Monday, March 1, 2010
Congress / Politics / Silverman Amanda Little Interviews James Inhofe, the Senate's Top Climate Change Skeptic
Posted by Jack Silverman on Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:51 AM
click to enlarge
You may recall Amanda Little from an October Scene cover story that coincided with the release of her book Power Trip: From Oil Wells to Solar Cells--Our Ride to the Renewable Future. Little, who's also contributed environment and energy stories to Vanity Fair, The New York Times and Rolling Stone, has become one of guiding lights in the push for renewable energy.
Last week, Little spoke with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate's top climate change skeptic, for a story for Grist, an online environmental magazine to which Little is a frequent contributor. Inhofe had just unveiled an 84-page report titled 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy at a Senate hearing addressing the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. The gist of Inhofe's argument: Climate change is a hoax perpetated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.N., essentially so their scientists can get grant money. And they've managed to bamboozle the vast majority of scientists across the world, the pope, NASA, the Pentagon and top executives in every industry.
Any dim chance Inhofe's argument had of appearing coherent -- and that's a very dim chance indeed -- was undermined when he blurted out that favorite canard of right-wing loons everywhere: "... and you have all the Hollywood people moving in ..." That's right folks! It's the decadent, gay-loving liberals from La-La Land taking over the climate debate.
A few highlights from Little's interview with Inhofe:
Q. You reasserted in today's hearing your belief that global warming is a hoax. Can you clarify specifically who is perpetrating the hoax? Who are the dupers and who are the victims of the climate hoax? A. Who are the victims? It would be the United States. It would be the economy, what would happen to this country according to MIT* and others who have made analyses as to the economic destruction that would come with something like cap-and-trade or [regulating greenhouse-gas emissions] through the Clean Air Act. Q. Who are the perpetrators of the hoax? A. That's the United Nations and the IPCC, clearly. Q. Major energy companies have said they believe the scientific consensus on climate change. ExxonMobil said the appropriate debate isn't on whether the climate is changing, but what we should do about it. NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the Pope, evangelical leaders, top executives in all industries, and governments all over the world including China and India--they've all acknowledged climate change. Do you believe that all of these entities have been scammed by the U.N. and a handful of scientists in the IPCC? A. What you've just said is not true. There's not unanimity at all even though you want to believe it. NOAA and NASA and all these organizations, these people are all tied in to the IPCC. There are a lot of companies, oil companies and all that, who would like to have cap-and-trade. That's where they can make money. Q. What do you believe is the motive of the U.N.? What is the motive of the scientists who are perpetrating the hoax? How do you think they stand to benefit? A. They stand to benefit [from] government grants and private sector grants [from places] like the Heinz Foundation. We have scientists who are really sincere, and they've watched what's going on and they have a hard time believing it. Those are the ones who started going to me probably seven or eight years ago, saying they're cooking the science on this, someone's got to say it, and I said it. And then more of them came. I listed them on my website. I've been very clear all along who the perpetrators were, what the motives were. Q. So you believe that the U.N. and the scientists on the IPCC are perpetrating the hoax in order to get grant money? A. No, no, no. We've already covered this, Amanda. You guys always ask the same question over and over again looking for a different answer. What is it you want that I didn't already tell you? Q. I'm trying to clarify the motivation behind the hoax. Why would these scientists want to deceive the global public? A. It's very clear that when you have the U.N. behind it, and you have all the Hollywood people moving in, you have the Heinz Foundation, that's John Kerry's wife--a lot of very wealthy people. Many of [the scientists] know that if they were recipients of grants in the past, that could well be cut off. Or if they haven't had them, they would want them. The complaints I had brought to me were from scientists who said that many scientists had been intimidated into saying things that weren't true because of that leverage that has been used. Q. So you believe the scientists and the U.N. are in it for the money? A. Well, that enters into it, yes. Q. The Pentagon has identified climate change as one of the biggest threats to our national security. Why shouldn't we trust the American military to judge security threats? A. The Pentagon does not say that. Barbara Boxer wants to believe that the Pentagon says that. And also you mentioned evangelicals. Not true at all. Some of the very liberal churches have taken a position. Most of them have either not taken a position or have said this thing is not real and we should not be allowing government to do this. The overriding factor is that even if we did all of this unilaterally, it's not going to reduce CO2.Read the entire interview here.
Comments (1)
Showing 1-1 of 1
What I find interesting is that has NASA stated clearly the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect; it's CO2 and only CO2.
read here http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
like
dislike
Posted by
klem
on 03/01/2010 at 11:24 AM
