How far back into Elementary School do we have to go ...

[AthenaAwakened]

These are our lawmakers. College graduates. And my 26 year old kid's 1 year old god-daughter has a better grasp of science than they do.

AND THEY SIT ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE!!!!!

 

[RavenSky]

So I wasn't the only one laughing and crying and nodding and cringing shortly after 11:00 p.m. EST on September 22

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh my glob!

And if we use Solar power, the Sun will run out of light!

 

[arkirk]

Oh my glob!

And if we use Solar power, the Sun will run out of light!

You have to admit that human beings are given to excess. Much of the argument the oil people have used for years is really just saying "You won't be able to do everything to excess as our wonderful oil has allowed you to do." You have to admit that Committee on Science and Technology is really a whopper. Left to them, they may just VOTE SCIENCE OUT ALTOGETHER. Of course they will be phoning home their success on their new I Phone 6.

There is more to coping with global warming than simply powering up with the sun and wind, though these seem inevitable. We have real problems coming with food production and fresh water production...much of our world food production is dependent on fertilizers made from natural gas. Every one of those congressmen were fat...no doubt fed on the stuff that comes from deep underground. They'll keep the technology thank you! Just get rid of the science.

 

[Trausti]

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

oh please, everyone, do read the man IN CONTEXT.

I beg of you, read the rest of the exchange.

I would quote some more here, but I would just be taking the context out of context.

 

[laughing dog]

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

How is this "out of context" quote misrepresenting his view? No one should have to search through 43 pages of material to find your point.

 

[arkirk]

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

Actually, there is some truth to Dr. Apt's remarks. These giant wind turbines kill a lot of birds. Dr. Apt on the matter of slowing the wind is correct, however there is no reason to assume that would result in warming. Radiative heat loss from the surface of the earth to space is greatest in conditions of no wind and no clouds. These devices (wind turbines) are essentially kinetic devices and while there my be some conversion of this form of energy to heat energy in ultimate usage locations, it actually is just converting kinetic energy to electrical energy.

 

[Trausti]

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

oh please, everyone, do read the man IN CONTEXT.

I beg of you, read the rest of the exchange.

I would quote some more here, but I would just be taking the context out of context.

He was reading from a paper, did you miss that? The "wind is a finite energy" statement was from the Princeton paper, not his own. He's saying, based on the paper he read into the record, that if you scale up the number of wind turbines to attempt to meet present or future energy demands it might affect global wind patterns and could cause temperatures to rise. That's taken from the Princeton paper. The (1) "wind is a finite resource, (2) "slow the winds down," and (3) "temperature go up" is all from the Princeton paper. So, yes, this quote is taken out of context and clearly meant to make him appear a fool. He adds in some "god created the winds" stuff later, which is foolish enough. Make fun of him for that. If you're going to criticize a person or a person's point of view, at least be honest about it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

oh please, everyone, do read the man IN CONTEXT.

I beg of you, read the rest of the exchange.

I would quote some more here, but I would just be taking the context out of context.

He was reading from a paper, did you miss that? The "wind is a finite energy" statement was from the Princeton paper, not his own. He's saying, based on the paper he read into the record, that if you scale up the number of wind turbines to attempt to meet present or future energy demands it might affect global wind patterns and could cause temperatures to rise. That's taken from the Princeton paper. The (1) "wind is a finite resource, (2) "slow the winds down," and (3) "temperature go up" is all from the Princeton paper. So, yes, this quote is taken out of context and clearly meant to make him appear a fool. He adds in some "god created the winds" stuff later, which is foolish enough. Make fun of him for that. If you're going to criticism a person or a person's point of view, at least be honest about it.

So in the paper it said, "Now, wind is God's way of balancing heat."

And if you really want to take Honorable Gentleman in context, here some more of his ideas

"I would point out that if you're a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/joe-barton-great-flood_n_3055909.html

Also from the HuffPo Article

Barton has expressed skepticism about man-made global warming in the past. In 2009, he tried to argue that carbon emissions are harmless to the environment, noting how prevalent carbon dioxide is in everyday life.

"CO2 is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term," Barton said in an interview on C-SPAN.

"It's in your Coca-Cola, your Dr. Pepper and your Perrier water. It's necessary for human life," he continued. "It's odorless, colorless, tasteless, doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause asthma."

And now to things in REAL context

The Congressman's top donors


Anadarko Petroleum
Energy Future Holdings Corp
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
Lockheed Martin
AT&T Inc
National Assn of Realtors
National Auto Dealers Assn
Exxon Mobil
CenterPoint Energy
Martin Sprocket & Gear
Comcast Corp
Urology Assoc of North Texas
Verizon Communications
AMR Corp
American Electric Power
Texas Industries
Valero Energy
Exelon Corp
Edison Electric Institute
Textron Inc

Now if you want to pick Joe Barton for your battle, bring it on. He has left a shit ton of context behind him.

 

[laughing dog]

oh please, everyone, do read the man IN CONTEXT.

I beg of you, read the rest of the exchange.

I would quote some more here, but I would just be taking the context out of context.

He was reading from a paper, did you miss that? The "wind is a finite energy" statement was from the Princeton paper, not his own. He's saying, based on the paper he read into the record, that if you scale up the number of wind turbines to attempt to meet present or future energy demands it might affect global wind patterns and could cause temperatures to rise. That's taken from the Princeton paper. The (1) "wind is a finite resource, (2) "slow the winds down," and (3) "temperature go up" is all from the Princeton paper. So, yes, this quote is taken out of context and clearly meant to make him appear a fool. He adds in some "god created the winds" stuff later, which is foolish enough. Make fun of him for that. If you're going to criticize a person or a person's point of view, at least be honest about it.

The only way this argument makes any sense whatsoever is if you mean that Representative Barton read remarks into the Congressional Record of which he was critical. Because if he agreed with the remarks he was reading, your complaints are nonsensical.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

oh please, everyone, do read the man IN CONTEXT.

I beg of you, read the rest of the exchange.

I would quote some more here, but I would just be taking the context out of context.

He was reading from a paper, did you miss that? The "wind is a finite energy" statement was from the Princeton paper, not his own. He's saying, based on the paper he read into the record, that if you scale up the number of wind turbines to attempt to meet present or future energy demands it might affect global wind patterns and could cause temperatures to rise. That's taken from the Princeton paper. The (1) "wind is a finite resource, (2) "slow the winds down," and (3) "temperature go up" is all from the Princeton paper. So, yes, this quote is taken out of context and clearly meant to make him appear a fool. He adds in some "god created the winds" stuff later, which is foolish enough. Make fun of him for that. If you're going to criticize a person or a person's point of view, at least be honest about it.

He very poorly paraphrased what the report was saying. The report he cites earlier is potentially talking about massive scale wind farming.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He was reading from a paper, did you miss that? The "wind is a finite energy" statement was from the Princeton paper, not his own. He's saying, based on the paper he read into the record, that if you scale up the number of wind turbines to attempt to meet present or future energy demands it might affect global wind patterns and could cause temperatures to rise. That's taken from the Princeton paper. The (1) "wind is a finite resource, (2) "slow the winds down," and (3) "temperature go up" is all from the Princeton paper. So, yes, this quote is taken out of context and clearly meant to make him appear a fool. He adds in some "god created the winds" stuff later, which is foolish enough. Make fun of him for that. If you're going to criticize a person or a person's point of view, at least be honest about it.

He very poorly paraphrased what the report was saying. The report he cites earlier is potentially talking about massive scale wind farming.

so he's not quoting but paraphrasing?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He very poorly paraphrased what the report was saying. The report he cites earlier is potentially talking about massive scale wind farming.

so he's not quoting but paraphrasing?

He quotes earlier in the testimony. What is shown above is spoken by him later in the testimony and it is him paraphrasing as such.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a grain of truth here.

If we use too much wind power there will be severe climate effects. It would take a hell of a lot more than we are using now to have an effect, though.

- - - Updated - - -

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

Thanks. Given that I'll say he's not being kooky here at all.

- - - Updated - - -

The guy may be kinda kooky, but even kooks shouldn't have their words twisted out of context. Go to page 90: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212035329/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf

How is this "out of context" quote misrepresenting his view? No one should have to search through 43 pages of material to find your point.

1) It's not an accurate quote at all.

2) This is on a computer. How hard is it to search the transcript? (Hint: Search for "finite resource".)

 

[barbos]

what was his purpose mentioning this clearly ridiculous scenario involving whole earth covered with wind turbines?

 

[laughing dog]

1) It's not an accurate quote at all.

2) This is on a computer. How hard is it to search the transcript? (Hint: Search for "finite resource".)

It is bad form to substantiate a claim by telling someone to "go look for it". And the quote is accurate unless you are claiming that Joe Barton did not actually say or mean any of that. Finally, since no one was talking about covering the planet with wind turbines, nor did he preface he is remarks with that caveat, it is a combination of sloppiness and stupidity.

 

[RavenSky]

This comment in the discussion on Snopes is pertinent:

He's quoting Jay Apt, a business school guy at Carnegie Mellon who's quoting David W. Keith, a Harvard environmental engineer. As best as I can tell, he's quoting this 2004 paper which says:

We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants.

Keith also says that this is a limited study and more research is needed. I wonder what research has been done between then and now on this subject.

Keith's paper ended by saying that the hypothetical effects might be avoided:

Last, it may be comparatively easy to reduce the climatic impacts of wind turbines. Preliminary analysis suggests that turbine designs could be modified to increase the atmospheric efficiency (C P/C D) by several tens of percent and reduce the generation of turbulence by several fold, both of which could be done economically. Additional mitigation of impact might be achieved by siting wind farms such that their effects partially cancel and by tailoring the interaction of turbines with the local topography to minimize the added drag.

. http://message.snopes.com/showpost.php?p=1840267&postcount=15

So, good old Joe Barton was misquoting someone who was misquoting someone who specifically said the effects would be negligible and even those could be easily avoided... in his argument against any amount of wind energy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1) It's not an accurate quote at all.

The quote paraphrases what he had already quoted from the report. The report was speaking of massive scale wind farming.

2) This is on a computer. How hard is it to search the transcript? (Hint: Search for "finite resource".)

If it is that easy, why haven't you posted the quote? I'm just saying.