Congressional Memo
More Talking Than Listening in the Senate Debate About Climate Change
WASHINGTON — About a day into the debate over legislation to combat global warming but before Republicans brought the discourse to a stop on Wednesday by insisting that the clerk read every word of the 492-page bill, Senator James M. Inhofe decided to get a few things off his chest.
Mr. Inhofe, who believes that fears of catastrophic climate change are hugely overblown, has insisted that there is no need to get into a scientific argument because there are enough other reasons to oppose the Senate bill, which would cap the production of heat-trapping gases and force polluters to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide.
Still, for a guy who said he did not want to talk about science, Mr. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, was the only senator to utter the phrase “anthropogenic gases.” He also wanted to talk about the recent cold winter in his home state and mention a few small points of disagreement with Al Gore and Mr. Gore’s co-recipients of the Nobel Prize, the roughly 2,000 scientists who are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sponsored by the United Nations.
“We in the state of Oklahoma have had the worst cold spell during this last winter than we have in 30 years,” Mr. Inhofe said. “I find this to be true all over the country. You just can’t have it both ways.” (Most scientists say year-to-year weather changes are irrelevant to the clear, long-term warming trend.)
“One of the good things about this discussion and this debate is we are not going to be discussing the science,” Mr. Inhofe continued. Then, he unleashed an attack on the United Nations climate panel.
“We talked about 2,000 scientists,” he said. “We have a list of 30,000 scientists who said, ‘Yes, there can be a relationship between CO2 and a warming condition but it’s not major.’ ”
Next, he turned to Mr. Gore, the former vice president. “Al Gore has done his movie. Almost everything in his movie, in fact, everything has been refuted. Interestingly enough, the I.P.C.C. — on sea levels and other scare tactics used in that science fiction movie — it really has been totally refuted and refuted many times.”
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, wanted to challenge Mr. Inhofe. “Will the senator yield?” Mr. Kerry asked.
“No I will not,” Mr. Inhofe replied.
Moments later, Mr. Kerry tried again. “Will the senator yield for a question?”
“No. I will not. Not now,” Mr. Inhofe declared, shifting his speech into the need for expanding nuclear power.
After being rebuffed a fourth time, Mr. Kerry was exasperated. “With all due respect,” he said, “we are here to have a debate. It is hard to have a debate when you are talking all by yourself.”
Even for the Senate, where members are well-known to prefer talking to listening, the amount of unilateral jabbering on the climate bill has been remarkable, with lawmakers both for and against it arguing repeatedly over how much time was allotted for them to speak.
It was also hard to keep track of who was on which side. The bill’s main sponsors are Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.
Typically, the floor debate is divided evenly between the two parties, but there has been constant confusion about whose time was being used.
At one point Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, was struggling to get his turn. “It’s my understanding that I have 15 minutes at 12:15 which I have been waiting for all morning,” he said.
A short argument followed — involving Mr. Specter, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, Mrs. Boxer and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee — over who should speak and for how long. As they bickered, Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, who was serving as the president pro tempore, made an announcement: “The time of the senator from Tennessee, three and a half minutes, has expired.”
Mr. Domenici was perplexed. “How did his time expire?” he asked.
“Through this conversation,” Mr. Tester explained.
To help give everybody time on center-stage, the senators on Tuesday proposed delaying the weekly party lunches by 10 minutes. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said that was all right, but he also urged senators to be back in time for their official portrait.
“I hope people can come,” Mr. Reid said. “I know comparing it to global warming, it is not a very important issue. Staff has worked some six weeks to set up this place to take the picture at 2:15.”
The Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has expressed glee that the Democrats chose to bring up the climate bill. Mr. McConnell, like many of the bill’s critics, said it would raise oil prices at a time when Americans were already furious at the high cost of gasoline.
And though it was Mr. McConnell who insisted that the entire bill be read aloud (as punishment, he said, for Mr. Reid’s breaking a deal on judicial nominees) the Republican leader also said he hoped for a lengthy, perhaps weeks-long, debate on the climate change measure to highlight its flaws.
In response to the required read-aloud, which ended before 10 p.m., Mr. Reid requested a late-night quorum call, summoning senators back to the Capitol as Washington was being hit by scattered thunderstorms.
Mrs. Boxer, the main Democratic proponent of the bill, accused the Republicans of stalling and refusing to address global warming in part to support big oil companies. She repeatedly invoked support from religious leaders and scientists.
“Here, as shown in this picture, is a beautiful creature, the polar bear,” she said in a speech on the Senate floor. “And people say, ‘Oh, is this all about saving the polar bear?’ It’s about saving us. It’s about saving our future. It’s about saving the life on planet Earth. And, yes, it is about saving God’s creatures.”
Republicans, however, accused Democrats of putting on political theater at a time when they know the bill has no chance of being approved let alone signed into law by President Bush.
“This bill is going down in flames, as it should,” Mr. Corker “And we’ll have a real debate about this next year.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

thanks for posting this
Thank God for politician’s egos. As long as they fight each other we are relatively safe.
Whoa, solar flux is falling out of bed. 65.2 on 6/4.
===========================
Hmph ~ so The Al Gore Enrichment Act will face a well deserved demise — this year. I’ve no doubt it will be resurrected next year, especially if Democrats experience a major win this November. Ought to fill everyone with trepidation as there will only be a few winners with its passage, folks like Al Gore who are positioned to take advantage of cap and trade largess, while most everyone else will feel its pinch.
ALL bills should be read before they are voted on: http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml
I didn’t see anything in the bill about eliminating the cap and trade if global temperatures cool in the future. That’s a clear sign that this bill has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with control.
Mrs. Boxer, “life on planet Earth” has endured quite well and will continue to do so without your intervention.
This bill was doomed from the start. Come next year, it may have better support, but the minority in the Senate can raise enough hell with a filibuster to stall it or kill it, even then. That’s the beauty of the Senate. We’ll have to see what changes in seating happens from the coming general election. If a filibuster can be overridden, then this bill will get passed(or something like it).
A continuation of cold weather into next year would be even more helpful, as some Senators might change there minds as the science evolves a bit more and public opinion sways them.
You never know what could happen in a years time. And if the public starts to raise a lot of concern, it does sway votes. It has happened plenty of times in the past. When they’re political careers are feared to be on the line, they turn into EF Hutton and listen.
So I ask then, whose voice will be louder?
You decide!
Umm…global warming is not simply “heating of the Earth”, it induces extreme changes in temperature, and yes that includes extreme cold (hence, the first winter spell in ages).
Angry Chinese Driver,
ahhh so, the old blow torch freezing metal trick!!
By the way, do you happen to own part of the Brooklyn Bridge by any chance??
Angry Chinese Driver (23:40:02) says:
“it induces extreme changes in temperature, and yes that includes extreme cold”
There is zero evidence that supports this claim. It is nothing but psuedo-scientific BS dreamed up by alarmists who are desperately trying to avoid admiting that they are likely wrong.
Like they said, it’ll be back next year.
And I see some sun specks right smack in the middle, 10° south. Cycle 23 seems to be still kicking.
MDM
Don’t underestimate the power of Ms Boxer and Al Gore. They have the power to control nature and climate.
As I’ve mentioned earlier – these nuts are going to try it in 09.
Angry Chinese Driver,
So, if the world warms, we have global warming.
And if the world cools, we have global warming.
Hard to see how the hypothesis of AGW can be falsified.
If AGW is a scientific hypothesis, and not a religious or ideological position, under what circumstances would it be falsified?
Just wondering.
Guilt is insidious, Angry Chinese Driver. Yes, it is clearly man making the weather hotter and colder. This coming century, man will become so powerful as to make the weather hotter and colder at the same time.
===============================
We get winter every year in England. Rain, snow, and ice. Old people dying of hypothermia too.
“Umm…global warming is not simply “heating of the Earth”, it induces extreme changes in temperature, and yes that includes extreme cold (hence, the first winter spell in ages).”
Do you really believe that global warming causes extreme winters? This might happen on your PS3 or xbox, but not in the real world.
That’s right. Let’s sacrifice the earth so people’s gas prices don’t increase. Well fought, Mitch McConnell. You’ve got to be joking. There are probably small flaws in the bill, yes, but at least it’s acknowledging that we have to DO something about this instead of just watch the earth burn. And for CARTOONS click on my name link.
ACD: “global warming is not simply “heating of the Earth”, it induces extreme changes in temperature, and yes that includes extreme cold ”
Reminds me of the guy I met at the track who could predict the outcome with 100% accuracy. Seems he discovered that the grey horse always wins … unless it doesn’t.
Can’t blame people for thinking that cold this year means the end to global warming when every heat wave is touted as the proof of said warming. Heck, even a ten year downtrend isn’t sufficient to stick a pin in the AGW warming bubble.
[…] 5, 2008 Watt’s Up With That has a great article detailing the frailty of the latest global warming bill trying to get passed as legislature. David has a number of good points on how there are reasons […]
Umm…global warming is not simply “heating of the Earth”, it induces extreme changes in temperature, and yes that includes extreme cold (hence, the first winter spell in ages).
Umm…. No, global warming doesn’t “induce extreme changes in temperature”, including “extreme cold”, though AGW religion would have you believe that. Changes in temperature are a normal part of our climate. The “extreme” part is simply AGW alarmist rhetoric.
“Umm…global warming is not simply “heating of the Earth”, it induces extreme changes in temperature, and yes that includes extreme cold (hence, the first winter spell in ages).”
Pure propaganda. The opposite is true. Assuming extreme global warming is in the works, the tropics would warm the least and the poles would warm the most. This means that there would be FEWER temperature extremes.
Actually…the poles are melting pretty fast.
We could go on and on and on about whether global warming exists or not. I could come up with an argument, you a counter-argument, and me a counter-counter-argument, etc. etc.. Happens everywhere, anytime (with Americans, anyway).
So just keep driving your SUVs and living in your McMansions, don’t worry or even think about greenhouse gases or the like or ANYTHING. Just enjoy like, spend your money. Because when your kids die of (if they’re lucky) or are born with (if they’re unlucky) some form of disease or cancer, you won’t be around that long to witness the effects, right? When California and Hawaii become nothing more than modern-day Atlantis and millions around the world die form plagues, you won’t be be around to experience the effects, right?
This is not about restricting the rights of people do freely as they wish in the name of “climate change;” no, hopefully people would smarten up and reduce the amount of energy they use and the amount of pollution they emit, but judging just from the comments on this post it ain’t happening. So Big Government, not that I approve, is now stepping in and cleaning up your crap before you harm yourself (and your future generations) too much. And most of you still haven’t learned.
Do you actually think that I take joy in acknowledging climate change? Not a damn bit. I love my snow, and year after year of rain on Christmas has gotten me pretty fed up. Not to mention either hot-as-hell or cold-as-whatever summers, sometimes both in one season. Maybe the Earth is warming up by itself, but it doesn’t take a scientist or a thousand to figure out that WE are not doing anything to NOT speed it up.
REPLY: Have at it lads. – Anthony
There are probably small flaws in the bill, yes, but at least it’s acknowledging that we have to DO something about this instead of just watch the earth burn.
Small flaws, Mad Jones? Hardly. The entire bill is an abomination, based on the non-existent problem of man’s C02 emissions. Yes, by all means let’s DO something, meaning throw our already hurting economy under a bus for precisely NO reason whatsoever. As for the earth burning, that, I’m guessing must be from too many of your alarmist cartoons. A cooling earth, which is what we’re headed for is something to be concerned about, though. Picture a shivering earth with an icicle on its nose. And no, we humans won’t be causing that, either. It’s the sun.