- Inhofe
=================================================
By Steve Milloy JunkScience.com
So the debate’s not over after all. We’d pay for ringside seats.
From Politico:
Ralph Nader put on his Don King hat Monday with the hope of inspiring a made-for-TV showdown between two Capitol Hill stalwarts on global warming.
The consumer activist and former presidential candidate pitched the idea of Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe meeting Democratic Rep. Ed Markey in a 90-minute televised debate on the ins and outs of climate change science and policy.
“Clearly you are a man of your convictions on this subject,” Nader wrote in a letter to Inhofe, of Oklahoma, who is the most outspoken climate skeptic on Capitol Hill. “Just as clearly, Rep. Ed Markey is a man of his convictions on this topic.”
“People I know in Oklahoma say that you do not run away from challenges and challengers to your beliefs,” Nader added. “But the Senate floor is not exactly the place for an extended debate; it is more a place for parallel soliloquies.”
Nader suggested a debate “with [a] mutually agreed upon moderator and rules at a mutually convenient time and place, preferably on Capitol Hill.” The debate should appear on cable television, “certainly over C-SPAN”…
This is unlikely. Anyone who has paid attention to Markey knows that he is an ignorant dolt. He hardly knows even the latest AGW talking points, much less real facts. He is a pompous fool that relies upon media to cover for his mistakes.
There must be some mistake. National popcorn month is October.
Problem one – Two politicians are debating climate science!
Problem two – Another politician is moderating the debate!
Problem three – The moderator and Markey are political allies (different parties, same agenda)!
Three strikes.
Bill Davis says: December 12, 2011 at 10:02 pm
It is now, as it has always been, a political debate. If you believe otherwise kindly point out where and when the scientific debate took place and who debated it?
Alexander Feht says: December 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm
So much snark in so little space; Alex, you are a master. If you are not a native Siberian I’m beginning to get a glimmer of just how you ended up there.
Cynical scientist says: December 12, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Yeah, my mother is convinced that all Republicans are going to hell, too, but I really wish that commenters would stop trying to make this a Democrat/Republican kind of divide. Many skeptics, including the ever-present Smokey, apparently, are skeptical but not Republican. Most Republicans are not skeptical. I’ve been saying for awhile that what we are facing is an elite based in Business, Government, Academia, the Media and Science that is watching out for its own interests to the detriment of ours. Cynical Scientist’s comment sent me off to look for such connections. Google “Condoleeza Rice” + “Climate Change”. Among the returns was this:
http://vator.tv/news/2009-12-30-condoleezza-rice-joins-stealth-carbon-startup
Which lead to this:
http://www.c3-e.com/home/
and this:
http://www.c3-e.com/directors/
These people are banking on either cap and trade or carbon taxes to make their product viable. Whaddayathink?
Classic. Politico lowers itself to a subtle ad hominem…
Markey is a Man of Conviction, but Inhofe, while having convictions, is a “climate skeptic”.
I’ve yet to see Inhofe ever say he was skeptical about climate. I’ve yet to see anyone here say they were skeptical about climate.. I’m not skeptical about climate… I’m skeptical about some of the scientific claims about climate…. And Markey belongs to a group that is skeptical about scientific claims made by a group of climate scientists who disagree with some other climate scientists…
Since one group is referred to as “climate skeptics”, I guess you’d have to refer to the other group as “science skeptics”. Given the religious fervor of that camp…maybe the label fits.
If Nader is “moderating”, then I’m thinking it is an ambush in favour of the warmunists. There will be a lot of loaded questions for Inhofe and softsoap questions for Markey.
Inhofe, make sure no one sneaks in the night before to turn the thermostats up a few notches
David Suzuki is a microbiologist/geneticist that seems to have been attributed some level of understanding of climate – on the affect on the genetics of fruit flies maybe. Bit other than that, one might assume that both Markey and Inhofe have every bit as much formal technical training as Suzuki and many of the other climate activists – none. It all comes down to who studies his speaking points the best, nothing more. Bit it should make good entertainment.
Canada should conduct a royal commission on climate change science. I am willing to have my fellow taxpayers pay up to several billion dollars for this royal commission. The 30 billion potential savings from reduced border delays between Canada and the United States would help offset the cost.
I believe I read about this idea in the National Post, in which the articles author suggested that Obama would not allow such a thing, hence don’t expect it to ever occur. This debate will also not occur, mark my words.
noaaprogrammer: “What is the scientific/mathematical backgrounds for these political debators. Have any of them done graduate level work?”
So only graduate students or ‘above’ are allowed to get involved in the debate? That’s pure intellectual snobbery. That’s exactly the kind of rubbish the Schlockey Team say: “You’re not a climate scientist, so you wouldn’t understand.”
As at least one other commenter has said above, the AGW rubbish has little to do with science and more to do with money, politics and power. It’s perfectly right that debates about this subject be brought into the political arena.
The 12 year old kids I teach at High School can see through the AGW twaddle, so I’m sure many other people from outside the rarified world of the research lab can understand that the whole gorebull warming thing is a scam as well.
Gary Mount: Maybe because it’s late, but I don’t see the relationship between a royal commission on climate change science and border delays. For that matter, what on earth gives Odumber the right to allow or disallow royal commissions? BTW: I’d be willing to donate some money to the Canadian Government if they did, in fact, plan an honest inquiry into climate science.
Correct, it’s Kongressman Murkey.
MARK: Debates regarding scientific issues, particularly between politicians, are meaningless other than for entertainment value.
You know the first thought I voiced when I saw the header for this blog was – neither of these guy’s are scientist, they may have strong opinions (most certainly they do) but no matter the outcome it will be meaningless. They can only spout – argue the words of their particular tame scientists……. what we truly deserve is an open honest public discussion/debate from the two sides of science, and yes I do still believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy!
The last time Suzuki did science was on the last day of his fruit fly PhD dissertation preparation, many decades ago. He immediately fled precipitously to the field of showbiz, where he has strutted and postured ever since.
At most, he’s an ex-wannabe-scientist.
Cynical scientist says:
December 12, 2011 at 10:15 pm
“I really wish republican politicians in the US would get the heck out of the climate business. That is because they are completely insane.”
Apparently, you’re forgetting it is the left who dreamed up this psychotic fantasy crisis. Marxism is a delusional religion, and “climate change” its Tolkien Ring.
My pick for skeptic debater is Chris Horner.
At 12:14 AM on 13 December, in response to Cynical scientist’s expression of disgust with the “completely insane” Red Faction of our big, perpetually incumbent Boot On Your Neck Party, Layne Blanchard writes:
I doubt that anybody could possibly forget that the gaudy AGW fraud has been a cause célèbre for the politicians of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, on account of after they rammed Obamacare down the national throat in spite of enraged opposition on the part of most of their own core constituencies, the last tattered shred of pretense about being “democratic” went bye-bye) from the earliest days tracked by the Climategate Timeline.
It’s one of those Menckenian “hobgoblins” that perfectly suit their National Socialist hysteria-pumping machinations, isn’t it?
But keep in mind always that the Red Faction is – first and last, ever since they were calling themselves “Federalists” and “Whigs” – the political instantiation of what Frank Chodorov once called “Rotarian Socialism,” a perfectly mercantilist movement pushing currency counterfeiting and debauchment, consumer-screwing corporate welfare, and rank imperialism in the guise of “foreign policy.”
To the extent that Republican goons could find ways to gain political advantage and – more importantly – mechanisms by which they and their “contributors” could plunder the public purse and screw America’s consumers even more thoroughly, they were stumpin’ and pumpin’ for all that “man-made global climate change” crap in a wonderful Gingrich-Pelosi show of “bipartisanship.”
One more thing; I would not classify the AGW fraud as a “psychotic fantasy,” especially in the light of the available tranche of FOIA2011.zip expanding the demonstration that it’s a carefully fabricated “long con” concerted by a definitely identifiable cadre of flim-flam artists who are not and (as the recent release of e-mail communications wonderfully confirms) never really were “true believers” in their own enormous manure pile of half-truths and pure lies.
Neither the National Socialist government thugs propelling this hideous fraud with funds ripped off from the taxpaying private citizenry nor the C.R.U. correspondents colluding in the peculative receipt of those funds were in any way “psychotic.”
Their actions were simply felonious, replete with proofs of criminal mens rea and unarguable evidence of conspiracy to commit these offenses in their e-mail correspondence.
To extend my earlier remark, never attribute to psychopathology that which is more appropriately explained by criminal intention.
The debate, if there is one, should be:
Between Scientists;
Divided into 20 (say) debates on different facets of the issue, with different debating teams on each topic.
Before judging-panels of scientists in the related disciplines, preferably stars who have retired.
Conducted over the space of three months.
Conducted over the Internet, both by text and by video presentations.
Rerun after a gap of six months, after absorbing questions and comments from the judging panels.
Perhaps shown on PBS, after it’s over.
Otherwise it will be impossible to filter out, over time, the discredited (or less-credible) claims and refine and sharpen the debate. There are currently too many “outs” that the audience can’t detect. A debate between politicians would go (in many viewers’ minds) to the boldest, sincerest-sounding prevaricator.
Another sort of debate would be a half-hour of national TV per week (it could be broadcast late at nite–TIVO and YouTube would allow sleepyheads to catch up with it later.) Each half-hour given to one or other side of the debate, alternately, for years, on specific narrow topics. The presenters needn’t be scientists, but good debaters who are up on their topic. This should have been started years ago–heck, decades ago. “The debate is over”? What a laugh. It never began.
Make sure Inhofe gets this link to read (or the PDF)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/
They can’t debate the science, but they can debate the politics of it, and the economics to an extent. Doing anything (or nothing) about climate change / global warming / we-must-act-now-due-to-climate-ambiguity inevitably has an economic impact. Politically, the uncertainty can be debated. Seriously, doing something about a 0.7-8 degree C warming depends on narrowing that down substantially with the appropriate level of certainty, which doesn’t exist unless of course they give up on the positive feedbacks which are purely hypothetical, and the perverse world of socio-environmentalism flips that particular negative into a positive for their social change agendas.
What 100 years of science?
I have yet to see any ‘science’ that shows that CO2 and other pollutants raise temperatures, let alone any ‘science’ that shows that CO2 is a pollutant.
Rhoda Ramirez says:
December 13, 2011 at 12:02 am
Gary Mount: Maybe because it’s late, but I don’t see the relationship between a royal commission on climate change science and border delays.
——————
Sorry, I guess if the news involves Canada, and it’s not climate change related, it doesn’t make it beyond Canadian borders.
“On Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper travelled to Washington, D.C., to jointly announce with U.S. President Barack Obama the signing of the bi-lateral Beyond the Border agreement. Once fully enacted, it is hoped that this new agreement will streamline and modernize the movement of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. frontier. ”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/good+deal+Canada/5840506/story.html
———————
…For that matter, what on earth gives Odumber the right to allow or disallow royal commissions?
Its called politics and the relative sizes of our two countries, by economic clout, not geographic.
I also want to make it clear, thats a $30 Billion Annual potential savings.
Do we really want to have warmests climate scientist debating with skeptics? The warmests have proven to be serial liars. Why give them a national forum, as you know how the MSM co-operates, witness the BBC, CBC, Australian BBC, CTV, etc.
Ooops, Australian ABC. Close enough 😉
If Ralph Nader really sees how the wind is blowing, and that Markey will likely find a reason to abort the debate (eg around how it is framed – note his impossible wording
we could still be getting some key publicity.
Of course, I’d like our Lord Monckton to support Inhofe. Politician and true scientist, who knows exactly the dirty tricks the warmists play.