered down and where “labs” are more like demonstrations..
I know that the typical lawyer doesn’t have much more background in sciences than that. The lawyers I work with (I work in the environmental sciences realm) rely on “expert” witnesses. They really don’t give a snot about science per se, and know even less about it.
A lawyer’s concern is wrapped up in the meaning of words. Their need for experts extends only as far as finding those who support their interpretation of the law (preferably ones with lots of peer-reviewed papers). The same holds for lawyers who become politicians.
In Waxman’s case even the EPA has come out on the record stating his bill is not grounded in science. His statement about ice evaporation is therefore not too big of a surprise.
Yesterday I listened to some of Waxman’s testimony from Thursday I don’t know if the guy is a lawyer, but I can say without hesitation that he is definitely a green loon. He doesn’t have the slightest clue about science and simply repeats the most alarmist crud that there is out there (and badly at that).
My fingers are firmly crossed that his bill doesn’t even pass the House – and if it does, that the Senate will kill it.
OT…early snow in Australia, a preview of a cold winter to come?
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/the-big-thrill-christmas-comes-early-for-ski-resorts-20090426-ajd8.html
Roger Sowell (11:55:29) :
Ron de Haan (10:28:30) :
“What Waxman should read in order to look less stupid:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/”
I read Dr. Spencer’s statements, and with all due respect to the good Doctor, unfortunately he is wrong on at least one point. Dr. Spencer stated: “Because the Clean Air Act is exempt from cost/benefit analysis, it does not matter if regulations end up causing ten times more harm than good. “
This is just not true. The section of the Clean Air Act in question, Section 202(a), does require that EPA consider the costs of compliance. In fact, the word “cost” or “costs” is used 5 times in Section 202(a), and 15 times in the entire Section 202.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521—-000-.html”
Thanks Roger,
I will post your comment at his site.
Ron de Haan, thanks for linking to Roy Spencer’s Q & Q. If you are in contact with Dr. Spencer, you might suggest that he correct the percentage of the atmosphere that consists of CO2. The 3% that he shows in the Q & A is off by 2 orders of magnitude. Other than that, Dr. Spencer’s piece is excellent.
The scary part is that they invite Al Gore to discuss implementation of the cap and trade without any discussion of the current state of the science, as if it IS no longer in question. The debate is over it seems (at least for Congress). Hate to say it, but we’re screwed…it’s just a matter of how much.
I think they realize the ocean and solar cycles well enough to know they better get something in place within the next year or two max or it might be game over (at least Al does). After all, gotta pay off those deficits somehow…
If you ever had an inkling to write you’re congressman, now is the time! Wake up sheeple!
Stephen Brown (12:16:47) :
“I tried to watch the Gore ’speech’ to the Congessional Committee, I really did. But only thirty seconds of Gore’s blether made me want to throw up. His sactimonius delivery, his absolute refusal to meet someone like Lord Monckton who would destroy each and every pompously made ‘point’ and his very tone of voice made my stomach churn”.
Stephen,
I had the same experience.
Besides that I got sweaty hands and a wet nose!
I immediately had to think about the Swine Flu.
Wasn’t Waxman in the Monty Python fish-slapping dance? If not he should have been.
The only thing which is close to true is the sentence fragment about a tipping point, but it would take an asteroid to achieve that. I’d ask how these people get elected, but Obama has shown us how.