Jump to content

Mo Brooks (AL) has rising sea levels figured out

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26240

Posted
Posted

It's rocks falling into the ocean. 

 

A rolling stone may gather no moss, but if it tumbles into the ocean, you can expect the seas to rise. 

At least that's the theory embraced by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., during a hearing held Wednesday by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on how technology can be used to address climate change.  

While questioning Philip Duffy, president of Woods Hole Research Center, about what, in addition to climate change, might be driving rising sea levels, Brooks suggested erosion might be a factor. 

"Every single year that we’re on Earth, you have huge tons of silt deposited by the Mississippi River, by the Amazon River, by the Nile, by every major river system — and for that matter, creek, all the way down to the smallest systems," Brooks said. "And every time you have that soil or rock whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise. Because now you’ve got less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up." 

Brooks pointed to the White Cliffs of Dover and to California "where you have the waves crashing against the shorelines" and "you have the cliffs crash into the sea."

"All of that displaces the water which forces it to rise, does it not?" Brooks asked. 

"I’m pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects," Duffy answered. 

An analysis by The Washington Post found that Duffy is correct. The Post found that it would take the equivalent of the top five inches of land from the entire surface area of the United States to cause the oceans to rise the 3.3 millimeters a year currently seen. And those five inches would have to fall into the oceans every year to explain the current rate at which they are rising. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

I'll definitely tell Mo he needs to walk away from that.  But he's a summa cum laude Duke econ grad (among his three degrees).  He's a bright fellow.  I'm sure he's figured out he got confused with some things he heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'll definitely tell Mo he needs to walk away from that.  But he's a summa cum laude Duke econ grad (among his three degrees).  He's a bright fellow.  I'm sure he's figured out he got confused with some things he heard.

Isostasy is actually pretty cool.

I'm happy to talk to him about geology, evolution or climate change, or find another scientist and put him in contact with them. Serious offer, not intended to be snarky.

He can also just cold call/email pretty much anyone at one of the state universities and they'd be happy to talk to him. 

I grew up religious and GOP and was always able to reconcile any beliefs with science. I'd like to see the GOP get back on the right side of science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pods said:

Isostasy is actually pretty cool.

I'm happy to talk to him about geology, evolution or climate change, or find another scientist and put him in contact with them. Serious offer, not intended to be snarky.

He can also just cold call/email pretty much anyone at one of the state universities and they'd be happy to talk to him. 

I grew up religious and GOP and was always able to reconcile any beliefs with science. I'd like to see the GOP get back on the right side of science. 

I've never seen him get stupid before.  He's really bright and he is probably one of the few people in Congress who studies the stuff he's supposed to know.  I'll bet big time that he got confused by some things he read.   I'll keep your offer in mind but I can't believe he won't figure out very quickly, ten times over, how he screwed up.  The problem will be how to walk it back.  He'll want people to forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Pods said:

...I'd like to see the GOP get back on the right side of science. 

While there is a list of things where the GOP is on the wrong side of science I think there may be a longer list where the Dems are.  They just don't get much attention.  Some of the subject areas that come quickly to mind are:

- genetically modified foods

- organic food

- fracking

- industrial pollution

- nuclear energy

Even on climate change the assessment of the pace of the problem may put them farther from the truth than people who say there is no problem. 

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I've never seen him get stupid before.  He's really bright and he is probably one of the few people in Congress who studies the stuff he's supposed to know.  I'll bet big time that he got confused by some things he read.   I'll keep your offer in mind but I can't believe he won't figure out very quickly, ten times over, how he screwed up.  The problem will be how to walk it back.  He'll want people to forget it.

That's exactly why I recommended he contact and talk with a scientist. Good way to get some PR back and also get good info if he's willing to go to someone's lab and see what climate scientists do. There's a middle ground there that has lots of basic science validity. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted

That offer is good for arranging for him to talk to someone in DC too. I am very close with someone that used to run one of the research labs at the Smithsonian. He used to do tours for Congressmen all the time. He'd know who to talk to at the Smithsonian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted (edited)

My Smithsonian buddy is a good dude and one of the wisest people and best scientists I know. Congressman Brooks would honestly enjoy talking to him.

He's pretty easy going and is the official paleontologist of Pardon the Interruption. A ways back, Pablo Torre had asked a dinosaur question about what would win in a fight. My friend emailed him back an answer breaking it actually down. They put it on the show and now they email back and forth occasionally. If you ever see Pardon the Interruption talk about dinosaurs, they talk to my friend to get the specifics. It's not often, but it does happen. 

He's also one of the three best statistics people I've ever met and the only one that can actually explain statistics in a way that anyone can understand. He's amazing at it and almost no one on the planet can do that. He'd honestly be a good person for any Congressman to have in their Rolodex. 

Edited by Pods
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sugar

sugar 100

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

While there is a list of things where the GOP is on the wrong side of science I think there may be a longer list where the Dems are.  They just don't get much attention.  Some of the subject areas that come quickly to mind are:

- genetically modified foods

- organic food

- fracking

- industrial pollution

- nuclear energy

Even on climate change the assessment of the pace of the problem may put them farther from the truth than people who say there is no problem. 

You are right. Global warming/Climate Change is likely even worse than originally predicted. We are probably past the tipping point already and sans scientific breakthrough and miraculous events, life on earth is doomed. And this is partly if not solely thanks to the wait & see lethargy and brain dead sloth of the fossil fuel funded American right.

The gall of a party of truck drivers and deer hunters believing they know more about science than scientists. Rock heads eroding the fact based universe, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5093

Posted
Posted

It's Alabama*.  Good science makes for bad politics.  The last thing he wants to be convinced of is that there needs to be a balance between industry and the environment.  It's much easier to sell the something for nothing than the idea that we have there are negatives to his preferred policies .  See also how tax cuts raise revenue. 

* Yes, Nebraska is similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Tuco said:

It's Alabama*.  Good science makes for bad politics.  The last thing he wants to be convinced of is that there needs to be a balance between industry and the environment.  It's much easier to sell the something for nothing than the idea that we have there are negatives to his preferred policies .  See also how tax cuts raise revenue. 

* Yes, Nebraska is similar.

Its Alabama. It has no industry to speak of that isn't a direct federal handout. His real failing is that he's highly educated in economics and Alabama's economy has never even had a blip of success. 

The guy is willing to let companies come and dump toxic waste in Bama's rivers, but still can't find any takers because nobody wants to deal with Bama workers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Imagine thinking that a failure to comprehend the science is what drives shit like this.  He's paid to say this kind of stupid shit.  

10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Yeah, he's the guy that said a lot of GOP congressmen are retiring these days because they fear assassination. 

He sounds really bright. 

Also the one who said the Dems are waging a "war on whites."  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7792

Posted
Posted

It's not that these politicians are dumb. It's that they know their constituency, so they know that they can spout ridiculous alternative theories that ignore or are outright hostile to science.

All of this is another symptom of our country's willingness to embrace and celebrate ignorance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 7009

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

While there is a list of things where the GOP is on the wrong side of science I think there may be a longer list where the Dems are.  They just don't get much attention.  Some of the subject areas that come quickly to mind are:

- genetically modified foods

- organic food

- fracking

- industrial pollution

- nuclear energy

Even on climate change the assessment of the pace of the problem may put them farther from the truth than people who say there is no problem. 

Fuck you just keep outdoing yourself. This is a bit, right? Like, you constantly think of ways to make yourself sound more and more stupid, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

As Ben Carson illustrates, you can be intelligent while lacking judgment and wisdom.  Lots of things get people to turn off their brains, and some people are more prone more than others.  This is only compounded when people live in echo chambers.   The dumbing down of the GOP isn't just about dumbasses like Trump taking over.   It's also about smart people indulging their biases by suspending their reason.  Sounds like Rep. Brooks has the capacity to be better, but is letting his partisan biases do the thinking for him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18324

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

While there is a list of things where the GOP is on the wrong side of science I think there may be a longer list where the Dems are.  They just don't get much attention.  Some of the subject areas that come quickly to mind are:

- genetically modified foods

- organic food

- fracking

- industrial pollution

- nuclear energy

Even on climate change the assessment of the pace of the problem may put them farther from the truth than people who say there is no problem. 

That last bit is not even close to accurate. We've gone through this before. Find me one legitimate scientist that peddles your nonsense. You hated on the scientists on various studies and reports over the years for not being qualified enough or being political cogs (though it isn't clear where you get that idea from). But you've never identified anyone besides actual political hacks with no expertise whatsoever in climate change to support your unfounded opinions. It isn't shocking anymore, just very very sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11402

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I've never seen him get stupid before.  He's really bright and he is probably one of the few people in Congress who studies the stuff he's supposed to know.  I'll bet big time that he got confused by some things he read.   I'll keep your offer in mind but I can't believe he won't figure out very quickly, ten times over, how he screwed up.  The problem will be how to walk it back.  He'll want people to forget it.

 dude. Come on. It's obvious this isn't getting stupid. This is blatant pandering to your donut crowd. And you know that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 24021

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 dude. Come on. It's obvious this isn't getting stupid. This is blatant pandering to your donut crowd. And you know that. 

Of course Tahoe knows this, and he approves of the tactic. He actually doesn't care what crazy shit Brooks, Moore, or the rest of their backwoods GOP coalition spout in the efforts to manipulate the drooling masses. If the end result is keeping immigrants out of the US and his own personal wealth on the rise, Tahoe gives zero fucks about what they say.

Tahoe knows it's bullshit, Brooks knows it's bullshit, but they both know Billy Bob Sisterfucker in rural Alabama will believe that shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26240

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

While there is a list of things where the GOP is on the wrong side of science I think there may be a longer list where the Dems are.  They just don't get much attention.  Some of the subject areas that come quickly to mind are:

- genetically modified foods

- organic food

- fracking

- industrial pollution

- nuclear energy

Even on climate change the assessment of the pace of the problem may put them farther from the truth than people who say there is no problem. 

This is the poster that lectured us on the "scientific method" on  the Mueller thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
relapse98

relapse98 634

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, DiceHands said:

Maybe we can give Alabama to North Korea as a peace offering.  Get these stupid inbred fucks out of here.  

Are we trying to piss off Mr. Kim? He's gonna deal once with those freeloading rednecks and go ape shit on us. Roll Tide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26851

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

It's rocks falling into the ocean. 

 

A rolling stone may gather no moss, but if it tumbles into the ocean, you can expect the seas to rise. 

At least that's the theory embraced by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., during a hearing held Wednesday by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on how technology can be used to address climate change.  

While questioning Philip Duffy, president of Woods Hole Research Center, about what, in addition to climate change, might be driving rising sea levels, Brooks suggested erosion might be a factor. 

"Every single year that we’re on Earth, you have huge tons of silt deposited by the Mississippi River, by the Amazon River, by the Nile, by every major river system — and for that matter, creek, all the way down to the smallest systems," Brooks said. "And every time you have that soil or rock whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise. Because now you’ve got less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up." 

Brooks pointed to the White Cliffs of Dover and to California "where you have the waves crashing against the shorelines" and "you have the cliffs crash into the sea."

"All of that displaces the water which forces it to rise, does it not?" Brooks asked. 

"I’m pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects," Duffy answered. 

An analysis by The Washington Post found that Duffy is correct. The Post found that it would take the equivalent of the top five inches of land from the entire surface area of the United States to cause the oceans to rise the 3.3 millimeters a year currently seen. And those five inches would have to fall into the oceans every year to explain the current rate at which they are rising. 

we're gonna build a seawall, and the rocks are gonna pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...