Senate EPW Republicans Take a Stand for Academic Freedom
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OKla.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today led all EPW Republicans in a letter promoting scientific discovery and academic freedom. The letter was sent to the same 107 recipients of letters sent earlier this week by Congressional Democrats to universities, private companies, trade groups, and non-profit organizations, asking for detailed information on funding climate science. As explained in the EPW Republican letter sent today, there is a real concern the Democrats inquiry may impose a chilling effect on scientific inquiry and free speech.
“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” said the Senators in today’s letter.
There has been a public outcry in response to the Democrats letters. Noted climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” Earlier today the American Meteorological Society warned that the letters sent by Congressional Democrats send a “chilling message to all academic researchers.”
“At the end of the day, those disagreeing with certain scientific findings should judge them based on whether or not they are sound and transparent,” said Chairman Inhofe.
The full text of the letter is as follows:
February 27, 2014
Dear _______,
We write in regards to the recent request for information on your support of scientific research initiated by several of our colleagues in the United States Congress. At the outset, we are deeply concerned the letter calls into question the importance of scientific discovery and academic freedom. Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry.
Federal government-sponsored research is good and necessary, but such funding has limits. The federal government does not have a monopoly on funding high-quality scientific research, and many of the nation’s environmental laws require decisions be based on the best scientific information available—not just federally funded research. At the core of American ingenuity are those researchers who challenge the status quo whether in matters of climate, economics, medicine, or any field of study. Institutions of higher-learning and non-governmental funding are vital to facilitating such research and scientific inquiry. Limiting research and science to only those who receive federal government resources would undermine and slow American education, economic prosperity, and technological advancement.
The credibility of a scientific finding, research paper, report, or advancement should be weighed on its compliance with the scientific method and ability to meet the principles of sound science; in short, it should be weighed on its merits. The scientific method is a process marked by skepticism and testing, rather than dogma. If the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings then it is sound, irrespective of funding sources. Science the federal government uses to support regulatory decisions should also comply with the integrity, quality, and transparency requirements under the Information Quality Act and Office of Management and Budget Guidelines.
Indeed, science is only one criterion we must take into consideration when developing laws and regulations. Credible deliberation requires thoughtful analysis and an understanding of the economy, policy, and legal framework in which we function. Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.
The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate effort to challenge these well-accepted truths. We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond. Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.
Sincerely,
Sen. Jim Inhofe, Chairman
Sen. David Vitter
Sen. John Barrasso
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
Sen. Mike Crapo
Sen. John Boozman
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Sen. Rodger F. Wicker
Sen. Deb Fischer
Sen. Mike Rounds
Sen. Dan Sullivan
###
Original press release as PDF:
2-27-15_LTE from EPW Republicans to API
In relation to this action by the Republicans – GOOD.
The analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com demonstrates that CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature (AGT).
It and the peer reviewed paper at Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 disclose the two natural factors that do explain average global temperatures (95% correlation since 1895) and credible trend back to the depths of the Little Ice Age (around 1700).
This work proves that ‘climate sensitivity’, the effect on AGT of doubling CO2, is not significantly different from zero.
Bad weather and climate change witch hunts were quite common during the Little Ice Age. People like to blame people for our ever changing climate. Here they come.
We need more snow balls!
My frozen mountain has 4 feet of solid ice that I can hack into snowballs that will really sting if thrown at warmists.
I speak as a hardened veteran of countless snowball fights: Using ice chunks is cheating!
That is the most important issue addressed by the letter.
The best research is needed for a completely public and entirely open debate on climate / environment and the government is not the arbiter of the best research nor of the what is the correct debate; the free and open scientific marketplace of research theories and of observational data is where the comparison of theories to reality is demarcated with the best chance of self-correction without political interference. Alternate funding to government funding is absolutely essential to keep the government’s involvement in science honest. Any monopoly (or very near monopoly) of data sources that are within government science bodies or gov’t research institutes requires they must be viewed critically and heavily audited by non-government scientific consortiums.
Please audit NASA-GISS by a very broadly balanced consortium of private science community members as a token of good faith toward open and public debate on climate.
John
John, for the climastrologists and federal government it is not about the science anymore, despite the pretense. It’s about getting the programs and laws in place before their shabby science is exposed. The 18 year surface temperature standstill lead to utter panic [within] their ranks. I have often heard warmists say words to the effect of:
“even if AGW is overblown surely it’s better we develop alternative energy because oil will run out”
“even if AGW is overblown surely it’s better to fight pollution”
Jimbo, when I listen to our Australian parliament proceedings and I hear our dumb##s politicians call co2 a ‘pollutant’, I just yell at the radio, go nuts. We pay these monkeys 200,00 grand a year?
Jimbo,
I tend to agree with you to a significant extent and to me it is all the more reason for the kind of audit of NASA GISS that I suggested.
John
@ur momisugly Aphan February 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm
I only used one other name here ( Sandi ) when I was logged into the wrong account.
How many accounts do you have, Sandi/Roy? And why two different genders?
Not that it is anyone’s business, but two people one computer.
You work in shifts?
Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.”
Considering that Dr Mann has himself been challenged by a congressional committee, that he is actively using the legal system to prevent his correspondence from being seen by the public, that’s one helluva statement. Democrats should take note. One of your poster boys for CAGW has stood up and said you’ve gone too far.
Doesn’t change my opinion of his work, but I’ll view him personally in a different light going forward. He’s probably the very last of the CAGW cabal that I would have expected to stand up and say something.
I suspect that Nobel Laureate Mann is worried about opening this can of worms. The Republicans could indulge the Democrats and have hearings on this subject, at which point all of the elite warmists who have undisclosed conflicts will be fair game. Lets not forget the $1.4 million of “prize” money that James Hansen allegedly received and failed to disclose.
Yup. This thing go boom in Mike’s face.
This whole thing reminds me of this:
When you have rather large skeletons in your closet you don’t want anyone setting precedence that might unlock those skeletons.
davidmhoffer,
I think your last paragraph is a little too optimistic. I think he’s just covering his *ss. I think he realizes that, with a republican-contolled congress, if a democrat loose cannon can target skeptics, he can see the laser sight pointed at himself. And he certainly has a background (both scientific and activist) that can be controversial, to say the least.
Phil R,
You sir, hit the bulls eye.
Dr. Mann is probably mad that somebody on the team made a mistake and trying to use congress to further the propaganda rather than the usual media outlets. Congress has some legal oversight and there are possible repercussions if you parade out information haphazardly, in the press you can do it with impunity.
I think we should always watch the intellectual pea very very carefully when there is an intellectual trickster is in the building.
Note that Mann does not in principle disagree with what Grijalva (or Boxer or Markey Whitehouse) did. He is just worried the way it was handled negatively influences how it is perceived.
John
Good spot.
“Comes across as …” For the mannequins, PR is everything.
(PS Is Mann going to disclose who funds all his lawsuits? And who funds them?)
The Heartland institute just released a report on the McCarthy-style witch hunt smearing Dr. Soon. You can read about it here:
http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2015/02/25/crucifixion-dr-wei-hock-soon
All this arguing over not the hiatus not the pause but the Discrepancy
The Dems are now the party of anti-science and anti-democratic principles. Not a good resume for the upcoming election.
As an outsider I have always been surprised at the apparent lack of knowledge of history shown by many Americans. For example, how many Americans can name the political party that was formed with the avowed aim of ending slavery in the U.S. ? Which party fought against the end of slavery? Which party continued racial discrimination in the U.S. in opposition to the U.S. constitution?
The answers might surprise many people of higher melanin content skin and even of those of low melanin content.
Richard of NZ:
Read up on the American civil rights struggle, Nixon and the Southern Strategy. That should clear things up for you.
By the way, New Zealand is a beautiful country. I must get back there one day.
Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” came long after blacks started voting Democratic, during FDR’s administration
Alan McIntire
Roosevelt’s seduction of the (newly immigrant northern) black communities and culture only continued the fundamental transformation that started with the “forced” resettlement of many tens of thousands of southern blacks by the catastrophic 1927 Mississippi River flood. That flood destroyed the farms and homes which had supported the rural (stable, but very poor!) black and poor white mid-Mississippi populations. Forced to move because their homes were destroyed by months of water, almost all went north (before the Depression note!) and got low-paying but better jobs in the easy-to-train assembly lines of the northern central cities. Became union “targets” as new members, became “organized” targets for patronage and as voter blocks for the local inner city politicians to maintain control after Roosevelt’s uber-socialist organizers and fellow travelers came to power in 1932.
See Rising Tide by John M. Barry.
Also from his book, an observation he innocently made about the Indian Mounds of the Mississippi River plains went right by without his making the archeological conclusion: Barry wrote that the rural (black and white) southerners of 1927 found their only refuge from the floods on the ancient Indian mounds. But he didn’t make the connection that these terribly expensive mounds were built by the stone age Indians using wicker baskets and wooden shovels because they were regularly needed as refugee shelters from the frequent pre-Columbian floods on the Mississippi River, but also the Tennessee, Missouri, Red, Arkansas, Etowa, etc, not just elaborate “temples” for some priestly class of fellow Stone Age primitives.
This is a bit off topic. I have to find a paper by a “credible” scientist that refutes global warming. In discussion with someone, I was told that everything I base my skepticism on is sourced from … you guessed it, “non credible” scientists. This particular individual doesn’t want to actually read the paper to form their own opinions, they honestly believe that no such thing actually exists. They tell me that they believe in science and “science will work it out.” They say they can’t review what scientists say because their opinion of science doesn’t matter. The guy is an engineer, so it is frustrating to me. he could surely understand that models don’t prove anything, or a study starting and ending at certain times will show a warming or cooling signal. He won’t though. He is stuck on what mainstream media says science is. The debate is over, blah blah blah. I said I don’t really know about a paper that widely discredits global warming, most papers are about very specific topics. He wouldn’t pick a topic. I don’t want to grab something that is just blog text because that won’t work with this individual. I think I just need a paper from a scientist at a well known university that says anything in the title against AGW. I read this blog hourly and I know that you all have links galore to interesting papers. Thanks!
Would he read such a paper if presented? Or would he just say the person who wrote it isn’t “credible”?
Try this. It’s basically fundamental to the argument and shows that the absorbtion properties of CO2 are completely irrelevant
http://www.principia-scientific.org/why-not-backradiation-the-amazing-nature-of-light.html?utm_campaign=nov-25-2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Try this. It’s basically a fundamental explanation of why the absorbtion properties of CO2 are irrelevant and how a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface of the earth.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/why-not-backradiation-the-amazing-nature-of-light.html?utm_campaign=nov-25-2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
From what he said, he lead me to believe that reading any paper is pointless because his opinions don’t make the science right or wrong. Sort of a messed up nod in the direction of the Scientific Method. So I just need a paper with a nice sounding title. He believes that no such papers exist.
Might as well get them to switch sports teams, because that’s what this is about.
Blessed few people will actually consider their positions.
I know. I recently moved to Seattle from Denver. After what the hawks did to us I can never switch!
http://www.principia-scientific.org/why-not-backradiation-the-amazing-nature-of-light.html?utm_campaign=nov-25-2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
There is no paper you can give him to read because he has already decided that any paper that disagrees with his beliefs is by definition not credible. In other words, what he asked you for doesn’t exist by definition.
Change the game. Ask HIM to explain the science to YOU. Ask him if it is true that CO2 is logarithmic, and what does that mean? Ask him what Stefan-Boltzmann Law is and how do you use it? Ask him to show you the temperature difference 3.7 w/m2 would make to average temperatures given that the IPCC says that’s the effect of CO2 doubling. When he calculates 0.7 degrees, ask him why the IPCC says it is 1 degree? When he figures out the answer to that (they use the Effective Black Body temperature of Earth instead of the surface temperature which yields a different number) ask, based on current CO2 concentrations (400 ppm) and current CO2 increases (2 ppm/yr) how long it would take to get that extra 0.7 degrees? Then ask him if he thinks an extra 0.7 degrees would be tripled by water vapour and why?
An actual engineer either refuses to think it through, or will wind up convincing themselves there’s a problem with the alarmist claims.
Another toute I have used is to ask if they think the satellites that measure global temps are accurate. Invariably the answer is yes. Then I ask if they think the guy who designed the satellites would know an awful lot about atmospheric physics. Again, the answer is invariably yes. Then ask, that being the case, why does Dr Roy Spencer, the guy who designed those satellites and actually runs them for NASA think there’s more hype than science in CAGW?
Lots of variations on the above, but you get the idea. There’s no one size fits all answer to this or the debate would have long since been over.
Dr Roy Spencer might be a good one since he is a scientist and works at NASA. All that matters is that he can trust the source. I have had no luck maneuvering him to even discuss what facts make him believe. He is convinced that if the source is a reputable scientist then the science is true. I don’t get it.
Dr Roy Spencer might be a good one since he is a scientist and works at NASA.
To clarify, Dr Spencer doesn’t work at NASA. He works at University of Alabama Hunstsville. But he does work on contract for NASA, and produces the UAH satellite temperature record, one of two official satellite records in use world wide (the other being RSS).
EXCELLENT! You should call this the Roy Spencer opening (after the classic Ruy Lopez opening in chess…)
The onus is on him to provide proof to support the theory, not you to discredit it . Tell him to show you a paper, model, prediction or projection that predicted the “pause” in global temperature over the last 18 years. He can’t. There are none.
Tell him to put up or shut up.
Ask him to show you one model that has been accurate in predicting the climate in the last 35 years with an degree of accuracy. Ask him if understands the Scientific Method.
His proof is that the debate is over and 97% of all scientists agree. These are not things you can argue with. He does not seem to believe in the possibility of a credible scientist being wrong. We see that scientific scientific studies are produced by humans and contain from a few mistakes all the way to completely wrong. It is the process of questioning and churning the results that moves us forward, and as we move forward almost all currently accepted science is is proved wrong in one way or another to some degree. He also thinks that there has to be a big conspiracy for skeptics to be correct and he correctly points out that is impossible. He doesn’t understand that anecdotal science can be frought with math errors and confirmation bias that the author is unaware of. He doesn’t understand the pressure scientists are under to gain funding and how that means they need to figure in global warming one way or another if they want to keep working on cool science stuff. He doesn’t understand that the marketing demographics of mainstream media align more with “scare the shit out of everyone” and less with “tell the truth” so this might filter the science he is getting exposed to. Etc Etc Etc.
His proof is that the debate is over and 97% of all scientists agree.
The immediate comeback to that question is to ask which 97% study he is talking about. The Oreskes one or the Cook one? Research both well (lotsa articles on this site) BEFORE you ask that question. Then, suppose he cites Oreskes. Your comeback is to ask if that’s the one where thousands of earth scientists were asked two questions and the answers from all except a handful not even counted? See the idea? If he’s going to cite things like the 97%, make sure that YOU know where those numbers come from, and then ask leading questions until he has to research the thing for himself…
@JohnnyCrash
Challenge him to put up or shut up. Challenge him to bet you $1000 (say) that next year’s global temperature will diverge further from the IPCC’s latest projection than this year’s. (You should specify what that means in terms of GISS anomalies, so that he’s comfy regarding that source of data.)
And challenge him to make that bet in perpetuity, so that it applies to every subsequent year as well.
It’s too bad Intrade is no more, because it had numerous climate bets available there. There are probably bets available to Britons from their betting establishments.
Just pass on the IPCC FAR(4 or 5 does not matter)
This is the alarmed ones “credible source” ask him to find the science, supporting his belief.
Unfortunately that has graphs that show the temperature increasing. The graphs came from scientists. If it is getting hotter it is because of CO2 because scientists said that. The CO2 comes only from burning fossil fuels because scientists said that.
Unfortunately that has graphs that show the temperature increasing.
Ask him [if] he believes the last 15 years of satellite data from NASA. When he says yes, show him this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:3/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
Try to get him to read the paper on the irreducibly simple computer model and ask him if it can be further simplified. He may eventually understand.
John,
Your friend is right. There are no scientific papers that refute Global Warming or say that human-kind has no effect on climate. All scientists, sceptic or not, agree on these things. The only question is the degree to which human activities change the climate.
There is, however, some pseudo-scientific hogwash available on the internet which claims otherwise. Wickedwenchfan links to some of this nonsense which is spewed out by a group calling themselves ‘the dragon slayers’. It’s garbage and serves only to give genuine sceptics a bad name.
On the other hand, there are no scientific papers showing what effect we are having on climate. It is in theory only. Suffice it to say that if it can’t be shown, then it is miniscule and not worth wetting our pants over.
You need to get up to speed Bruce. There are 1000s of papers showing the effect of CO2 on climate, dating from the latest IPCC compilations back to the time of Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius.
These are not just theory either. You should try to read one. How about starting near the beginning….
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
Wrong again Mikey. You need to get a better grasp on logic. The human effect on climate can not be shown in the real world. Your “1000’s of papers” means nothing. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, simply that it is too small to ferret out of the noise of natural climate.
Dear, dear. You can take horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Same with the ignorati, you can’t make them read.
So remain ignorant Bruce, just deny everything.
You cite Arrhenius 1896: have you read it?
“Langley (…) showed that the full moon (…) has a mean effective temperature of 45C.”
“Now the temperature of the Moon is nearly the same as that of the Earth (…).”
MikeB says:
There are 1000s of papers showing the effect of CO2 on climate, dating from the latest IPCC compilations back to the time of Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. These are not just theory either.
Mike, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
To date, there are no measurements of AGW [man-made global warming; MMGW].
It’s not that there are only a few measurements. There are NONE.
Theory is one thing. Empirical observation is another. Arrhenius proposed a theory, however, it has not been borne out in practicce outside of a greenhouse environment. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse. It is not confined.
Furthermore, Arrhenius revised his excessive effect from CO2 down to an almost current ≈1.5ºC [the planet shows that the effect is about one-third smaller than that].
Finally, it is you who needs to get up to speed. Despite a rather large rise in CO2, global warming has stopped. And it didn’t just stop recently. It stopped many years ago. The alarmist cult is going through fits of consternation trying to square those opposing facts. But they refuse to admit to the simplest explanation: CO2 just does not have the claimed effect.
Once you accept that conclusion, everything falls neatly into place. So unless MMGW has become your religion [like it has for thousands of climate lemmings], you will accede to the simple and reasonable conclusion that those believing in the ‘carbon’ scare are flat wrong.
Observation, me boy. If the ‘theory’ doesn’t fit observations, then the ‘theory’ is wrong.
Ignore Bevis and the Buttheads.
Better yet we try to educate them ?
Even Mann objects? What does that say about elected Democrats? Good Lord! Could it possibly be true that all the intelligent people are homeless and all the dumb people are now in political office?
I believe I have discovered the issue here. Somehow people thought that those who have, must be smart, and those who struggle for a bread crumb must be dumb. Oops.
Maybe climate science ought to be funded by the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities. You know, the ones who funded the Maplethorpe homoerotic pornography and the blasphemous “Piss Christ”. (Andrew Serrano?). They fund those who go against the status quo, the current thinking, or zeitgeist.
Right now, in science (climatology, vaccines, the high-carb food pyramid) I’m forced to pay for an “Amen corner” that enforces the orthodoxy, while in the arts, I’m equally forced to fund offensive and ugly heterodoxy.
Maybe climate science ought to be funded by the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities.
It is my long held opinion that government funded research cannot be untangled from government politics. Never has been, never will be.
The right way to do it is to fund results. Put up a prize of $1 Billion for whoever produces the best climate model as measured by its ability to predict results on a strict set of metrics over a ten year period. Give the private sector 36 months to produce their models, then measure them against the metrics for the next ten years. Who ever wins gets a cool $1 Billion. All code becomes open source.
That’s less than the 15 years Obama gave China to start doing something about their emissions, so plenty of timeline there. And I’m betting the result would be some very good models produced by some very clever people that work in completely different ways from the current set of trash.
If you believe that you are entitled to your opinion, not obligated to follow the beliefs of others….and your in a room full of machete armed people who think your belief is the most ridiculous thing they’ve ever heard….
Nice knowing you.
The opportunity is fantastic.
The Republicans can first investigate the way recorded history from weather stations changed into political gospel, then slide gently into an investigation of the quality of climate science.
What do we really know ?
What can be replicated,duplicated or validated?
Using the scientific method what climate change “science” holds up?
Then what climate change federal regulations are actually supported by science?
Where is, what is, the science upon which policies have been imposed?
Could get real embarrassing on all fronts.
unbelievable hypocrisy…or CAGW business-as-usual?
26 Feb: Reuters: Timothy Gardner: Green groups DIVIDED on Hillary Clinton’s oil interest ties
Hillary Clinton’s connections to oil and gas interests has created a DILEMMA for some environmental groups, TROUBLING activists for whom she would be the natural candidate to support for president.
The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate’s environmental record has come under renewed scrutiny after the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative have accepted large donations from major energy companies Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The groups also got money from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, and from an office of the Canadian government in charge of promoting the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline…opposed by environmentalists…
“It’s hard to believe that they don’t think they are getting something for their contributions,” said Ben Schreiber, head of climate and energy at Friends of the Earth…
The foundation’s connections to the oil industry POTENTIALLY complicate Clinton’s relationship with environmental groups, whose supporters form an important part of the Democratic base…
Any SIGN OF AMBIVALENCE on climate change policies COULD hurt Clinton’s support among progressive voters, said Jamie Henn, a spokesman for 350 Action…
“This isn’t an election where we can get some fancy rhetoric but no real commitments, said Henn, warning that 350 Action COULD target Clinton with rallies…if she fails to take a strong stand on climate.
Uncharacteristically, many green groups normally quick to attack politicians linked to oil and gas companies SHIED AWAY from commenting on the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with these donors…
The Environmental Defense Action Fund had NO COMMENT because it ***does not have anyone with knowledge of the subject***, a spokesman said. Another business friendly green group, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also DECLINED, saying it would discuss the issues “when we have declared candidates.” The World Wildlife Fund had NO COMMENT…
Many activists remain LEERY of her apparent support for building Keystone…
Exxon has given about $2 million to the Clinton Global Initiative starting in 2009, while Chevron donated $250,000 in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation, the Wall Street Journal article said…
(BLAME RUSSIA)Clinton’s defenders in the environmental movement say U.S. strategic interests drove her support for the expansion of fracking into other countries…
“Introducing fracking to produce natural gas in Eastern Europe was an element of national security, the less dependence those nations have on Russian gas, the better off they are,” said Daniel Weiss, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president for campaigns.
(HYPOCRITES)NextGen Climate, an advocacy group run by hedge fund manager-turned environmentalist Tom Steyer who has poured millions of dollars into Democratic party campaigns, said in a statement that Clinton had “made clear the primary importance of addressing this critical issue” of climate change.
Yet a recent NextGen blog accused oil companies of using their financial power to influence climate and energy policies in California, declaring: “We can’t allow the fossil fuel industry to override what’s best for our families, for our communities and for our economy.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/26/us-usa-election-clinton-oil-idUSKBN0LU18O20150226
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Senator Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma.
The Leftists’ (never call them “liberals”) witch hunt is thankfully backfiring on them in the manner of, “Methinks she doth protest too much.”
As the CAGW hypothesis collapses with each passing month, where reality continues to disconfirm the alarmists’ projections with ever-widening disparity, the protests from the alarmists will become more shrill, desperate and inconsequential.
CAGW is becoming a joke.
Amen!
This is a good thing to do from the Republican in the Congress.
What strikes me a ODD, is why a little know, inconspicuous Democratic Rep. From Arizona, half-breed Mexican and Caucasian how takes money from “Unions”, interesting the dollar amounts vis -a- vie the “Union” [do these Union People co-plan their contributions strategy!!!!] take ups such a “Cause” and libeling US citizens about “Climate Faith” … blah blah blah … Its this AzMex just masturbating in his water closet or what.
Some financials here: http://ballotpedia.org/Raul_Grijalva
Although, Capone kept a set of “books” for himself and gave away another “set” to the G-Men of the Treasury Dept. of the day.
Well well, back in those days, the Postal Service, was in “service” to Capone in distributing illegal Canadian Whiskey!
Ha ha (Hoy Hoy)
“Congressional Republicans push back against the climate witch-hunt”
Well…. it’s a small but significant start……
Let’s hope (and push them…) that it becomes a strengthening trend!
Where can be found a list of the 107 recipients of the Democrats’ letter? Is there a list of the various signatory Democrats?
If only Republicans were as supportive of dissenting enquiry into foreign policy as they were on matters of science, the world’s relations with the USA would be infinitely warmer…….
Pissing on a positive…..yeah, that’ll work….
Not surprising that the vast majority of Egyptians detest our current president. And that goes for any country that is being overrun by ISIS, too.
In response to
Infinitely ‘friendly’ how?
Do you understand what a caliphate is? Which countries would be united as a caliphate? What comes next when the countries are united under a caliphate? Infinitely friendlier? Are you following the doted unpopulated island grab of the Chinese? What are your thoughts if the Chinese take Taiwan by force or the China sea oil reserves by force? What would happen if and when Iran develops nuclear weapons? Is it peace and love in Africa? Any problems? What will happen if and when the US stops paying for the armed force protection of world?
The point is there is only a limited amount tax payer money to spend on everything. Extrapolating current known health care costs to treat elderly obese people (see PBS news segment Thursday, Feb 27 for a discussion of the number of people, illness related to diet, and costs) and the current number (percentage) of obese people in the US. Health care costs will grow to consume all of the US budget. Now add unfunded liability for government pensions. Now add forced spending of trillions of dollars on green scams. Something will and must give.