Stumped By Science: Michele Bachmann Calls CO2 ‘Harmless,’ ‘Negligible,’ ‘Necessary,’ ‘Natural’
Stumped By Science: Michele Bachmann Calls CO2 ‘Harmless,’ ‘Negligible,’ ‘Necessary,’ ‘Natural’
On the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) argued that the threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense because “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature”:
Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.
Watch it:
Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), later in the evening, demolished Bachmann for “making things up on the floor of the House”:
My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.
The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.
Furthermore, attempting to repeat the goofy denier talking point that carbon dioxide makes up only a fraction of the atmospheric content and thus isn’t of concern, Bachmann errs wildly. She claims that carbon dioxide makes up “three percent of the atmosphere,” when in fact it only comprises 0.04% — off by a factor of a hundred. As Blumenauer pointed out, CO2 levels are significantly higher than they’ve been throughout human history. Only a hundred years ago, CO2 concentrations were only 0.03%. Of course, when it comes to the greenhouse effect, only global warming gases are relevant. And carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas.
But Bachmann hasn’t ever been one to let her political rants be constrained by the facts.
Transcript:
BACHMANN: But people talk about cap and tax and they aren’t sure exactly what we’re talking about. Let’s get back to step one. What is the problem? Why do we have to have this tax in the first place?
It’s about carbon dioxide.
Well, what is carbon dioxide? Let’s just go to a fundamental question.
Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.
As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful!
But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle.
And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth. Well we’re told the crux of this problem is human activity. It’s humans that are creating more carbon dioxide!
Is that true, or is that false?
Well, carbon dioxide is a natural part of Earth’s atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of the total atmosphere that’s in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart, and you have all of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of that total.
What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide is a negligible gas and it’s only three percent of Earth’s atmosphere, what part is human activity?
Human activity contributes perhaps three percent of the three percent. In other words, human activity is maybe 3 percent contributing to the 3 percent of carbon dioxide that’s in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s so negligible — it’s a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent — that it can hardly be — be quantified.
…
BLUMENAUER: My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.
The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.
40 Responses to “Stumped By Science: Michele Bachmann Calls CO2 ‘Harmless,’ ‘Negligible,’ ‘Necessary,’ ‘Natural’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Michele doesn’t let facts or theory stump her. She can babble on incessantly as long as her diatribes are salted with a few key Repugnican’t talking points.
…..drill here, drill now…..one world currency….where’s George W., I want a kiss and a hug?…
April 24th, 2009 at 11:41 amAh yes, the “more is better argument”. One only wonders what the MN voters who were the recipients of flood waters earlier this month would say. A little water good, more better?
It would really be great if the GOP would “get their agates in a row” so that there could be some intellectual debates about the problems facing this country, instead of individuals such as Bachmann speaking so irresponsibly. Very sad representation for the GOP…it just adds to how ridiculous they look to an independent observer (not me, say a visitor to this country or an independent voter)!
April 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pmShe might want to view “Apollo 13″ to see how healthy CO2 is.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:59 pmYes Ms. Bachmann…CO2 is “natural” but that doesn’t make it harmless. Peach pits are natural too , but grind them up and you can make arsenic. Hot peppers are natural, but over eating them can cause serious internal problems and some say even cancer. Getting the “natural” oils in your eyes can cause serious damage.
CO2 is natural. Sure. But digging it out of the ground, using methods that pollute land and water and by removing mountain tops, and pumping it into the air using man made machinery, automobiles, and massive factories is NOT natural. It’s not even close. You may as well be arguing smoke is natural as a rebuttal to people complaining about their houses burning down.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:20 pmCarbon dioxide is a harmless gas – when it exists in the correct proportions. Water is harmless too. You can even drink the stuff. But again, in the correct proportions…try drinking too much of that, oh so very important stuff, and it WILL KILL YOU. Well Congresswoman Bachmann guess what! Too much carbon dioxide causes (technical stuff redacted) BAD THINGS!
April 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pmgamma radiation and black holes are natural, too…..
April 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pmKnow what else is “natural”? Stupidity.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pmWhy don’t Dems point out that if one persons pees in a river, it isn’t pollution, and is even a natural part of the life cycle with naturally occurring compounds, but if an industry decides to pump 1000’s of gallons of urine into a river 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it is not a natural part of any cycle and is in fact polluting?
April 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pmSnake venom is natural as well. Want a sip?
April 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pmI suggest the Representative from Minnesota conduct her own little personal experiment on CO2 concentrations.
Step 1: Place plastic bag over head.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pmStep 2: Breath as usual.
Step 3: Wait.
Does this mean that Bachman will be making the same argument in favor of legalizing marijuana, cocaine and opium because it is natural?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pmIt is a constant source of astonishment to me that someone this fundamentally ignorant is actually a members of Congress. Her district would have been better served by sending a rotten head of cabbage to serve in that seat.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pmWater is perfectly natural too and without it we’d all be dead. No life that we know of can exist without water.
However, if I take someone’s head and submerge it in just a little bit of water – they freaking drown.
The fact that Bachmanm can’t see this very simple and logical conclusion is indicative of one of two things: A. She really is a stupid and ideologically blind as she appears B. She’s been bought out by lobbyists. Given that the Oil & Gas industry donated over $29 million dollars to the Republicans last year I’m willing to bet it’s more B than A, but a combination of both.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pmIf I were a science teacher at either Anoka High School or Winona State University, I would be hanging my head in shame.
Maybe the following section of Rep. Bachmann’s biography, posted on her website, helps explain Bachmann’s irrational weird science rants and kookie woman of wingnuttia outbursts:
Congresswoman Bachmann is a graduate of Anoka High School and Winona State University. Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, live in Stillwater where they own a small business mental health care practice that employs 42 people. The Bachmann’s have five children, Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia. In addition, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children…
How does this woman find the time?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmI have an idea – let’s seal off the republican side of the house and senate chambers to make them airtight and then set the atmospheric contents to what they claim is healthy/safe for us. If they can successfully govern in that air, then I’ll believe their claims.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pmMichelle Bachmann LOVES carbon dioxide. She’s f-ing enamored. And I think that’s great for her, that she’s found something to care for. I hope she gets a chance – I’m sure she’s a busy lady – but I hope she gets the chance soon to hang out with some CO2. Maybe in a room. Maybe all sealed up tight. Snug as a bug. Just her and her harmless, natural CO2, hanging out and taking a breather.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pmCarbon monoxide is a natural component of the atmosphere as well. Perhaps Ms. Bachmann would allow me to connect a hose from the tailpipe of a car she was sitting in with the windows rolled up while we discuss the dangers of atmospheric imbalance.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pmRegarding that clip; has she stopped washing her hair?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pmBrad,
what is your source for your statistic that CO2 levels are the highest in 2/3 million years? You did not site any sources for your information. This scholarly work here:
April 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pmhttp://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
seems to indicate that the CO2 levels of the past 500 million has been almost entirely dominated by CO2 levels several magnitudes larger than current levels.
Blumenauer’s response on video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyMM3tdLyy8
April 24th, 2009 at 5:11 pmYes, carbon dioxide is such a wonderful thing to have in our atmosphere, that we humans have to BREATH IT OUT because it is poisonous.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pmCO2 IS plant food but chopping down forests, especially rain forests means less plants to filter it. And there will never be enough to filter what we, China, India, Russia and Japan produce. Not counting the burnoff at the wellheads.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:04 pmMs. Bachmann is without a doubt the bigest embarrasment to the good folks in her political district. How she ever got re-elected is certainly defies understanding. She should look in a mirror as she speaks and see how foolish she appears. How the Republican leadership can put up with her is amazing.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:31 pmShe needs to become a patient in her own mental health business. I can’t comprehend how she was elected twice. Is her district in a drug area?? Wait, even drug addicts have more common sense than she has. Can’t they impeach her for malfeasance? Her official obligation is to use her brain which she is failing to do.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:41 pmThat woman is the dumbest bitch on the planet. Take, for instance, water. Essential for life. But drink too much and you bladder bursts (assuming you don’t pee). Pour it on a cloth over someone’s mouth and it’s torture. Force it out a small nozzle at extreme speed and it will cut through you like a laser. Get under enough of it and it turn you to goo. Fall onto it from a sufficient height and it’s lights out.
From Wikipedia or any other science book: concentrations of CO2 of 4% (40,000 PPM) is immediately dangerous to human life. OSHA says you shouldn’t be in 3% for more than 10 minutes. Just 2000PPM will give you headaches and nausea. So you can see why climate scientists are freaking out that we are heading that way.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:05 pmI hate to spoil the party but Ms. Bachmann’s comments were more accurate than Rep. Blumenauer’s(ok she got her decimal points mixed — big deal).
All life on Earth is based on carbon and that carbon ultimately comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere via photosynthesis — it is not a pollutant nor poison it is the basis of all life on this planet, which in case you didn’t notice is carbon-based.
It is not the most dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is, in addition there are millions of natural volatile organic compounds produce by microbes, plants and animals which probably saturate CO2’s infrared absorption bands but are not even noted in atmospheric models.
The concentration of 0.03-0.04% of the atmosphere is the lowest concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the history of the Earth.
The claim that CO2 has not been higher than 300 ppm for the past several thousand years is suspect — based on a few ice cores analyses, the interpretation of which were based on the the likely erroneous assumption that CO2 in the air trapped in those cores has not undergone any equilibration throughtout the ice nor been metabolized by microrgisms over that time — valid chemical measururment made over the past 150 years indicate that CO2 concentrations have been variable and as high as currently claimed levels.
Anyone who claims consensus science is full of BS — this is simply an appeal to authority.
Climate models are: highly unreliable, do not include solar effects, geothermal variability, nor the impact of the oceans (which actually control the climate much more than the atmosphere due to their greater heat capacity)
Finally, if we are entering a weak solar cycle which produces a Maunder type minimum, we better put some CO2 into the air –not to warm things up, but to improve plant productivity, because colder periods tend to be associated with lower food production, and as ocean’s cool the dynamic equilibrium of CO2 in the air shifts to lower values as it is much more soluble in colder water.
I personally think CO2 levels of 500 – 1000 ppm would be beneficial to all life on the plant and have minimal effect on climate. The idea that governments can regulate or control the climate is downright silly as are the arguments of Al Gore and several others.
What is rather serious though is that Cap and Trade represent a massive transfer of power from the individual to the government and history has shown that has generally led to some rather nasty results.
Cheers
April 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pmDirk: I’ve updated the post. This is based on Antarctic ice-core data.
A 420,000 year record was published in 1999.
The 650,000 year result was published in 2005 in Science by the
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica as “Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene.”
This news piece includes press releases from AAAS and Oregon State University.
The CO2 record was extended to 800,000 ybp in 2008, with the publication in Nature of “High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present.”
April 24th, 2009 at 11:05 pmI’m from Minnesota, but thank goodness she is NOT my representative. She is an embarrassment for my state. Please don’t judge us because of this crazy person! We really do have some intellegent life here.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:09 pmTo Dirk:
You are absolutely correct that over the time period that life has existed on earth in complex, multicellular, differentiated-tissue forms (the paleozoic through the cenozoic) co2 concentrations have been much higher than they have been recently. The Quaternary period – which covers most of the recent period of vacillation between ice ages and pluvial ages – is the exception rather than the rule. In the quaternary period, co2 concentrations have been almost universally lower than they are now, in our current, human-activity affected atmosphere. There have been a couple of brief blips where concentrations approached or exceeded current levels of co2. The last time that it is likely that values equaled or exceeded the current ones was over 600,000 years ago.
There is nothing “wrong” with carbon dioxide. CO2 plays an incredibly useful role in many life cycles, from our own respiratory/energy generating systems to photosynthesis. There is nothing “wrong” with greenhouse gases trapping solar heat. If we did not have this effect, earth’s energy balance would be quite different and at our current orbit and the sun’s current output the earth would be a ball of ice instead of earth & oceans. Pretty crappy for all concerned.
The trick is, and what Bachmann completely fails to either address, understand, or both, that even though all these things are true, and even though a climate rebalanced to 1000ppm of CO2 (almost 3 times ours) would support wonderful, diverse life,
1) This change is happening very rapidly on both a geologic and evolutionary timescale, meaning that the new climate would cause massive die-offs of plants and animals before the remaining creatures either found a new home farther north or re-adapted to the new environment.
2) Crop plants, which we work very hard to breed to maximize yield, which means to maximize their fitness for their environment, would be hit hardest by this die off.
3) Because of the die-off of crop-plants and animals before things rebalanced and repopulated, Human Beings would face unimaginable food shortages, causing a die-off of humans to fewer than 4 billion and possibly fewer than 1 billion people.
4) The nations that would do best would be those farthest north, which does NOT include most of the United States (if you wanna go all selfish and not care that people all over the world would die, you might care that the people in your family, including YOU, might die)
5) The nations that do well (like Canada) would face people from all over the world with guns and boats but no food who want to be among the 4 or 1 billion and are willing to kill others to join the elect.
6) Huge investments in our economies, like all the buildings we’ve built in New York City, Miami, almost all of LA, all of Houston, etc, etc, etc would now be worse than worthless – they would be actively poisoning the waters off our new coasts because many things that are made to contain, say, waste chemicals, are not made to contain them against salt-water corrosion for decades without human maintenance.
7) Entire regions of the United States would be Oceans instead of food producing, economically productive regions.
Remember that in the time period you are talking about, the mississippi valley was a giant inland sea.
NOW. All that said, these are the predictions for an atmosphere of 1000ppm, 3 times what we have now, and only after the antarctic ice melts nearly completely. We will probably stop our output of CO2 WELL SHORT of 1000ppm. We will probably not raise the sea levels nearly enough to wipe out the entire middle of our country, and even if we do, it might take 400 years or more, which would give us time to adjust.
But on the other hand, we assume that it is probable that we won’t get to 1000ppm because we assume that the currently scientifically obvious and ever-more overwhelming evidence will push the leaders and coordinators of our society (like Bachmann) to take the action necessary to prevent that scenario. We assume it because if we even hit 500ppm (and we are 1/2 way there from what we started with pre-industrial revolution) we will lose all the real estate in Manhattan, Miami, and many other places where people who own multi-billions in real estate will be very put-out to face such losses. We assume that the business community (read: the money) will actually put pressure on our leaders to help protect the major infrastructure investments made by rich people and government (read: all people) alike.
What scares people like the ones who cavalierly suggest Ms Bachmann conduct CO2 concentration-life-cycle experiments is that there is a lot of money trying to make sure we engage in our current energy regime long enough to drown major cities and cause major die-offs in crop-plants, and other species.
At 500ppm the results would only be a major catastrophe, perhaps killing a billion people, if the change was not managed in a way to preserve life and peace. But that still seems quite enough reason to start limiting CO2 and planning for a managed change to the new, rebalanced climate regime.
And it is very scary to see that there is still enough money out there to elect crackpots and/or convince otherwise knowledgeable people to spout nonsense like “co2 is part of the cycle of life”. While ABSOLUTELY TRUE, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the current emergency. The current emergency isn’t that the life cycle is going to shut down. It’s that billions of people are going to have to move and tens of millions are looking at starving when local food sources crash for several centuries or millenia while plants and animals readjust their geographic ranges and responses to different temperatures, water levels, and soil acidities.
I, for one, would like to see the Republicans arguing what to do about the actual problem. When they make stuff up about what the problem is – like, life existed when CO2 concentrations were over 1000ppm, so why not just let them rise to that level? Can’t hurt us if it didn’t hurt the dinos, right? – they rob the American people, and, indeed, the people of the world, of an honest debate about what the solutions might be and how we can most peaceably manage this upcoming transition.
What they also don’t mention, is that when the CO2 concentrations are very high, Oxygen (O2) concentrations tend to be lower. While not universally true, and while the Cenozoic has had some significant exceptions to that general rule for several million years at a time, we do not know WHY exactly that correlation exists. Thus we could be raising sea levels at the same time we are lowering the elevations at which humans can live.
And, of course, the most arable, productive land is that land that tends to be flat and near sea level – for geologic reasons that have to do with the weathering/sedimentation cycle. Thus we aren’t just going to lose a lot of land when sea levels rise (and they are guaranteed to rise at the current CO2 level already, we just don’t know how much by the time we achieve balance – the estimates we have are for the end of this century, not the time of full rebalancing of the cryosphere) we are going to lose some of our absolute best cropland and NO rocky mountain land. Again, this has consequences for how many people we can feed and whether that will equal the number who will be living on earth when it happens.
So, to sum up Dirk: Thank you for the question about CO2 levels and the history of life. It is a very good question and very few people understand exactly why it is not as relevant as one might believe at first glance. Too often have arguments like this been made by people in the pro-fossil fuel camp, and thus many, many people of good will do not have an accurate picture of why we should care about Anthropogenic (Global) Climate Change. I hope that you understand better why questions about past climate balances are irrelevant to the reasons why we might want to preserve this one. Perhaps now you will be able to ask more questions of the same thoughtful nature in the future that will not only deepen your knowledge of this situation and the range of possible responses, but also enable you to become a source of information to those critical thinkers of goodwill you encounter that believe that allowing unlimited fossil fuel use and a new climate balance without plans for starvation, migration, dehydration, and war is reckless, and perhaps suicidal.
While provocative, I would respect as intellectually honest a hypothetical Michelle Bachmann who made a speech like the following:
The global climate is changing. However, we are a net food exporter and we have the strongest military on the planet. Imagine the opportunities if we stop building in low-elevation places (say, less than 8 meters above sea level) and instead concentrated on making sure our crops and meat animals and fish stocks are as healthy as possible.
When life becomes horrifically desperate and people all over the globe are dying, we will be immune to invasion and yet have a food supply that we could sell at tremendous profit. We have a tremendous national debt, and a horrible ongoing trade deficit. Neither of these are truly sustainable, but if we can keep them going for long enough that drought, starvation, dehydration, and drowning of densely populated cities begin before our trade deficit and economy undergo final collapse, we will never have to pay back what we borrowed from other countries, we could sell them a ton of wheat for, say, forgiving a million dollar loan. They would be grateful not to have to pay cash now, enough so that they would forgive the debt payments we would owe them in the future at such exorbitant rates that we could by land in Canada to ensure a home for our people for all time even if we pass 1000ppm and the worst estimates of sea level turn out to be true.
….Now that’s something similar to what she’s advocating, since she’s advocating for unlimited use of fossil fuels. But instead of acknowledging advocacy for starvation, dislocation and the wars that come with them, she says,
“Hey, CO2. It’s the Cycle of Life! You’re not against the Cycle of Life, now, are you?”
…end long @$$ post…
Quaternary
April 24th, 2009 at 11:14 pmooops…
in #1 above, I should have said,
“found a home closer to their nearest pole”. North is NOT the way a creature or plant looking for cooler latitudes would head if they were already south of the equator.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:18 pm1) Everything is natural, in the sense that all things are part of nature. Aspirins and iPods are natural too.
2) a tax on CO2 is a way to control people’s lives and not a way to protect our planet.
3) more importantly: To say that with the tax and other measures we are3 saving and protecting the planet is the utmost act of arrogance.
Our planet is NOT in peril even if we go on polluting the atmosphere with all the gas we can. What is in peril is our own habitat, the quality of our life and that of the other species that are around now. NOT the planet. Even after the worst possible imaginable man-made catastrophe the planet would recover incredibly quickly and life would go on without us and without some of the species that exist now– go study the history of our planet and see if that is not the case.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:22 amIsn’t this all just a re-hash of what the American Petroleum Institute tried a couple of years ago. I seem to remember a TV ad stating this very thing. I guess at the end of a hard day of legislating Michelle(my Belle) just doesn’t have time for independent research. And of course her like-minded friends at API are more than glad tyo help (aid and abet) her in her plagarism because she gave no citation of the previous API “work”.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:29 amI’ve been from one end of the galaxy to the other and heard a lot of stupid comments from politicians from 1950 to present day, but nothing as ignorant and oblivious to reality as the gentle congresswoman’s remarks. Does the congressional health care plan cover frontal lobotomies, Mr. Speaker?
April 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pmlife can’t exist without water either but try living at the bottom of the ocean you stupid twit!
April 26th, 2009 at 2:11 pmWow, she should take that on the road. They still do have stand up comic night clubs don’t they?
April 26th, 2009 at 2:48 pmMinnesota has plenty of brilliant people…just not so many in the Sixth Congressional District. Bachmann’s district is populated by people who mistake their “old-tyme religion” for patriotism. These types thrive on emotional issues like Gays and abortion and want to legislate their “morals” nation-wide. The Wrepublican Party thrives on these emotional voters.
Nut cases are quite common among ultra-conservative groups and when they gerrymander themselves into a single district… you get Michelle Bachmann!
Bachmann may be one of the more outspoken of the Right wing-nut politicians, but she is certainly not alone.
I personally apologize to the rest of the country for Minnesota’s Sixth District voters.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pmI bet none of you even believe in God…and you know for certain what was happening 2/3 of a million years ago. What a bunch of egos. It’s funny really.
I bet we haven’t had CO2 sensors for more than…say…200,000 years.
Also, how can you even complain about (and even wish dead)this Congresswoman when you elect winners like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reed. Yeesh! Get a life people…before you choke to death on Carbon Dioxide.
By the way, please ask Ted Kennedy about the “water is natural, but if your head is under water…” analogy.
Also, CRIPDYKE, are you one of those life-long students? I thought I was reading comments, not going to theory school. It sounds like your professors did a really good job on you. They may have even taught you some science while they were at it, although we have no proof of that here.
If this Carbon Dioxide EMERGENCY has you all so worried, remove your air conditioners, turn off your lights, buy a bike, and leave the rest of us alone. You’ve been compeletely algored.
Good day Fruitcakes.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pmNancy Pelosi Says:
I bet none of you even believe in God…and you know for certain what was happening 2/3 of a million years ago. What a bunch of egos. It’s funny really.
Nancy Pelosi?? You sound more like Nancy Grace!
Kennedy, Pelosi and Frank may have their quirks, but those are far out-weighed by their long records of quality public service. Bachmann, on the other hand, flaunts her ignorance every time the cameras are turned on.
BTW, Nancy, there are lots of God-believing Liberals…(including J.C.) They just grew up and no longer believe in the comic book version of God we all learned about in our Easter Bunny years.
Looks as though you don’t believe in science! So, turn off YOUR lights, give up YOUR medicines, throw away YOUR text books (if you haven’t already) and log onto one of the many Conservobot blog sites where your comments will be accepted like Gospel!
April 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pmEarth to Bachmann. CO2 in the air s 0.0375-0.04% NOT a full 3% as you stated. And to the people above who posted something about 2/3 of a million years…you all should know that Michele Bachmann believes the earth is only ~6000 years old. Really.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:52 amFruitcake Jory,
I notice you didn’t include yourself when speaking of those liberals who believe in God. You beleive in God about as much as the Easter Bunny. Claim your atheism and be proud.
Also, I do beleive in science…just not manufactured “science” that ignores the fact that disagreeing scientists exist. This fake global warming thing is such an absolute fact in your little minds that there is no room for debate. It sounds like someone does need to grow up and quit having a breakdown when someone tells you that “global warming”…sorry…”climate change” is a bunch of hoohah.
It’s funny that you mentioned growing up in your comments. That’s how I explain to my friends how I went from being a liberal to being a conservative. I grew up! When I was a liberal (I actually voted for Bill Clinton) I was a kid. Then I grew up and saw the world’s realities…not the kumbaya garbage you socialists dream of.
I’d like to stay and type all day, but…I…can’t…breath!
April 30th, 2009 at 4:10 pmAll…the…carbon dioxide!! HOT…GLOBE!! Run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!