Friday, August 03, 2012

Frightful Friday: WHAT did Senator Inhofe just say?

On August 1, Senator Inhofe made a statement before the opening of the senate session on “Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.” As usual, it was full of WTF!?! statements, which I'll try to highlight below with [inserted commentary].

I must say it feels like we're back to the good old days. [Well, if by "good old days" you mean the days when you were a boy, then I'll just have to take your word for it; after all you're decades older than me.]  It may be hard to believe, but it was in February of 2009, during the height of the global warming alarmist movement, that this committee last held a hearing on global warming science. [Oh, wait, by "good old days" you were meaning 2009? I see: you were trying to be snide back there.] Back then we heard promises from the Obama administration of a clean energy revolution with green jobs propped up [I don't recall the Obama administration saying that green jobs would be "propped up"; still, you say "to-MAY-to" and I say, "you're an opportunistic liar".] by billions in taxpayer dollars to companies like Solyndra [By your statement of "companies like Solyndra", do you mean companies that are pursuing renewable energy production or energy-production companies that are getting government assistance? If the former, then your claim amounts to a statement that the stimulus disbursed money to companies, one of which received a little more than $500 million and failed, and others that haven't failed. If the latter, then your claim ought to include oil and gas companies, who get massive tax breaks in addition to government subsidies and payments. If you didn't mean either, then you're a lazy ass.].

What came of all those promises? [We're still waiting on them. You cannot assess the solidity of a company by what happens three years after a bill is passed, especially since some of those funds are still being released.] The global warming movement has completely collapsed and cap-and-trade is dead and gone. [Have you looked at your home state of Oklahoma and seen the record-high temperatures that are well outside of "natural variation"? True, the Republican idea of cap-and-trade was killed by Republicans. You're right about that part.]

I suspect a look back over the past three years will be a little painful for my friends on the other side. ["Painful" because it's clear where your obstructionism has led us into a situation that makes America even more reliant upon a single form of electricity generation while simultaneously doing everything in your power to negate the scientific results of an increasing number of climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and physicists? Yeah, I'm in pain, too, just thinking about the arrogance and sheer gall of your actions.] In 2009 with a Democratic President, and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, global warming alarmists were on top of the world [Hey, "Mountain", it's not always about you, it's not always about the United States, and it's not always about politics in the United States. Remember how much people listened to you when you tried to tell people at the UN meeting in 2009 about the conspiracy? Remember how much they listened to you? Oh, wait... they didn't. Also, as I'm sure you are well aware, the "overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate" were not "overwhelming", even though they were majorities. You know this, I know this, and saying otherwise is just lying.] - they thought they would finally reach their goal of an international agreement [Wouldn't that have been nice?] that would eliminate fossil fuels. [Who said "eliminate fossil fuels"? Again, you're lying through your word choice. And it's blatantly obvious.] Yet the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill didn't happen. [You are, for the second time, absolutely correct on this point: the bill that would curb fossil fuel use, not kill it; cap-and-trade (which you recognize as cap-and-trade, because you called it so) isn't about eliminating fossil fuels, just like cap-and-trade of SOx and NOx isn't about eliminating these pollutants, but about managing them through markets, but you know this, and so the only reason I can imagine about why you wrote what you did is to make a rhetorical point through what amounts to a lie. Furthermore, you know exactly why Waxman-Markey didn't pass: filibuster!; something that would have been impossible if there was - to use your own false words - and "overwhelming Democratic majorit[y] in the ... Senate."

Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was that the science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finally exposed. [No it didn't, and you're an ass for continuing to think that this is true. Ever wonder why people screw up their eyes or laugh at the mention of your name? It's because they don't listen to you; your "conclusions" are about as rooted in facts as those of a Holocaust denier.] For years I had warned that the United Nations was a political body, not a scientific body [Maybe because the press already knew that the UN wasn't a scientific body, but an intergovernmental body that has many scientists working for them? Seriously, what is the point of your statement here?] - and finally the mainstream media took notice [Media sources are your evidence that people listen to you? Okay...]:

Just how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global warming [This is a non sequitur answer to the question you stated.] and one of the reasons is because they don't trust the scientists' motivations [Which is a massive mischaracterization - maybe even a lie - about what was actually reported. Under question 21, in response to a question about motivations of scientists who report that global warming is real and/or say that it's man-made, 53% said that these scientists were doing so based on the evidence, while only 35% said that the scientists were doing so based on political or economic interests. This can hardly match the implications behind your statement.]

The IPCC has even lost the trust of the left. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times recently called for IPCC chair Pachauri to make a choice between global warming activism and leading the IPCC. [If you're talking about this Op-Ed, then you're technically correct, although a heavy bucherer of the piece.] They are also saying similar things about global warming alarmist James Hansen. [Who is this "they" of which you speak? I can play that same game, Senator: "They say that Sen. Inhofe is a bloviator." See? Can't prove it as wrong, since there is actually on one listed for you to check, and - after all - I'm not the one saying it, since I clearly used the plural third-person indicator of "they".] As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, Hansen has "become so politicized that people tend to dismiss him." [If you had done a Google search for "become so politicized that people tend to dismiss him", you would have noted that this was written by Jess Leber at Change.Org and not by David Roberts over at Grist, so you are wrong in your attribution. Next, the context is one that is more about the credibility of scientists among scientists. Finally, this statement - in addition to the lack of evidence supporting your claim - neatly encapsulates why so many people - not just scientists - dismiss your un-scientific, completely political viewpoints about global warming.]
I'm just going to end here. He does blather on for a few more paragraphs, but just trying to keep up with the poor logic and half-truths (he never out-right lies to any one; merely hides behind the best sort of lie: the half-truth). If you want to read through the whole (undoctered, uncommented) piece yourself, have a go.

1 comment:

Kaoru Negisa said...

You'll notice that this is some sort of weird victory lap trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. He would like very much for people to ignore scientists and think that reality is just a function of competing beliefs, but it's all just a front. He knows as well as anyone that what he's saying isn't true, but there's that really strange "if enough people believe it, that will make it true" that underlies this entire speech.