Rep. Joe Barton: I 'Stumped' Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
Oh the (rare, but occasionally exceptional) joys of Twitter. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)--the ranking member on the House Energy & Commerce Committee--says (tweets?) "I seemed [sic] to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question - Where does oil come from?"
He's referring to Nobel prize winning Energy Secretary Steve Chu, and this exchange.
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and suggest that--just perhaps!--Barton has misread Chu's initial response to the question. And also that he doesn't seem to understand geology as well as the former Stanford physicist who now runs the Department of Energy. But I could be wrong.
Late update: My colleague Eric Kleefeld chimes in to suggest that Barton did stump Chu. In fact, Chu was stumped that this guy Barton (a Congressman) had actually asked that question.


















Well, since it's well known that God creaated the Earth some 6000 years ago, Sec'y Chu's psuedo-geological response just proves he doesn't have a clue.
April 22, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barton seems to think that Alaska and the Arctic are right where they were in the days they were covered with tropical flora and fauna and therefore the planet had global warming much greater than we have it today. Chu OTH was trying to explain to him shifting tectonic plates. In the last six seconds he had left. When he wasn't snickering.
Barton is a twit. Some oilmen like to call petroleum "dinosaur wine". Somebody ought to tell Barton dinosaurs went extinct most likely because they weren't able to adapt to rapid climate change.
April 22, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. But regardless, a quick climate change to produce a tropical climate at Alaska's longitude, and turn the tropics into deserts, would obviously be disastrous. Global collapse.
This Barton goofball really is a shameless moron. He represents the worst of the Texan redneck oil/gas mentality.
BTW, apologizing for the borderline anthropometry, I can't help noticing Barton has those same ratface features as Tom Delay and so many other Texan/Southern hicks. That pink, puffy faced, beady eyed, borderline Down Syndrome look. What causes that? Is it the lack of sun due to a complexion suited to Scotland/Ireland, combined with a lousy diet and lack of exercise? OR is it becasue an ancestor was impregnated by a crocodile?
April 23, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Barton stumped Chu all right.
"How do I politely answer this ignorant POS using single-syllable words that he'll understand?"
April 22, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Barton say "Sophistry?"
Barton asked a question that required a multi-paragraph big word answer and Chu had 6 seconds of time left to answer in. That question would be difficult to even formulate an adequate answer for, let alone translate the resulting answer to one non technical lay people might get something from in just six seconds. Then Chu would have had to answer.
The question simply has no six-second answer that is honest and accurate, although an evangelical preacher could throw out a fast fantasy and say something to the effect, "It's simple. God did it."
Yeah, Barton stumped Chu all right. How could any allegedly sentient being ask such an incompetent question?
Barton took the House seat previously occupied by Sen. Phil Gramm when Gramm left Congress and ran for the Senate. And yes, Barton has always had that childish semi-retarded appearance that is characteristic of his face. I always thought he should have been another preacher on the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker TV show. He'd have fit right in.
April 23, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barton thinks the presence of oil and gas indicates Alaska used to be warmer. He must think heat produces it. So Saudi Arabia has oil not because of geology, but because it's hot.
How do people like that pass junior high science class?
April 22, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, to be more precise, petroleum deposits result from a long process which includes heat and pressure.
But the heat does not come from heat on the Earth's surface! Which seems to be what Barton was suggesting, I think.
April 22, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rep is an idiot, to be sure, but he seemed to have some basic understanding of the biological source of the oil. He very clearly has no idea of continental drift though.
April 22, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy what the fuck, batman!
If by "being stumped" you mean by cursorily explaining that there is oil in Alaska because A) oil is created in a very long geological process and B) tectonic activity moves, among other things, oil deposits around; without thinking that it is necessary to explain the principles of either point to an adult apparently without a legal guardian, yeah, Chu was "stumped."
AND NO IT IS NOT BECAUSE ALASKA WAS WARM, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
*strangling motions*
I have this vague feeling that "RepJoeBarton" thinks that climate change might mean more oil magically appears. 'Cause, you know, it is warm. Oil is made of warm.
April 22, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What??
I thought oil got to Alaska from the giant pipeline that aliens put in place, right before they kidnapped Barton and "probed" him.
That's not how it happened?
April 22, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh. Made my day.
April 23, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hahhahhahhahhahaaaa. I cannot stop laughing. One sort of expects that people elected into congress have some basic knowledge, and especially oilman from Texas would know about oil except that it makes them rich.
I'm going to laugh until I cry.
July 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bachmann, Boehner and Pence have some competition for the "Congress Critter Who Says the Stupidest Thing of the Day" award.
Given how Chu responded, I'm betting he's a hell of a poker player. He had to be laughing hysterically on the inside.
April 22, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. My. God.
Texans- I'm sorry, I really am. But if it's any consolation, here in Ohio we have to put up with shame of John Boehner.
April 22, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is official, Rep. Barton is a twitter, or so it seemed (sic) to be that way.
This cat could not stump sheep, if he needed some bizarre instinctual animal loving.
April 22, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!
FOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!
April 22, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait .... we've seen this look before. Perhaps not so localized a phenomena as first believed?
April 22, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the GOP is really against protectionism, they shouldn't also be for dumbshitism. If American employees are as scientifically stupid as Barton, how do they expect us to compete economically with China, India, etc.?
April 22, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Barton has engineering degrees from Texas A&M and Purdue. Sorry, Aggies and Boilermakers, your degrees just got downgraded.
April 22, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between stumped and baffled. I, for one, am trying to understand how atmospheric temperature in any way effects the geologic SUBTERRANEAN process that creates oil... and coal... and diamonds...
It is like asking why magma can still be hot when it first breaks ground at the bottom of the ocean.
The stupid burns. Really, it does.
April 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you're missing the mind-bending combination of knowledge and ignorance at work here. Apparently, he does believe that oil and gas are the result of geological processes working over time on the remains of flora and fauna. What he apparently doesn't belive in is the Wagnerian theory of continental drift.
He knows lots of stuff must have been a-growin' there millyuns of years ago, but he refuses to believe that there weren't there millyuns of years ago.
April 22, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But regardless, what's his point? That we should have a tropical climate in Alaska? And turn the lower 49 into deserts?
It's irritating people like him are rewarded for being so deliberately obnoxious, ignorant, and a drag on humanity.
April 23, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly that, I think, but something close. Just judging from that brief clip, I gathered that the point he was trying to establish was that global warming was no big deal--that the earth used to be a lot warmer than it currently is, and hey, it didn't destroy the earth. He's conveniently overlooking that the flora and fauna of the earth were very different then than they are now, and that there was a mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period in which those dinosaurs lived that was likely triggered, at least in part, by a very rapid change in climate.
June 16, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everytime a Republican speaks, I feel less safe.
April 22, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Every time a republican speaks, I ponder what would be happening right now had McCain and the Moose Queen won. :(
Less safe is relative.
April 22, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to be taken down if I pondered McCain & Moosey running this country that often. You must have a steel clad sanity! :)
April 22, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
For starters, Phil Gramm would be Treasury Secretary.
April 23, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everytime a Republican speaks a demon gets it's wings.
April 22, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious where, if anywhere, Barton thought he was going with the question.
Is he a Creationist?
Was he just filling time, looking for something to twitter about?
Does he believe in abiotic oil?
April 22, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering that, too - where was Barton going with this? What was his ultimate point?
Is it a global warming thing, or a creationist thing...? Something else?
Serious question. Anyone?
April 22, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Google "abiotic oil" or "abiogenic oil". I'm not sure if this is what Barton is thinking of, but maybe it was.
It's a sort of pseudoscientific "theory" that isn't exactly part of either of, but exists sort of at this funny intersection between, global warming denial and creationism. It suggests that oil is not a "fossil fuel" and the Earth is, by itself, just kind of miraculously producing oil from... somewhere? I don't understand it totally. Bacteria at the center of the earth, I think? (Although that would make the theory a misnomer since it would be a "biotic" origin.) Anyway antienvironmentalists like this idea because it suggests there is no need to conserve oil, there is a limitless supply. Creationists like this idea because it suggests an origin for oil that does not require the earth to be older than 7000 years old. Nobody takes any of this seriously except WorldNetDaily.
I think people should try to get Barton to explain his views on the origin of oil.
April 22, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had some wingnut telling me that the earth just kept producing oil and I started laughing because I thought he was joking. He wasn't. I asked him how and he just waved his hands in the air and said "It does it deep down and we get it when it comes close to the surface." What do you say to those people?
April 22, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show them a graph of US oil production and ask them if oil is being produced continually, why wells run dry. If it's just bubbling up from lower in the earth's crust, shouldn't we be able to produce from a well constantly?
Abiogenic people talk about wells going dry and then slowly filling up again. I've never heard anybody else mention it, but it does seem reasonable only not for the reasons they talk about. If we can set aside the incredibly simplistic image most people have of an oil field being a giant underground lake then it gets a lot easier. Oil exists in the voids in porous rock. If the oil gets pumped out faster than surrounding oil can seep to the well site then the appearance would be that the well was completely drained and then slowly filled back up. In fact, this would be what's happening but not because oil is being produced continuously but because oil moves slowly.
As to the details of abiogenic theory, there are actually two different thoughts (if you can call them that). One is that there are enormous amounts of hydrocarbons trapped deep within the earth (I believe the thought is that they are in the form of methane). These get converted to oil and then seep up to the oil fields. The other (which might be better described as afossil oil) is that oil is produced continuously by bacteria. Abiogenic theory has its origins with Soviet scientists, I believe in the '50s.
From the perspective of peak oil (the concept of oil production reaching a maximum and then going into an unavoidable climb), it really doesn't matter if oil is fossil or not. We know that oil wells do run dry so even if oil is being produced continually it is a rate much slower than we consume it and there will still necessarily be a peak and a decline. Peak water is a good corollary to peak oil in the abiogenic oil fantasy. Fresh water is constantly being "produced" as rain but because we pump water out of aquifers faster than it can be replenished, there will be a point where the water available in a region will peak and then decline to meet the level of water available from runoff.
I think the real question is not how you deal with fossil oil deniers (who are basing their views on relatively easily debunked pseudoscience) but rather those that believe that the existence of massive oil reserves is being kept secret by some all powerful cabal intent on world domination. Conspiracy theories of that type are a damn tough nut to crack.
April 22, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you still are able to write coherently after processing all that nonsense.
Let's hope Barton brings the crazy on this issue. I'm not sure that the Republicans have convinced enough people that they should not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, but idiocy like this will convince at least a few more.
April 22, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the earth DOES keep producing oil. Every day it makes about enough to power a SUV to the supermarket and almost home for the averege socer mom.
See if we just wait another billion years we will have enough oil to run the world into the ground for another hundred years. So stop ye bitchin' ya whiney libruls.
April 23, 2009 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
They really are aggressively stoopid!
April 23, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thank the good doctor for his explanation. I always thought it was the result of millions of years of accumulated caribou poop or something.
April 22, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chu is the resident scientist. It seem that Barton is the resident horse's ass.
The look of smug ignorance on Barton's face was just astounding.
April 22, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - I knew there were some stupid Congress-critters, but this clown must win the prize. A 7th grader know this stuff!
April 22, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sillies. Everybody knows oil comes from trees.
April 22, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good God.
He makes Barton seem...reasonable.
April 22, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Just, you know, putting beans on the table." — former Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) when asked by Nate Shelman (670 KBOI) what he's doing these days
:-)
April 22, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's fair to ask a question when you already know the answer, but still that so-called perfesser shoulda known that oil comes from Texas.
April 22, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well exactly! 's beautiful.
April 23, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be severely disappointed if this incident doesn't make its way into the Daily Show or Colbert.
April 22, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well at least the fundies haven't explicitly denounced plate tectonics, in contrast with evolution and climatic change.
I see from this site that the initial deposits of what would become oil were laid down 300-400 million years ago:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html
I see from this site that Alaska and Siberia weren't located near the Arctic circle during this time:
http://www.scotese.com/newpage3.htm
April 22, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well less than a minute on google finds that the north slope source rock was laid down in the mesozoic so around 200 million years ago. At that time Alaska was further south than it presently is now but it was not that far south. Actually Barton is probably right that the earth was quite a bit warmer when the precursor organic material was alive, on the other hand that is neither here nor there, the world is a very different place from when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, no climatoligist would dispute that there have been periods in the earth past when the climate was warmer than it was today.
April 22, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would actually make a fair amount of sense that the earth was quite a bit warmer when the organisms which produced fossil fuels were alive. All of the carbon which in recent history has been bound up under ground was moving around in the carbon cycle, likely a good deal of it in the atmosphere.
Perhaps the point Barton thought he was making has to do with global warming not being a big deal because it's a state the earth has existed in previously. And you know what, he's right. You just have to think from the perspective of algae instead of all the living things that aren't algae. He's just imagining a future with the earth being inhabited solely by his intellectual equals.
April 22, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see things haven't improved in Texas since 1960. A cousin of mine completed residency as a neuro-surgeon and decided to hang his shingle in Texas. He was absolutely embarrassed by the written test he had to take to gain a license. This man spent 4 years in the university and made ONE B. The rest 'As' NO GENTLEMAN Cees. He said he wasted his time in medical school, interning and doing a residency because he could have passed the test in the 8th grade. He would have been another Doogie Howzer! Explaining continental plates, pole shifts, plankton compressed over millenia to "good 'ol boys', is like whistling in a hurricane. I would love to know what Secretary Chu was thinking as the question was asked and how he had to answer. He looked as if he was trying to explain something to a child. with less success. They pay as much attention as they did in school. Of course when the only text is a bible you get strange science.
April 22, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Texas doesn't secede, can we at least sell it to Mexico?nbsp; It oughta fetch at least a couple of keys.
April 22, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are wrong on that count. The Mexican government is having a hard enough time policing the area it has to deal with currently and the drug cartels would have to move product that much farther to get it to the states.
Perhaps we could declare it an independent principality and name Palin the ruler. The sane will emigrate, the lunatic fringe will immigrate and then we can militarize the border.
April 22, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking pride in their ignorance is what they do.
The sad thing is you cannot shame that ass-hole because the republican party is the party that wanted to have Palin succeed Cheney, they are evil and dumb.
April 22, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definition of -er; American Heritage online dictionary:
SUFFIX: 1a. One that performs a specified action: swimmer. b. One that undergoes or is capable of undergoing a specified action: broiler. c. One that has: ten-pounder. d. One associated or involved with: banker. 2a. Native or resident of: New Yorker. b. One that is: foreigner.
Barton, twitter = twit.
April 22, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can somebody please start a Twitter campaign to mock Rep. Barton mercilessly for being a hopeless idiot?
April 22, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you'll notice he didn't allow comments on the YouTube clip.
April 22, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Originally, they did have comments enabled. But they weren't going so well.
April 23, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's hilarious. I just figure Barton's people knew they were bitch slapping Chu and running away.
April 23, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The oil didn't [i]come from[/i] anywhere. Nature made it right there.
And yes, you smug, smirking self-satisfied ignoramus, the plates just drifted right up there. Drifting around is what they have been doing since the dawn of time.
April 22, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEEBUS PUT IT THERE!
Right after he made dinosaurs and cavemen and then put all that fossil evidence in layers so as to test our faith in him.
April 22, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chu got his doctorate at Berkeley, then taught at Berkeley and directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Not quite sure how that makes him a "Stanford physicist", unless the author has a fetish for institutions of spoiled losers who get to drop classes after finals to inflate their GPAs, and which tends to act as a feeder school for underperforming government officials in Republican administrations.
Go Bears!
April 22, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling that you didn't get accepted to Stanford, Mike, that's too bad. Dr. Chu taught physics at Stanford for 18 years, chairing the department twice. He also taught at Berkeley for four years while serving as director at Lawrence Berkeley Labs.
April 22, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Ringo, I didn't apply because Stanford seemed peopled with higher functioning douchebags. Case in point, Condaleezza Rice. Ditto for the surrounding community of people that seem to think they are superior to everyone, rational evaluations of their worth to society aside.
Thanks for your sympathy though. I went to Cal and earned my grades, without the Stanford option to pay for do-overs.
You don't mention your affiliation, so I take that as a sign you never actually matriculated at either institution, and are merely one of the 'superior' Palo Alto residents. Run along and fund the next big 'innovative' copycat social networking site now.
April 23, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I studied physics and electrical engineering at Stanford (a bit before Dr. Chu's tenure there, unfortunately.) You seem so focused on Stanford's (now obsolete) policy allowing folks to drop a class up to the day of the final. In order to fulfill all of the depth and breadth requirements for a serious major at the farm, one wound up having to take far more than the normal course load every quarter and an engineering/science course with 5-6 hours of class and labwork would be worth 3 units just so you could pack in all your requirements. I was also on the editorial board of the Stanford Daily. So I kept pretty busy, I reckon, but enough about me. So, what was your major there at Cal, Mike?
You're right about the surrounding community though. What did Hewlett-Packard, Xerox PARC, Sun, Oracle, Netscape, SGI, Yahoo and Google ever do for science, technology and society? On the other side of the bay, Berkeley offers some fantastic falafel stands, used record stores and tie-dyed shirt vendors...
You are really, really, really cherry picking your Stanford-affiliated statesmen, Mike. George Schultz, Warren Christopher and Sandra Day O'Connor are a few names that spring to mind from my era there. I am wracking my brain for some Cal politicos, but John Yoo is the only one that I can dredge up (speaking of higher functioning douchebags!) Whatever happened to him?
Ironically, Condoleezza Rice sent my little brother a really douchy personalized rejection letter when she was Dean of Admissions at Stanford so he wound up going to Berkeley instead. Cal is a perfectly adequate school, of course, but my original points stand. Dr. Chu did the bulk of his physics work at Stanford. And why are you so bitter?
April 23, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
GO BEARS !!!
April 22, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flagged video. I view ignorance as hateful and abusive.
April 27, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They say there are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots (h/t demotivators).
Plate tectonics certainly explains why the oil is located in Alaska and the Arctic. It also explains why it is in Saudi Arabia for that matter (oil doesn't form in a desert).
However, millions of years ago the earth was a lot warmer at the 66th degree of latitude. It was a lot warmer everywhere on Earth millions of years ago. The Earth is in a relatively cold state at the present time.
April 22, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can actually make George W. Bush look smart if you put him in a room with Joe Barton.
I'm sometimes ashamed to admit to folks that I live in Texas. We have sent so many fools to Washington. I apologize to all.
April 22, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over on the UT Austin campus there are hundreds of bright folks who know exactly how to answer that question from Barton. At College Station there are a lot of Aggies that could do the same.
So this is not a Texas problem - except for the part where Barton thinks he stumped a Nobel Laureate - and except for the part where Barton gets elected by the good people of Texas.
Dr Chu handled himself perfectly - he has heard a lot of questions like that one from all sorts of people and is likely to hear a lot more.
April 22, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Barton was smirking as if he knew something that Mr. Chu did no. It is possible that he may believe that around 4000 years ago or so (you have to count forward from Adam to Noah in the geneologies and add up the ages to be sure exactly when) the world was all very warm and there was lots of moisture in the air. According to this thinking, the heat and moisture allowed lizards to grow to huge sizes, thus dinosaurs. Then, with Noah's flood the world was covered in the water that used to be in the air. Along with the flood came a huge collection of dead animals and plants that were buried and became what is now oil and coal.
So, perhaps Mr. Barton was scoffing that Mr. Chu would believe that the world is billions of years old and that plate techntonics moved things around over hundreds of years.
Mr. Barton and Mr. Chu inhabit very different worlds, so to speak.
April 22, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: Is that the way these folks arrive at the 6000 years? I never did understand that, and I certainly do not want to waste my time adding generations together.
I'm not really convinced that the bible can be used as a basis for any kind of logical mathematical inferences - I do not want a bible-thumper engineering anywhere near something round, when he would have to fight to his death maintaining that PI is 3. A good engineer would at least use 22/7, and a mathematician would simply use the symbol for PI.
April 23, 2009 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Barton hadn't run out of time, his next question would have been: "Where do babies come from?"
April 22, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Barton just applied for a Geology teaching job at MIT.
April 22, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may have been geological ages when it WAS warm at the latitudes that Alaska it at now. Not that Alaska was there then. And during those times, there were no humans much less human civilizations. Oh fuck it! I hate explaining things to idiots!
April 22, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides the joys of having Mssrs Barton, Bush, DeLay, Armey and Perry to name but a few, as the wingnut brain trust down here in the state of my residence, we actually have the distinction of having some extraordinary statistics of which they [not me] must be proud:
1) 49th in teacher pay
2) 1st in the percentage of people over 25 without a high school diploma
3) 41st in high school graduation rate
4) 46th in SAT scores
5) 1st in percentage of uninsured children
6) 1st in percentage of population uninsured
7) 1st in percentage of non-elderly uninsured
8) 3rd in percentage of people living below the poverty level
9) 49th in average Women Infant and Children benefit payments
10) 1st in teenage birth rate
11) 50th in average credit scores for loan applicants
12) 1st in air pollution emissions
13) 1st in volume of volatile organic compounds released into the air
14) 1st in amount of toxic chemicals released into water
15) 1st in amount of recognized cancer-causing carcinogens released into air
16) 1st in amount of carbon dioxide emissions
17) 50th in homeowners' insurance affordability
18) 50th in percentage of voting age population that votes
19) 1st in annual number of executions
Numbers 1 thru 4 probably have something to do with Mr. Barton's level of genius.
Eliot Shapleigh, a state senator from El Paso, compiles a report each legislative session called "Texas on the Brink." His report does prove that we are not all idiots down here, we are just seriously outnumbered, just like the early Texans at the Alamo.
"REMEMBER THE LIBERALS!!!" We are not going away.
A link is below.
http://shapleigh.org/system/news_article/document/882/Texas_on_the_Brink_2007_Final.pdf
April 22, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think that 12, 13, and 14 may well have something to do with Barton's dumbth.
Look at what all those years huffing bug spray did to Tom DeLay.
April 23, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hook 'em Horns!!
April 23, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's fair to ask a question when you already know the answer, but still that so-called perfesser shoulda known that oil comes from Texas.
April 22, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Mike Pence was going to win the award for stupidest elected official of the day. Dammit. Indiana never wins ANYTHING.
You have to admit though, we do have the best looking dumbasses (Mike Pence, Evan Bayh, Chris Chocola, Dan Qualye--I like to call them the pretty-tards).
April 22, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
From "The Opposite of Sex":
He was like a blind person you know, they can't see but they hear real well. Matt couldn't think at all, but he looked great.
April 22, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The good Rep doesn't understand the difference between the USGS and the DOE.
April 22, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
SECESSION NOW!!!
April 22, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My correspondence with his YouTube channel:
Greeting,
Let me initially remark that I do not know whether the owner of this channel (RepJoeBarton) is indeed a staff member of the represented congressman Barton or someone who unofficially posts videos on his behalf. In either case, I must add that the congressman's decorum in the video titled, "Energy Secretary puzzled by simple question," dating on April 22, 2009, was a juvenile attempt to disrespect the scientific panel testifying at the hearing.
First and foremost, the congressman should not have concluded his allotted time by nefariously throwing a germane question while leaving the questioner less than 6 seconds to response. Second, the headline in the video reads "Where does oil come from" while the congressman Barton asked "How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and Arctic Ocean?" There are two distinct set of questions and the inline description embedded in the video does not justify such discrepancy. Perhaps, whoever made the video possesses a less than a stellar understanding of geological phenomena.
In response, Dr. Steven Chu, adequately answered such complex question by asserting that due to continental drift of plate tectonics, in this case the North American plate, which have been shifting throughout history [read: the last 600 million years] that ultimately positioned North America plate, ergo Alaska, in today's location. If I may invite your attention to take a look at the following animation so you'll have a better understanding of the waltz of the last half a billion years which has resulted in the geological positioning of today's continents:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecall1_4.avi
As you can see, Alaska and North America plates spent around 200+ million years in what is known today as South America or Brazil to be precise which answers congressman Barton's speculation of Alaska being "[...] lot warmer..." for it was located near the equator -- not that the warmer weather is/was the result of the formation of oil and gas. Subsequently, the last 250 million years, the plates did converge and ultimately diverge to the current position. As Dr Chu mentioned, the formation of oil and gas was a combination of millions of years of accumulation of marine animals and plants between 500 - 300 million years ago [question of how it was formed] and also movement of continental plates for the next 250 million years [question of how it got up in Alaska].
Which brings us to the last segment in which congressman Barton's sarcastic "piping" innuendo with regard to Dr Chu's response of plate tectonics movement was, least to say, disrespectful and condescending. Perhaps, congressman Barton, as an [Industrial] engineer himself who comes from an oil-rich state, should educate himself more properly on the issues he finds interested in.
Sincerely,
April 22, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good response!
Was the ignorant jerk trying to deny global warming by hinting that climate change has happened before. "It used to be warm up there."
I think Dr. Chu was aghast at being confronted with such vast ignorance and rudeness. Aghast not stumped.
April 22, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it HAS happened before. The Earth is still relatively cool. Of course no one realizes this because it isn't reported. Al Gore show his powerpoint slides and the warming curve, but he only shows the last hundred thousand years or so, not the whole known curve. Here is is:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
However, the fact that it happened before is irrelevant in regards to what is happening now.
No one who is intelligent would argue that because the earth used to be warm then global warming is a hoax now. Seems to me warming is inevitable.
April 23, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can stump Barton: Hey, Barton, how can you talk with your head up your ass?
April 22, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let's see, this guys is
1) a congressman from Texas, God's own oil country
2) the ranking GOP member, and former Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee
3) the "House GOP's leading expert on energy policy" (Wall Street Journal, 10/02)
4) a former aide to Energy Secretary James B. Edwards
5) a former natural gas "decontrol consultant" (?) for Atlantic Richfield Oil and Gas Co
... and he doesn't know where oil comes from??!
The mind boggles.
April 22, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy cow. We should have a tea party to protest our taxes going to pay this guys salary.
What a disgrace!
April 22, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jed Clampett knows more about oil than Barton.
April 23, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
As we would say in Texas, "he is dumb as a post."
Texas is like the home of Mad Hatters: Molly Ivins, Rick "Good Hair" Perry, Ron Paul, the secessionists, usually located out in West Texas. Eldorado is in West Texas, might want to look that up for the loon index factor. Don't forget Wacko. The Book Depository.
This Barton character is just a weak echo ....
April 23, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that "Texas is like the home of Mad Hatters" is a quote from Molly Ivins, or lumping Molly Ivins in with the lot she wrote about and exposed as colorful and entertaining idiots?
If the latter, then I must loudly protest. Ms. Ivins regular articles showed immense insight, even greater wit, and a huge dollop of humanity. I would put her on a short list with Mark Twain, Will Rogers and Studs Terkel. She is sorely missed by millions, including me.
April 23, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, except that I think Molly Ivins would rather like to be included among Texas's colorful personalities. One of the last talks I ever heard her make made mention of a campaign, which she seemed to rather bemusedly support, to "Keep Austin Weird".
June 16, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Texas -- where teh stupid goes to live.
April 23, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh this has been fun. What sad little lives we all must have.
April 23, 2009 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe Chu was stumped, not one little bit. It would be near impossible to complete a geology degree and not learn this IMHO.
April 23, 2009 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stumpy cracks me up.
April 23, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean to be an accentist, but why do so many republican idiots have to talk with that annoying Gomer Pyle drawl as they recite their foolishness? This is one of the most bothersome consequences of the republicans becoming the party of older, angry, uneducated evangelical white Christian men living in rural areas of the South.
Enough!
April 23, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it was clear that Chu was stumped. He was stumped on how to explain a complicated process clearly and simply in less than a minute to a child. That's hard to do. Barton's subsequent comments show that Chu failed too. Barton didn't learn anything about plate tectonics or petroleum formation from the discourse. His ideology was still firmly in his mind, closed as ever.
April 23, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to defend Rep. Barton, but many of the petroleum source rocks in the Arctic Ocean date from the Jurassic to the Eocene (about 200 to 50 million years ago), and were formed at high latitudes in a much warmer climate.
April 23, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Barton is the Ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
April 23, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was Mike Pence separated at birth from Dan Quayle?
April 23, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed the part where everyone laughed at Barton's elementary school level question.
"Where do babies come from?"
"Why is the sky blue?"
Note to Barton: They were laughing AT you!
April 23, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's like these people take pride in being ignorant!"
April 23, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
As my mother likes saying "Grow a brain cell to keep the other one company."
April 23, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmm, had to focus for a moment but here we go: is there a chance.....even slight.....but a chance......someone with some guts (yeah that limits it already).....suggests maybe an iq exam before allowing anyone to become an gop thingy?
Ya know?
Some sort of filter to keep brain-dead people from speaking?
It would have to be a very wide filter of course or none would fit through but with the slim coating they maybe could.
........ you got it?
Duh!
Shut up!
Why do these people bother talking??
April 23, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
My god the mans a complete a**hat
April 23, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Barton is a fricking disgrace and the people of Texas should be ashamed that someone as ignorant represents them in our government.
April 23, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Undergraduate and Graduate committees at Texas A&M and Perdue need to have their credentials revoked for awarding Joe Barton a BS and MS in Engineering.
Joe Barton is clearly a Jackass.
April 23, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to have a minimum competency level for people to occupy a seat in Congress. We can't have important decisions made by total numbskulls who haven't got a basic grasp of the science that they're denying.
Barton most likely had no idea what Chu meant by "plates", as evidenced by his chuckling over the word "drift" and his misinterpretation of Chu in thinking that it was the oil that drifted.
The Barton-type brain is severely limited in its capacity. It cannot conceive of the amount of time this planet has been in existence and the scope of the changes that have taken place in that time. I'm sure he would be baffled if shown the nautiloid fossils found imbedded in mountaintops in Wyoming. Yes, Joe, that actually was the ocean floor at one time.
April 23, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No disrespect intended by what follows. Barton has demonstrated that he is an ignoramus. He is ignorant of the geological processes that cause oil formation and the motion caused by plate tectonics.
And we're supposed to depend on ignorant people like Barton to make wise policy decisions?
April 23, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
i see little difference between the parties, and both sides are ignorant. all carbon originated in collapsed stars. is it easier to produce petroleum via oxidation of such carbon, reduction alkylation or reduction of proteins and carbos. describe the forces required to 1) trap massive quantities of oxygen breathing life forms without oxidation. 2) carry it intact to depths where sufficient temperatures exist to crack the molecules (about 700f) and 3) remove all traces of protein and amino acid identifiers. not that there are not possible paths, but world wide?
and some formations in the gulf have mysteriously replenished themselves. also possible if the 1st option is real.
just stating the obvious.
April 23, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point JtO, regarding the lack of proteins.
I love the rich irony of this thread, folks picking on Chu as scientifically ignorant, while accepting non scientific premises themselves. It reminds me of the scene from Life Of Brian "It's not meant to be taken literally".
Where is the scientific EMPIRICAL evidence that oil is generally derived from decaying life forms?
As with most false conclusions, one can present it clearly with invalid logic:
premise: Life is carbon based
premise: Oil is carbon based
invalid conclusion: Oil comes from life
The scientific evidence that oil is produced abiogenically is overwhelming.
But somehow, I'm speculating that this will be quite unwelcome on this forum.
Obviously, the oil found on Saturn's Moon Titan, was NOT from buried biomass.
With daily high temperatures of only about -180, and a mass of only 0.0075 that of earth, we can rule out the idea that dinosaurs walked on Titan.
Yet, it has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/14/2162556.htm
Basic logic, and the empirical evidence is implying that oil produces life, not the other way round. Or more precisely, Life is carbon based, but not all carbon based substances come from life.
We now know from empirical evidence that hydrocarbons are the high pressure polymorphs of the H-C system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, it is impossible that they could be derived from biomass.
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
So, now, re-reading Chu's answer, he actually says nothing wrong. Everything he said in that short transcript is correct. He falls into no trap.
"Oil and gas is the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology"
Geology is not decaying biomass.
It is barton, with whom I speculate that I probably agree with politically, who looks foolish with "Isn't it obvious that it was a lot warmer in Alaska and the North Pole? It wasn't a big pipeline that we created in Texas"
Hey Barton, assuming that Texas has not been exporting oil to Titan, it's certainly a lot colder than Alaska there. Are you saying that Titan was once warm, and that dinosaurs roamed or floated on it?
May 4, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, from 225 milllon years ago, Alaska has been north of the tropic of Cancer.
http://geology.com/pangea.htm
April 25, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the hell does he think he "stumped" Chu? He asked a ridiculous leading question-- Chu was baffled at first why someone would ask that, he wasn't stumped for an answer (in fact he does answer, but obviously he's trying to answer as if he's talking to a little kid, which might be about right).
I was thinking Barton was going to bring up the nut-case theory that oil is produced by magma deep in the earth's core, and we will never run out.
July 2, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink