- 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”…
Jenn Oates: Thanks. Your death match comment made me laugh, and that was a nice way to start the day,
I have mixed feelings about this. I would hope Inhofe does some serious boning up, and have himself asked a ton of tough questions, between now and any debate. One bad stumble and we’ll have it shoved in our faces for years to come.
The problem with this modest proposal is that neither of them is competent to have such a debate, so it really will be nothing more than “political theater”.
Now, put Bob Tisdale up on the stage with them, with a medium-sized stack of figures and references teed up and ready to flip…
rgb
Friends:
Reality is very different from the warmist fears presented by trolls in above comments.
In reality, the AGW issue IS political. If it were not political then there would be no need for politicians to agree Treaties, regulations and taxes in response to it.
But the warmist trolls claim that only “scientists” and especially NOT “politicians”) should debate the AGW issue. The trolls need to explain why they were not making that claim when politicians were deciding the Kyoto Protocol or when politicians assembled in Copenhagen, Cancun and (recently) Durban to debate how to use the AGW issue as an excuse for political actions.
Also, the trolls’ claim ignores the facts that
(a) ‘climate scientists’ who support the AGW-scare do all they can to avoid debates
and
(b) those ‘climate scientists’ have lost each of the few debates they have participated in.
The claim that only “scientists” should debate AGW is a variant of the warmist mantra that only the views of “climate scientists” should be heard on the issue. And, they say, only those who proclaim ‘AGW is a threat’ are “climate scientists” (i.e. a failed US Vice President, a railway engineeer, and a cosmologist are leading “climate scientists”, while some people – including me – who study climate and have repeatedly published on it in peer -reviewed literature are not).
Simply, the warmist claim amounts to
1. only pro-AGW propoganda should be allowed to be heard,
2. politicians should not debate the suggested reasons for taking actions in response AGW claims,
and
3. politicians should impose whatever political actions are demanded by warmist propoganda without any consideration of the merits of the propoganda..
The trolls and their fascist views should be treated with the disdain they deserve.
Richard
PS Senator Inhofe is very informed concerning the science of climate change. He certainly both knows and understands much more than people who post on warmist web sites such as SS and RC.
I can still vividly remember the Markey interview I saw last winter on CNBC where he stated that we have to build more wind/solar so that we can get of of foreign oil. That’s a shockingly disinformative and ignorant statement from the former Chairman of a House energy committee. Oil is only used to create a percent or two of US electricity, and building solar/wind will do nothing to get our country off of foreign oil. Yet this is a very common statement made by the warmers and environmentalists.
This may make for interesting theater, but it’s a pointless exercise. High-ranking politicians discussing hard climate science as if they speak with any real authority on the subject? What’s next? A couple of senators debating lung cancer? A pair of city council members arguing about quantum mechanics? From the statements I’ve read, Inhofe’s knowledge of climate science is roughly equal to my cocker spaniel’s knowledge of astrophysics, and Markey–good progressive though he is–can’t be too much further ahead. How about, say, Kevin Trenberth vs. Joe Bastardi? Or James Hansen vs. Anthony Watts? Now *those* I’d buy tickets for.
I go to Scripps in La Jolla quite often just to walk our dog. There are beautiful trails above the Pacific Ocean there. My wife and I met a scientist who is very involved in the study of “climate change”. I have no science background. This young man was a PHD scientist in the field of climate. He was taken back when I said I did not accept the veracity of CAGW. A debate ensued.
I won handidly, which was easy to tell by his red face and rapid breathing.
First of all I did not let him use the term “climate change”. I made the debate about CAGW. I did not debate the GHE of CO2. I debated the feedbacks and the known benefits of CO2 verses the projected, never to be found disaster predictions, yet another case of CO2 causes large frogs, small frogs, bees to vanish etc; the latest disater of the week CO2 fantasy. I quickly shot down the increasing storms, floods droughts senario, with facts. I asked him what would happen to the world if today, all of a sudden, the world required 10% percent to 15 % more land and water to grow the same amount of food? He admitted millions would die and war would be a likely outcome. I explained the null hypothesis to him and outlined the many reasons, (such as crosspatch mentioned above) that we have experienced nothing ourside of normal temperature fluctations in the last 2000 years. I referenced climate audit and the Wegman report along with what the NAS said about Mann’s HS. Finaly he told me that I was hopeless, I just had an answer for everything he said. I suggested he think about that fact. Finaly he told me that his family depended on grants and people like me were a threat to his funding (really)
One does not need to be a scientist to debate CAGW with a scientist.
I don’t like Nader. In my opinion he is responsible for more pain and suffering than any other human in history. Regarding his hyperbole about plutonium, recall B. Cohen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up
In reply to Cynical scientist’s comment at 10:15, you are a republican.
David:
At December 13, 2011 at 5:47 am.
Well said!
Your post is a full rebuttal of the trolls posting excuses for their trying to prevent and/or demean the proposed and much-needed debate.
Richard
Let Markey pass that bill — he’ll pass anything!
Hey Markey, he passed it!
Neapolitan:
Your post at December 13, 2011 at 5:36 am is an illogical rant. It says in full:
“This may make for interesting theater, but it’s a pointless exercise. High-ranking politicians discussing hard climate science as if they speak with any real authority on the subject? What’s next? A couple of senators debating lung cancer? A pair of city council members arguing about quantum mechanics? From the statements I’ve read, Inhofe’s knowledge of climate science is roughly equal to my cocker spaniel’s knowledge of astrophysics, and Markey–good progressive though he is–can’t be too much further ahead. How about, say, Kevin Trenberth vs. Joe Bastardi? Or James Hansen vs. Anthony Watts? Now *those* I’d buy tickets for.”
A “pointless exercise”? Are you mad?
The two politicians are involved in deciding whether or not to take actions which would harm economies across the entire world, damage energy security in their own country, and kill billions of people in the poorest parts of the world. But you say it is a “pointless exercise” for them to debate before their electorate their knowledge and understanding of the reasons for taking those actions.
There is this thing called ‘democracy’. You need to find out about it.
And, although it seems to have escaped you, politicians did discuss lung cancer and have passed laws as a result. Also, if city councillors want to discuss quantum mechanics they have a right to do it, but I know of none who have any reason to want to.
Your suggestion that Trenberth and Hansen would discuss climate science with knowledgeable sceptics of their views is a ridiculous ‘red herring’. I feel sure you presented it because you know they do anything possible to avoid such debate.
And your smear of Senator Inhofe is very misplaced. The Senator has great knowledge and understanding of the issues of AGW that is of similar kind to that displayed by ‘David’ in his post (at December 13, 2011 at 5:47 am and immediately following yours). Please note that I do not state this fact about Senator Inhofe as a matter of political support: he is a right-wing American Republican and I am a left-wing British socialist.
Richard
In a battle of wits, Markey is unarmed. Inhofe should ask if Markey still lives at his mother’s house.
Matt Schilling:
Re you comment at December 13, 2011 at 5:56 am
Seconded.
Richard
Cynical scientist says:
December 12, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Personally I can live with being called a `denier’. But if people start calling me a republican, I’ll probably have to shoot myself.
Cynical, if you vote democrat rather than republican in the upcoming election, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is no better topic than global warming that separates Repubs from Dems. Dems are nearly 100% for instituting CAGW solutions (taxes and eliminating fossil fuels) and Repubs nearly 100% against.
Alexander Feht says:
December 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm
davidmhoffer says:
December 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Inhofe could recruit…Willis?
Nah, Inhofe doesn’t inhale, while Willis, I believe, wouldn’t work for a heartless snob who doesn’t pick up young and healthy hitchhikers unwilling to earn enough money to buy a used car.
==========================================================
ahahahahaha!!!! Beautiful! In reality Jim Inhofe would likely turn to Mark Moreno…..
I have the misfortune to live in Congressman Malarkey’s district. What Pat says is correct. If such a debate were to happen, Malarkey would simply resort to the usual Alarmist’s Argument from Authority (“99% of scientists say. . .”), ad hominems (“The skeptics are all shills for the coal and oil industries”), and faux climatology (“Look at all the tornados, floods, and hurricanes”).
But I’ll bet Malarkey will never show up.
“High-ranking politicians discussing hard climate science as if they speak with any real authority on the subject? What’s next?” ahem….Al Gore….
partisans – time to parteh!
this wwf spectacular will be a rip roaring flame throwing tire screaming jello wrestling expensive frign joke on you bread and circus junkies (popcorn, to the post modern effete).
what a stupendous (accent on the stup) opportunity for sweeping generalizations and snarly semiotics so beloved by the pseudointellectuals in pursuit of punditries.
nobody can win, gentlemen.
you will lose.
Markey will get cold feet at the last moment and withdraw. He doesn’t know the difference between an atom and a molecule.
Lonnie E. Schubert says:
December 13, 2011 at 5:47 am
“I don’t like Nader. In my opinion he is responsible for more pain and suffering than any other human in history.”
On the other hand, if it wasn’t for Nader we would’ve had 4-8 years of Gore.
Carbon taxes, assorted other taxes, industry killing regulations….
Not so fast. Don’t forget that 75 out of 77 scientists once agreed that man has some effect on climate, and Markey will no doubt employ that bomb shell of an argument. There is also the fact that small elite groups at many prestigious scientific organizations have put forth their opinions agreeing with the 2007 IPCC Summary For Policymakers from the 4AR. These two arguments alone will be devastatingly difficult for Inhofe to fight against. The coup de grace will be the iron clad argument that, even if we don’t know for sure the extent of man’s effect on climate, we need to act now before it is too late.
If I were Inhofe, I’d be quaking in my boots. sarc/off
At 5:47 AM on 13 December, David recounts how one day he’d set out to walk his dog and wound up pooper-scooper-ing “a PHD scientist in the field of climate,” finishing up:
Er, David, just what gives you to think that you were debating a scientist and not simply an academically credentialed rent-seeking professional parasite battening on the public dole?
So we get to watch two people who don’t know what they’re talking about pretend otherwise? Great, should be just like a regular political debate.
I’ve got an idea. Instead of turning this into a right vs left thing, let’s turn it into a “change is necessary” thing. I propose some very simple rules for the upcoming election that are party agnostic. If one of the candidates is an incumbent and has served in that position for 8 or more years, vote for the other candidate. If one of the candidates is an incumbent and has served in that position for less than 6 more years, the next term would vote not carry that candidate much past 8 years, and you prefer that candidate – feel free to vote him/her in for their last term (or not). If neither candidate is an incumbent, vote your conscience.
What we really need is to fire them all. Both parties, ignore parties. Fire. Them. All.