James Inhofe

NAS hockey stick report

So the big climate news today is the release of a report by the National Academy of Sciences (coverage from: AP; NYT; WaPo; MSNBC; NPR; Boston Globe). It's being spun every which way, but at its root it's (yet another) confirmation of basic global warming science.

You've probably heard of the climate "hockey stick." It's a graph from a study led by Penn State's Michael Mann that shows global average temperatures sharply spiking in recent years. A couple of guys named Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick -- a statistician and an economist, respectively -- took issue with the study and claimed that Mann had cherry-picked his data and his statistical tools to produce the result he wanted.

In recent years, the hockey stick has become a cause célèbre among right-wing global warming denialists. It is mentioned with mind-numbing regularity by every crank given the keys to an op-ed page, and has become something of a white whale-style obsession for the Mayor of Cranktown, Sen. James Inhofe.

Inhofe coming around?

From a press release out of Joe Lieberman's office:

WASHINGTON -- Today, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), congratulated EPW Committee Chairman, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), for taking a long-overdue, yet significant step toward tackling Global Warming by hosting a roundtable discussion entitled, "Exploring Greenhouse Gas Technologies." The Roundtable consisted of business leaders, environmental technology experts, and a representative of the U.S. Department of Energy.

"Many thought we would never see Senator Inhofe participate in, much less convene, a discussion of technologies for reducing global warming pollution. Clearly, something has changed. Longstanding opponents of reducing global warming pollution are finally getting the message that the American public understands the stakes and will no longer tolerate inaction in the face of the ever-growing evidence that the climate is changing. The American forces of reason and can-do spirit are starting to overwhelm the last bastion of denial and pessimism on climate change, namely, the U.S. Congress, which, I hope, will soon adopt the comprehensive climate legislation that I have been pushing with Senator McCain since 2003."

Inhofe's probably just nuke-boosting and "clean coal"-shilling, but at least it's something.

Inhofe and Robertson

Chris Mooney relates an amusing exchange between Pat Robertson and James Inhofe on the 700 Club a while back.

I'll just add for the record that while I cannot speak for all environmentalists, I do not worship "the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that." Indeed, I have no god at all -- a possibility of which Robertson and Inhofe seem incapable of even conceiving.

Senate’s stab at energy legislation may be more moderate than House bill

A refinery at Anacortes, Wash. “Shame, shame, shame, shame!” That’s the furious chant that erupted from the Democratic section of the House of Representatives last Friday after Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) managed to eke out a victory for his Gasoline for America’s Security (GAS) Act, which would loosen environmental laws and boost industry incentives to […]

Senator wants to waive EPA regulations in Katrina disaster area

James Inhofe -- Republican senator from Oklahoma, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, and tormentor of enviros -- yesterday introduced a bill that would let the EPA waive for 120 days any environmental regulations that could stand in the way of the Katrina response effort.

Never mind that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said environmental rules weren't hampering post-hurricane cleanup.

Inhofe v. Mooney

Chris Mooney has had a great deal of fun bashing Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) for his flat-earthism on climate change and his general antipathy toward environmental causes.

Now Chris has experienced the great honor of having his work directly cited -- though his name was changed to "alarmist writer" -- by the senator on the Senate floor. (Unsurprisingly, Inhofe takes passages out of context, distorts the plain meaning of words, and otherwise misrepresents the work.)

Congrats, Chris, you've hit the bigtime!

Read Chris Mooney’s two recent columns on climate-change skeptics.

Chris Mooney is on a roll lately. I finally got around to his piece in the latest issue of Mother Jones, and it's an absolute must-read. Lots of people have the vague impression that there's a sort of climate-skeptic cottage industry out there, funded largely by a few large financial interests, particularly ExxonMobil. Well, they're right -- check out this chart.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with industries trying to advance their views on economic and policy issues, but this is a coordinated attempt to "do science," or rather, create the illusion of scientific controversy around an issue on which there is in fact overwhelming scientific consensus.

Also check out Mooney's latest column in the American Prospect, which highlights some of the more obvious absurdities in James Inhofe's recent speeches on "Four Pillars of Climate Alarmism." In particular, Inhofe is cherry-picking from a report that draws heavily on another report he hated so much he tried to sue to block its release.

Inhofe faces this predicament because of his, and the right's, cavalier treatment of serious scientific documents. If climate-science reports are deemed too "alarmist," as the "National Assessment" was, they are viciously denounced. If the reports are subtle and contain plenty of language about scientific uncertainty that can be quoted out of context, they are misrepresented as throwing the scientific consensus into question.

Clown town.

Update [2005-4-19 12:41:23 by Dave Roberts]: If you get tired of seeing the same old oft-debunked climate-skeptic arguments used again and again, stay entertained with Deltoid's Global Warming Skeptic Bingo! Fun for the whole family.

Oklahoma Senator kicks off series of speeches

Chris Mooney, indefatigable chronicler of science politicization (say that five times fast!), draws our attention to the kick-off of Oklahoma Sen. and unrepentant flat-earther James Inhofe's promised series of speeches debunking mainstream climate science. It is, predictably enough, chockablock with misrepresentations, cherry-picked facts and phrases, and outright falsehoods. Head to Mooney's for the details, and if you have the stomach for it, read the speech itself.

Someday, our children will find this in the history books and marvel at how truly bizarre our political culture was in this transitional phase at the end of the oil economy.

Clear Skies takes a fat whack

Bush's Clear Skies Act is on life support after a vote today in the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee failed to draw enough support to push the measure to the Senate floor. The committee had been deadlocked 9-9 on the bill for weeks, and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), committee chair, was unsuccessful in his arm-twisting attempts to sway at least one more senator to his side. (Barack Obama [D-Ill.] had been thought a potential swing vote, but he held his ground. Phew.)

As AP's John Heilprin writes, "The committee vote doesn't preclude Republican leaders from bringing the bill to the full Senate for action" -- though they'd have to do it through unconventional methods. "But it also arms opponents with several parliamentary tactics that they can use to defeat it on the Senate floor." Whatever that means.  

Inhofe knew just who to blame: "This bill has been killed by the environmental extremists who care more about continuing the litigation-friendly status quo and making a political statement on CO2 than they do about reducing air pollution."