Quote of the Week: Sen. Lindsey Graham’s 180° view of climate science


qotw_cropped

Wow. This one is really something. Graham goes from supporter to skeptic in the space of a few weeks. Here’s the quote:

“I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question…”

Graham appeared on Wednesday at a press conference with Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), who was rolling out his own energy bill, a measure that relies heavily on expanding nuclear power and raising fuel economy standards without putting a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Yesterday, Graham said he didn’t think any energy bill could get 60 votes this year because oil drilling has become too controversial. Today he decided, at the last minute, to back Lugar’s bill.

Reporters asked Graham several times about why he was supporting Lugar’s bill, when just a few months ago he had argued that the Senate shouldn’t pass a “half-assed” bill that lacked hard restrictions on carbon emissions. Graham replied that he now doesn’t think pricing carbon is that important. “The science about global warming has changed,” he noted, offhandedly. “I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question,” Graham told reporters. “The whole movement has taken a giant step backward.”

more here at Mother Jones news

About these ads

69 thoughts on “Quote of the Week: Sen. Lindsey Graham’s 180° view of climate science

  1. Wow, who would have thought that! Well, I must admit “When the Facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir” is always a good line. I applaud the integrity of anyone who will say something like that… Even when they d have different view then my own.

  2. The man is not to be trusted.
    He was an OK congressman for the 3rd district of SC, but he has been an absolute snake in the grass as a senator. If John McCain had passed gas Lindsey’s eardrums would have popped.

  3. So the take home message is the Woods Institute did not survey Graham.

    I did see his point before. Better to be at the table, than to be told about it later.
    And I appreciate Graham’s low key attitude about it. What we really need is more people acting like it’s a non-issue, instead of all the hysterics that we are tired of.

    Looks like AGW has reached another tipping point

  4. The Worm turns.

    I talked to Senator Burr (R) yesterday and he thinks Cap & trade is a big no no. Congressman Bob Etheridge (D), who i voted for, is a real sleaze. I took a close look at him and he is pro big corporations all the way and anti farmer. Looks Like I will be at the livestock auctions and farmers markets passing info about this idiot for the rest of the summer. I could not catch my other senator or his office.

  5. In the immortal words of Kang and Kodos (Simpson’s reference): “Holy flarging shnit!” That’s one heck of a 180! Quite frankly, I believe he is just going with the flow and/or feeling the effect the upheaval at the polls lately, but for Graham to publicly call into question the science and point out the fact that it’s all been oversold is a major step in the right direction. I’m trying not to read too much into this, but there may be hope for the People’s Republic yet!

  6. One wet finger in the wind. At least it was his index finger and not the third one! We may be gaining on them.

  7. Got to give credit where credit is due: Lindsay Graham is no dummy, having correctly detected the direction of the prevailing wind. Oversold and blown out of all proportion, AGW may soon join the Yugo at the compactor.
    Lemon Law applies.

  8. He and the other previous cap & trade supporters can take this stance because they know that Jackson’s EPA will do what they don’t have the backbone to do. This way they can say they’re against C&T without backing off of their baseline agenda.

  9. This is apparently huge. Kerry and Liberman must be at the Senate lounge drinking
    highballs about now….

  10. One wet finger in the wind. At least it was his index finger and not the third one! We may be gaininZg on them.

  11. “Now, if Congress had actually disapproved the EPA of its endangerment finding about CO2, we’ll really have been getting somewhere!”

    Only three votes short — and those will be made up in November.

  12. Is this a surprise? The Bilderberg Group met in Spain (3 – 6 June) and one of the topics for discussion was Global Cooling! See http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting2010.html. The writing has been on the wall since Climategate and Copenhagen. It will be be interesting to see how governments and policy wonks retreat over this change of direction. I fear that many reputations are going to suffer and that science and environmentalism in general will take a hammering.

  13. Lindsay Graham has never had a clue about the science. With his leader and mentor, John McCain trying desperately to demonstrate his ‘conservative’ credentials in order to keep his Arizona seat, Lindsay is simply adrift. So long as it helps kill Crap and Tax, we should applaud. But don’t count on him for anything.

    Marc Morano was just on John Bachelor’s show. He was happy about Lindsay’s sudden conversion, but minced no words in describing him as completely untrustworthy.

    Don’t underestimate the Obama administration’s ability to twist arms in the Senate, though. It ain’t over till the fat alarmist (you know, the Goracle) sings.

    /Mr Lynn

  14. Lindsey represents what I’ve claimed for a while – he doesn’t know the difference between Carbon-MONOxide and Carbon-DIOxide…. “he doesn’t want to get out and breath car exhaust…” duh… yeah once someone explains the difference he’s libel to care even less about carbon in the atmosphere.

  15. Lindsey, spewing what you think your people want to hear doesn’t cut it anymore. Clearly, you are starting to understand this. You said “I think they’ve oversold this stuff, ….” You were one of the lemmings that bought it. If you can’t discern reality from fantasy, then you don’t deserve the privilege of service to this nation nor your countrymen nor the people of South Carolina. I know people from South Carolina, you do a great disservice to those people. You reflect on them an a very skewed manner. You would do the best service to your people by stepping down. If you are intellectually unable to discern truth, and morally unable to see the harm you’ve helped create, then you, by your actions and words, are not fit to serve.

  16. Another prominate conservative that should have been in the skeptic ranks but wasn’t, is Bill O’Reilly. I wonder when he will do his 180?

  17. Hi tallbloke

    tallbloke says:
    June 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm
    I’m not seeing any well informed scientists on the guestlist. Or any agenda. Your source for the statement about global cooling?

    Only the website I gave but global cooling, as opposed to global warming, is mentioned on the second line. Knowing only a little about the once secretive Bilderberg group I suspect that they may be talking about the notion of global cooling in a political sense, in the same way that global warming was (or still is) as much political as it is scientific or environmental in terms of policy direction. This group has in the past had some influence on the West’s political direction; I can only assume that this may be the case here given the problems currently faced by the global warming political dialectic.

  18. Inside congressional sources say:

    “With Graham’s dramatic reversal the cap & trade part of the bill is dead.”

    Hopefully:

    “Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch, ding dong the wicked witch is dead.”

  19. tallbloke says:
    June 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    It (Global Cooling) is in the first line:

    “The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.”

    Rather astonishing, to put it mildly! This could explain Graham’s sudden epiphany.

    I wonder if they have told Obama yet?

  20. But the good Senator saw the light didn’t he? I really like the sound of that sentence – this stuff has been oversold…… I think that he is genuinely beginning to understand – perhaps he has been doing a bit of reading.

    Now if all our politicians did just a little bit of reading around the subject – I recommend Prof. Robert M Carter’s ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’. If they read Prof Carter’s book they would all be singing along with Sen Lindsey Graham. What a happy day that would be for the world’s taxpayers.

  21. Rhoda R says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm
    “He and the other previous cap & trade supporters can take this stance because they know that Jackson’s EPA will do what they don’t have the backbone to do. This way they can say they’re against C&T without backing off of their baseline agenda.”

    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

    There will be much handwringing and sympathetic clucking from the Demlipublicrats in DC as the EPA does their dirty work for them. Dishonest cowards!

  22. Graham appeared on Wednesday

    Looks like he saw the primary vote results from Tuesday and is trying to save his hide

    but that’s just a guess

  23. I suspect the senator has been looking for a way to extricate himself from a position he had decided was no longer acceptable to a majority of those who vote in his electorate; watch for the trickle of politicians who once embraced alarmism as it becomes a stampede to a more rational and less faith-based attitude to climate science.

  24. @Raredog says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    “Is this a surprise? The Bilderberg Group met in Spain (3 – 6 June) and one of the topics for discussion was Global Cooling!”

    Good to see they are getting the priorities right.

    “I fear that many reputations are going to suffer and that science and environmentalism in general will take a hammering.”

    Environmentalism will be able to concentrate on its real concerns, and real climate science will be able to advance easier.

  25. Careful guys, Graham is a politician. It is an election year, and if I’m not mistaken he is up for reelection. He will say whatever he thinks is going to increase his chance for reelection, whether that will reflect on his future votes or not is anybody’s guess.

  26. “I asked him, if carbon emissions aren’t warming the planet, why are they bad? Here’s his reply:

    I just think it’s bad … the reason I don’t hang out in traffic jams and get out and suck up the wind is I think this crap is bad for you. We’ve had an increase in asthma cases. If you’ve ever been to Thailand stuck behind 400 motorcycles, it’s a lousy place to be. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist in my view to understand that the stuff floating in the Gulf, if you burn it doesn’t make it better for you. If you wouldn’t go swimming in this stuff, why would you burn it and want to breath it?”

    Lindsey Graham needs to go back to school. Did he ever make it past the 6th grade? For starters, he needs to know what C02 is (and isn’t). Yes, it’s great that he’s finally getting a glimmer of a clue, but yowza! What a maroon.

  27. I’m encouraged. Over the past 3 years I have sent what seemed to me like persuasive material on global cooling, or at least non-AGW, to Sen. Lindsay’s office on several occasions. A little bit here and a little bit there, and maybe he has seen enough to open his eyes and do some of his own digging. In general I don’t like his political positions, but he is more reasonable (or reasoning) than most senators, and I applaud his willingness to change his position on this one.
    But then, it is clear that he is a Bilderberg puppet! — NOT! Murray

  28. I am also rather annoyed with politicians in general, but surely when one of them sees the light, shouldn’t we all try and be a bit more grateful? Most politicos that have supported AGW have been fed nothing but bullocks and hysteria from government and industry “scientists” for quite some time, and are only now becoming aware of the scale of the fraud. I never attack recent converts for past ignorance as they are victims of a sophisticated campaign of lies and distortions peddled by an equally deluded media. Senator Graham should be welcomed back to reality, and supported in his now factually accurate views on the environment. Other lawmakers are certainly watching what happens to those that take the risk of admitting they were wrong. They should be given a soft landing.

  29. he is far too clueless to understand the science, but he DOES understand that the social winds have changed. What’s funny is that he could *never* have done this much damage to the “climate change” movement if he had played it straight from the start – but by working so hard with Kerry and Liebermann all year, and then only stabbing them in the back at the LAST possible minute, he has destroyed any chance of their bill passing. AND it’s too late in the year to come up with a coherent backup plan!!! (Congress may still pass some kind of energy bill, but now it will be a disjointed mess made up mainly of payoffs to various interest groups such as the ethanol lobby)
    Well played, sir, well played!!!

    p.s. Hey Kerry – we could have told you NOT to trust him!!! ROFL!!!

  30. I’m glad to see Lindsay seems to be waking up to reality. We cannot say the same about the man in the Oval Office. By the way, have you seen this video?

  31. Read the entire account at Mother Jones before you start praising Graham. He comes off as a complete buffoon and moron.

  32. Graham was the only “conservative” behind the bill. They called it a bipartisan bill because of him. So now they will tell us it is better because it is not bi-partisan?

  33. Roger Knights says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    “Now, if Congress had actually disapproved the EPA of its endangerment finding about CO2, we’ll really have been getting somewhere!”

    Only three votes short — and those will be made up in November.

    Only problem with that is that there is only a short 6 months window for this type of joint resolution. From now on it takes 60 votes not the 50+1 needed for the Disapproval Resolution.

    The practical way of stopping it after November is to cut funding EPA for implementing its regulations.

  34. The bigger contributor for discrediting Global Warming/Climate Change has been his holyness, the supreme and only bedwetter maximum, Al Baby.
    He will be remembered for provoking the most profound revision of current paradigms of science , philosophy, ethics, research, education, etc.
    To such extent it has been this general debasement that, if questioned, every “climate scientist” , “ecologist”,etc. would inmediately reject being called or recognized as such.

  35. Senator Graham now thinks more carbon in the atmosphere is a good thing? Nah !

    From yesterday’s debate on EPA’s power to regulate, as reported by NPR

    Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM (Republican, South Carolina): You don’t have to believe in the planet is going to melt tomorrow, but this idea that what comes out of cars and trucks and coal-fired plants is good for us makes no sense to me.

  36. “Graham replied that he now doesn’t think pricing carbon is that important.”

    What has changed is the price of coal in the Eastern US. In order for nuclear power to be cost competitive in the Eastern US 5 years ago one would have had to apply a large ‘carbon tax’.

    The delivered price of coal to the Eastern US is now to the point that nuclear power is fairly cost competitive with coal.

  37. Rhoda R has it right. Graham was the first to figure it out. More will follow when they realize that they can cover their backsides by denouncing AGW and get what they want by letting the EPA do the heavy lifting. Now if they come out against AGW AND vote against the EPA I’ll start to beleave them.

  38. He’s spinning that the science has only recently changed as he tries to pull back from his earlier lunacy because he sees public opinion has changed.

    In doing so he attempts to obfuscate his escape by equating CO2 with the real tail pipe pollution/emissions.

    “suck up the wind” , “increase in asthma cases” , stuck behind 400 motorcycles”, the stuff floating in the Gulf, if you burn it doesn’t make it better for you”, you wouldn’t go swimming in this stuff, why would you burn it and want to breath it”

    He’s a posturing politician who can’t perceive how he sounds and looks as he adjusts his posture. He probably has no idea how lame his grand mal rationale appears.

    I mean does he really think all he had to do was pretend all he was opposed to was pollution? You know, the stinky stuff from tailpipes?
    As if that’s the CO2 everyone has been debating? Or that it’s all the same? How stupid is he or does he think the public is?

    It’s just like a sleazy politician to avoid clarifying exactly what they are talking about. That way they can always adapt and re-posture to any criticism by restating what they “really meant”. All the while pretending to have been clear, concise and profound the entire time. The esteemed Senator can wash my car.

  39. I’m not sure what prompted his sea change , but it’s not for fear of losing his seat – he won’t be up for reelection until 2014 .

  40. From the Mother Jones interview:

    I asked him, if carbon emissions aren’t warming the planet, why are they bad? Here’s his reply:

    I just think it’s bad … the reason I don’t hang out in traffic jams and get out and suck up the wind is I think this crap is bad for you. We’ve had an increase in asthma cases. If you’ve ever been to Thailand stuck behind 400 motorcycles, it’s a lousy place to be. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist in my view to understand that the stuff floating in the Gulf, if you burn it doesn’t make it better for you. If you wouldn’t go swimming in this stuff, why would you burn it and want to breath it?

    Amazing ignorance of middle school chemistry!

  41. ♫♫♫
    What goes up must come down
    spinning wheel got to go round
    Talking about your troubles it’s a crying sin
    Ride a painted pony
    Let the spinning wheel spin

    You got no money, and you, you got no home
    Spinning wheel all alone
    Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
    Ride a painted pony
    let the spinning wheel turn

    Did you find a directing sign
    on the straight and narrow highway?
    Would you mind a reflecting sign
    Just let it shine within your mind
    And show you the colours that are real

    Someone is waiting just for you
    spinning wheel is spinning true
    Drop all your troubles, by the river side
    Catch a painted pony
    On the spinning wheel ride

    Someone is waiting just for you
    spinning wheel is spinning true
    Drop all your troubles, by the river side
    Ride a painted pony
    Let the spinning wheel fly
    ♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫

  42. Well, well, well…

    Lindsey Graham is not the SC Senator up for reelection in 2010 (that’s Jim DeMint). But he’s been taking some major political hits in South Carolina for supporting cap-and-trade and running political ads paid for by hard-Left enviro groups.

    It doesn’t appear that he understood the underlying science in the past, or that he has made any cognitive progress recently as far as phyics or climatology is concerned, but he can surely see that his next reelection bid will be in jeopardy if he doesn’t jump off the CAGW wagon.

    He can’t have helped noticing that Congressman Bob Inglis, the only other South Carolina Republican in Washington to take “climate change” seriously, just came in second with 29% of the vote in his party primary, forcing him into a runoff that he is probably going to lose.

    I seriously doubt that Graham is maneuvering to facilitate a unilateral imposition of CO2 caps by the EPA. I suppose he won’t mind, though, that suppressive measures against mining are driving up the price of coal.

  43. Doesn’t the Graham Cracker have 4 more years in his term? For some reason that sticks in my mind.

  44. Then Sen will be very pleased to know that Anthony Watts Surface Stations paper is coming out soon.

    The sooner the better quite frankly. And quite frankly they said the health care bill was dead for a while too.

  45. Quote:
    They have oversold this stuff.

    Yup, just like they oversold the swine flu pandemic. The following newspaper article says:

    quote:
    Mr Flynn said: “There is not much doubt that this was an exaggeration on stilts. They vastly over-stated the danger on bad science and the national governments were in a position where they had to take action.”
    endquote.

    Hmmm. Overstated the danger, based upon bad science. Remind you of anything? Only now are they starting to make the obvious link to AGW.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html

    .

  46. Mari Warcwm says:
    June 11, 2010 at 1:03 am
    [--snip--]
    Now if all our politicians did just a little bit of reading around the subject – I recommend Prof. Robert M Carter’s ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’. If they read Prof Carter’s book they would all be singing along with Sen Lindsey Graham. What a happy day that would be for the world’s taxpayers.

    Words of wisdom:

    “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

    ~ Mahatma Gandhi ~

  47. The quintessential global warmist/alarmist.

    How on earth does this character get his shoes on in the morning. His shoe size is greater than his IQ.

    God Save America…


  48. Don’t get your hopes up, guys.

    “If there were a generic one-word expression for ‘one whose fear of the uncertainties of success moves him to surrender at the very moment of victory‘, it would be ‘Republican’. ”

    L. Neil Smith, “Some New Tactical Reflections” (15 January 1998)

  49. “Best to treat the Bilderberger news with extreme caution: it looks too good to be true.”

    Just because the topic is “Global Cooling” doesn’t mean that they’re neccessarily ditching pushing AGW. It COULD be a discussion about how to “hide the decline” and get politicians to enact the “right” measures anyway.

  50. Gail Combs says:
    June 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm
    The Worm turns.

    I talked to Senator Burr (R) yesterday and he thinks Cap & trade is a big no no. Congressman Bob Etheridge (D), who i voted for, is a real sleaze. I took a close look at him and he is pro big corporations all the way and anti farmer

    You’re not pro big corporations? Take away the corporations and what do you have? Somalia.

  51. Well, there’ll be 60 votes against EPA in the senate come January. But, not 67 to overturn a veto. So, the EPA rule will stand until we throw B Hussein out on his big ears in January of 2013 (good chance the oil well will still be leaking then, too). I don’t think the EPA madness will survive much past February 1, 2013.

    Hopefully, the country can keep enough people working to be able to afford the 1850 MWe of zero carbon electricity I help turn out, which will keep me working. Not that being zero carbon is anything to brag about. But, it’s also only $0.03/kw-hr, compared to how much for wind?

  52. Mike G says:
    You’re not pro big corporations? Take away the corporations and what do you have? Somalia.

    “When all said and done, companies are owned by individuals not legal artefacts, so your assault on the companies is actually an assault on your citizens.”
    ~Louis Hissink

  53. Lindsey Graham is one of my senators. Many of the posts have made unfounded claims and assumptions concerning him and why he has changed his position. The senator is a professional politicain. And as such, has responded to the reprehensible way that the Dems treated him for trying to work with them. Those who are unfamilar with him need to know or remember that he was part of the “Gang of 12″; and does believe and has taken political hits for trying to enact legislation by working in a bi-partisan manner. I and others have emailed the senator expressing our concern that on climate change that he was going to be “played the fool.” While he was working with Kerry and Lieberman, he was willing to take political hits at a meeting in the Greenville area. He indicated that he knew that it would cost him some votes, but again defended himself in that part of his job was to work with other senators to get legislation passed. When he was stiffed by the Dems, he had to respond, or he would be considered a doormat by his party, his state, and the Dems. So he stabbed them in the back. Was it a reversal, yes. Was it mean and partisan, yes. Did the Dems deserve it, yes! As someone who was considering not voting for him if he continued to support the open check for the US Congress and the transfer of hundreds of millions to Al Gore alone, and other already rich people that CapNtrade represented, I applaud his back stabbing, and am going to vote for him. I sent him email several times and his office has been responsive.

    For his looseness with the facts, an uncritical eye has been revealed by many. One example is the burning of the oil spill. Not only was Graham’s statements loose with the facts, those complaining that it made little sense also show a severe undersight. Crude is harder to burn than even #6 fuel oil. It is also full of PCA’s. Polycyclic aromatics. These are known carcinogens at ppb action level. To burn #6 such that it is not an environmental hazrd requires atomization prior to combustion. In boilers, this is accomplished by using part of the steam produced to atomize the fuel. The boiler is started using air, and the air must be of sufficient PSI to atomize or the boiler will not start. It is scientific naivity to think that burning crude lying in (emulsion) and on the surface would not introduce tons of carcinogens to our breathing space for more a large fraction of the east coast. So, perhaps those who think the good senator’s statements are naive should look at their own. Not even natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, can be burned without releasing known toxins to the environment. CO2 (and H2O) may not be pollutants, but that they are not the only substances releasd from combustion, much less incomplete combustion, and combustion reaction by-products.


  54. John F. Pittman had written: “Crude is harder to burn than even #6 fuel oil. It is also full of PCA’s. Polycyclic aromatics. These are known carcinogens at ppb action level.

    Well, the afflotoxins in peanut butter are also “known carcinogens.” Doesn’t keep people from eating peanut butter. Question of levels of potential exposure, and simply saying “parts per billion” doesn’t tell much about the matter.

    Carcinogenic chemicals in crude oil (and resultant from crude oil combustion, if it can be kindled) are to be considered in the light of how much exposure to these atmospheric and aquatic carcinogens is statistically significant as an oncogenic risk factor. Gotta be some quantification, no?


    Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.

    – George Carlin

  55. For Rich M

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon Natural crude oil and coal deposits contain significant amounts of PAHs, arising from chemical conversion of natural product molecules, such as steroids, to aromatic hydrocarbons. They are also found in processed fossil fuels, tar and various edible oils.

    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts69.html

    Rather than risk Spam Karma, also check out the EPA website. Other sources available.

    Canada’s Interim Assessment Criterion for
    dibenz(a,h)anthracene is 0.01 ug/L [656].

    EPA 1996 IRIS Drinking Water MCL [893]:
    dibenz(a,h)anthracene
    Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Value: 0.0002
    mg/L Status/Year: Proposed 1990.

    Sorry not at work where I can get up to date numbers.

    You ask “”Carcinogenic chemicals in crude oil (and resultant from crude oil combustion, if it can be kindled) are to be considered in the light of how much exposure to these atmospheric and aquatic carcinogens is statistically significant as an oncogenic risk factor. Gotta be some quantification, no?””

    Yes, at 0.1 to 0.02 ug/L (ppb) trace amounts are considered dangerous. They are found naturally and note that incomplete combustion can generate more. Since the crude is not volatized the amount of combustion can only be guessed. However, it is a cewrtainty that large fractions of the crude will not be combusted and that being aromatic that they will be airborne in the direction of the wind. Further compounding the problem of estimating is the generation by incomlete combustion. Since it has been shown and reported that the spill is at the coast in 3 states in significant quantities, even the most naive model will show exposure for population in these three coastal areas. Since Di-antracene has a biomagification factor of 51,000 (per one study) based on POctanol tests, it is expected to bioaccumulate in fish, and other organisms at or near the top of their respective food chains. Man, as the ultimate top of the food chain, it would be expected to accumulate at a much higher rate from initial exposure and from consumption in the human population than other populations.

  56. Did British Petroleum rename itself BP so it could color itself green, and then run ads suggesting BP really meant “Beyond Petroleum”? I wonder — was all this green baloney a big distraction from BP’s basic business? Would things have been different if it had tended to its knitting instead of cutting cost-corners to help finance its useless green ad campaigns and to support its idiotic AGW anti-CO2 cap and trade taxation? Have BP’s initials now morphed into something like “Behemothic Polluter”? Anyhow, it’s encouraging to note that Lindsay Graham has regained his senses and is now tending to his own knitting by supporting nuclear power.

  57. A few months ago Graham defended his work on legislation to adjust the planetary thermostat by saying that he spends time with college age Americans, and that with the rising generation, “global warming is not a debate, it’s a value.”

    I think he hit the nail on the head with that observation. He also identified the main problem with “climate legislation”: it’s ultimate foundation is NOT in empirical science. Now that Graham has possibly begun to recognize that fact, a fairly steep learning curve lies ahead of him. I pray he proves a good learner.

Comments are closed.