Senator Jim Inhofe
One of the more interesting things about the fight for comprehensive legislation here in Washington are the back and forth arguments that happen between opposing sides. A couple of days ago it was Rachel Maddow telling Glenn Beck to back off, after Beck falsely called her a liar.
Yesterday, it was U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, of “climate change is a hoax” fame, attacking a column written by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Because the free exchange of ideas is only okay if your side is giving all of the ideas.
So Senator Inhofe, here are some ideas for you, in response to your continued attacks on climate legislation.
To open, Inhofe sarcastically praises Friedman for saying that “global warming” should actually be called “global weirding” because of the range of effects it has on weather events.
“It’s appropriate that Mr. Friedman drop “global warming,” for the simple fact that there has been “no statistically significant warming” for the last 15 years. This is not the judgment of a skeptic, but of Phil Jones, the former director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), who is at the center of the ‘Climategate’ scandal.”
However, that is one line short of the whole paragraph and who are we to leave something out: “(Jones did say that in his view that the overall temperature trend is one of warming).”
You probably had to read that a couple of times given the grammar issues in the sentence and probably also because it seemingly contradicted the entire paragraph before it. The argument of climate scientists is that the “trend is one of warming,” not “it was really hot yesterday.” Like Jones’ full response to being asked whether he agrees there was no significant warming from 1995 to the present:
“Yes,” said Jones, “but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
In the long term outlook, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, which would suggest a general trend of warming from the one before it and the one before that.
And, guess what else Jones said in the same interview last weekend:
“I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”
He later said that one of the reasons he believes the current warming is manmade is that it can’t be explained in another way.
Next came jobs.
“Mr. Friedman’s insurance policy means exorbitant premiums with no protection in the event disaster occurs. Take the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Waxman-Markey would cause a net reduction-yes, even taking into account “green jobs”-of up to 3.6 million jobs.”
Interestingly, the paragraph Inhofe is responding to with that statement said nothing about jobs. It was actually about investing in renewable energy as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and, “diminish[ing] the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.”
Apparently national security wasn’t worth the argument. Oh, and those NBCC numbers about Waxman-Markey, better make that, “according to Exxon,” which has dished out more than $200,000 to the NBCC, while doing the same to many other climate-deniers.
Then there was the Energy and Public Works hearing where Harry Alford, CEO of the NBCC, called Chairwoman Barbara Boxer “racial” because she quoted other groups about the effects of climate change legislation on the black community. The NBCC was claiming that legislation would be detrimental to that community. Boxer was refuting that.
Then, was there any question this would come back to oil?
“FRIEDMAN: “And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia.”
“RESPONSE: According to a recently released report from the Congressional Research Service, America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on earth.”
First, note that Friedman was talking about oil, not natural gas or coal. Coal is already prevalent in the U.S. and Inhofe claimed we needed to increase our energy production, meaning new sources, or more oil, would be necessary.
Surely adding the other two, especially natural gas, would help lift the United States’ numbers. However, according the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. has far less oil reserves than OPEC countries, leading our $1 billion daily price tag. Mr. Friedman was talking about a dangerous U.S. reliance on oil and he was right, just like above when he said that we are, “sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.”
How about we try something new instead. We have the opportunity to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that reduces our dependence on oil, invests in a clean energy future – a future our president and our venture capitalists see as the next big world industry – and creates jobs, while making our air and water cleaner and our country safer.
We have already seen the kinds of projects these investments support, such as the $8 billion for carbon emission-cutting high-speed rail that was endorsed by none other than the House Minority Whip, Republican Eric Cantor.
Surely you can’t argue with that, can you Senator? If you’re biggest donors, Koch Industries and Murray Energy (two of nation’s largest coal and Big Oil companies) get in the way, we understand.
