Climate

Republican Rep. Bob Inglis blasts GOP, right-wing pundits for denying global warming science

“They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change.”

Yesterday morning, at a House hearing on climate change, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) mocked his Republican colleagues for refusing to acknowledge the truth and danger of global warming.  ThinkProgress has the story and video.

In June, Inglis became one of the first incumbent Republicans to be knocked off by a far-right insurgent Tea Party candidate. Since then, Inglis “” who has maintained a very high 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union “” has blasted the GOP for using “racism” to whip voters into a frenzy, for “following those personalities [such as Fox News host Glenn Beck] and not leading,” and for deceiving voters with conspiracy theories about death panels and “preying on their fears.”

Yesterday morning, at a House subcommittee hearing, Inglis mocked his Republican colleagues who deny science, saying, “They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change.” He also warned that while they posture to score political points, China will surpass the U.S. in clean technology:

INGLIS: Because 98 of the doctors say, “Do this thing,” two say, “Do the other.” So, it’s on the record. And we’re here with important decision to be made. And I would also suggest to my Free Enterprise colleagues “” especially conservatives here “” whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, “geez, this didn’t work very well for us. The two doctors didn’t turn out to be so right. 98 might have been the ones to listen to.” […]

There are people who make a lot of money on talk radio and talk TV saying a lot of things. They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change. They substitute their judgment for people who have Ph.D.s and work tirelessly [on climate change].

Watch it:

Indeed, a ThinkProgress analysis found that 50 percent of the incoming freshman GOP class deny the existence of manmade climate change, while a shocking 86 percent are opposed to any legislation to address climate change that increases government revenue. Meanwhile, all of the Republicans vying to chair the House Energy Committee “” which handles climate and energy issues “” in the new Congress are climate change deniers. They include Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who infamously apologized to BP shortly after the company’s catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico this summer.

Transcript:

INGLIS: I’m very excited to be here Mr. Chairman, because this is on the record. And it’s a wonderful thing about Congressional hearings “” they’re on the record. Kim Beazley who’s Australia’s ambassador to the United States tells me that when he runs into a climate skeptic, he says to them, “Make sure to say that very publicly, because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said. And so, we’re on the record, and our grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, are going to read. And so some are here suggesting to those children that here’s a deal: Your child is sick “” this is what Tom Friedman gave me this great analogy yesterday “” Your child is sick. 98 doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go. I’ll go with the two. You’re taking a big risk with those kids. Because 98 of the doctors say, “Do this thing,” two say, “Do the other.” So, it’s on the record.

And we’re here with important decision to be made. And I would also suggest to my Free Enterprise colleagues “” especially conservatives here “” whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, “geez, this didn’t work very well for us. The two doctors didn’t turn out to be so right. 98 might have been the ones to listen to.” then what we’ll find is we’re way behind those Chinese folks. ‘Cuz you know, if you got a certain number of geniuses in the population “” if you’re one in a million in China, there’s 1300 of you. And you know what?

They plan on leading the future. So whether you “” if you’re a free enterprise conservative here “” just think: it’s a bunch of hooey, this science is a bunch of hooey. But if you miss the commercial opportunity, you’ve really missed something. And so, I think it’s great to be here on the record. I think it’s great to see the opportunity we’ve got ahead of us. And, I also “” since this is sort of a swan song for me and Mr. Barrett I’d encourage scientists who are listening out there to get ready for the hearings that are coming up in the next Congress. Those will be difficult hearings for climate scientists. But, I would encourage you to welcome those as fabulous opportunities to teach.

A ThinkProgress cross post.

64 Responses to Republican Rep. Bob Inglis blasts GOP, right-wing pundits for denying global warming science

  1. fj3 says:

    Great stuff! Just want has to be said over and over.

  2. Prokaryotes says:

    INGLIS: “Tom Friedman gave me this great analogy yesterday — Your child is sick. 98 doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go. I’ll go with the two. You’re taking a big risk with those kids. Because 98 of the doctors say, “Do this thing,” two say, “Do the other.””

    Really good analogy!

  3. William P says:

    Inglis better watch out for one right wing Denier, however.

    Rush Limbaugh has been successful at getting Republicans to retract statements not conforming to right wing dogma, and to apologize for uttering such anathema.

    Let’ see what happens when Limbaugh discovers this heresy out of Inglis. It will be interesting.

  4. Keith says:

    Too bad they can’t make these statements and vote accordingly while in office.

  5. Leif says:

    “Two say do the other.” It is important to note that often those “two” are trained in another discipline , not trained at all or even paid by interests that might profit from your child’s death.

  6. dale says:

    “Rush Limbaugh has been successful at getting Republicans to retract statements not conforming to right wing dogma, and to apologize for uttering such anathema.”

    Inglis will not be around next term. He lost the primary to a tea party candidate, so he has nothing to lose by speaking the truth. One of the reasons he lost the primary was that he refused to call Obama a Socialist.

  7. Not A Lawyer says:

    William P – Nothing will happen if Rush says something. Inglis has already been voted out of office. He lost to a tea party candidate in the primary. He’s not coming back.

  8. Bob Day says:

    The doctor analogy would be better if phrased like this: Two say “you should do nothing; you’re child’s not sick.”

  9. Bob Day says:

    Oh crap. I hate that. “your” not “you’re”.

  10. Rob Honeycutt says:

    You gotta love the reaction shot cut to Lindzen.

  11. Jeff Huggins says:

    Posturing and The Future

    One of the most interesting points in here comes with the phrase “posture to score political points”.

    Who, exactly, do the Repubs think they are “posturing to score political points” with?

    After all, the number of people who actually buy their rejection of climate change science, and their inaction, is going to go nowhere but DOWN — by definition. The symptoms of the climate change problem will continue and get worse, the evidence will grow stronger and stronger, and more and more scientists will take off their self-imposed handcuffs and start speaking out. The results in this single (recently past) election, if they had anything partly to do with climate change at all, reflect “as good as it will ever be” in terms of the number of people who might have preferred Repub candidates on the basis of their climate change rejection. Two years from now, it will inevitably be a less popular stance, and hopefully a MUCH less popular one. But in any case, there’s hardly any possible way for the Republicans to make political points on the basis of denying climate change, at least not with any new constituents or moderate constituents.

    Thus, the Repubs at this point are just tying heavy rocks to their ankles. They would do well to distinguish between the actual voters and the moneyed interests (oil and coal). Unless the Repubs believe in the perpetual power of marketing to change fact, even in the face of a huge problem and the entire scientific community, they’d do well to start shifting gears on climate change, so that by a year from now people will begin forgetting that they ever denied it! (Memory seems short when it comes to politics.) The Repubs are going to have to dump ExxonMobil and their whole denial of climate change, otherwise the centrist voters, and the moderate conservative voters who have any brains left, will hand the Repubs a defeat in two years.

    Although right now, many people on the “Right” seem to be making fun of California, they’ll be fascinated (and horrified, from a political standpoint) to see that California is actually providing a vision for where more and more public sentiment WILL go as time passes in relation to climate change. In other words, California is providing a preview of things to come, with respect to the public sentiment (and even some corporate mentality) regarding climate change. Here of course, I’m not talking about California’s state budget issues, although activities associated with climate and energy will actually help the economy here, not hurt it.

    So here’s the (fascinating) dilemma that Repubs will face regarding the climate change and energy issues: They’ll either have to “get it” and become part of the positive effort to address the problem (which will involve them ditching ExxonMobil and coal, in terms of the stance on climate change and related matters), OR ELSE they will increasingly turn more and more people off, and thus lose their jobs more and more. Again, this is because this recent election, in which Repubs did well, probably represents “as good as it will get” in terms of a misinformed public and climate change denial among the most conservative folks. Remember, there’s no election next week, or next month. It’s two years from now. By that time, climate change denial will be a dead end, and a big heavy weight tied to one’s ankle.

    It will be fun to watch. I’m gonna do my best to make sure this is the trend, as asap.

    Good luck Repubs!

    Jeff

  12. Dean says:

    William P, I don’t think Rep. Inglis will be beholden to Rush Limbaugh, as he wasn’t re-elected. Like Rep. Inglis said in his testimony, this was his swan song, and he was glad to be quoted “on the record”, so that his grand children and great-grand children would know what his stance was on this important issue.

  13. Fred Teal Jr. says:

    OMG – I Think Inglis should be designated a “Climate Hero”.

  14. Jeff Young says:

    I interviewed Rep. Ingliss shortly before election day. He blames his loss (in the primary) on the fact that he acknowledged the reality of climate change, and said his fellow Republicans looked at him “like I’d grown another head” when he suggested taking climate change seriously. Hear the entire interview here:
    http://stream.loe.org/audio/101105/101105inglissextra.mp3
    or it’s at the bottom of the page of this LOE transcript:
    http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=10-P13-00045#feature1

  15. Not A Lawyer says:

    I would also point out, in case anything thinks Inglis is only embracing the need to do something about climate change now that he’s been voted out of office, he has introduced carbon tax legislation at least a year or two ago.

  16. MapleLeaf says:

    There were two Republicans there yesterday who, very much to my surprise, I would vote for. Inglis and the other older fellow who hammered home the point about peak oil and energy efficiency.

    Baird was imply outstanding. I am was very impressed with Baird.

    And contrary to what Curry might want to believe, or want her fan base to believe, Santer decimated Michaels.

    So now Michaels has now misled Congress twice….is anyone going to take him to task for that?

  17. Sasparilla says:

    Wow, this guy is a hero in the truest sense of the word. Its stunning to hear a Republican that lays it out like this, knowing this is heresy to say in the GOP at this point.

    The doctor analogy is awesome, gets the point (and situation regarding the scientists) across easily and effectively. Filing that one away for future use. #7 Bob Day that is a great modification to it, great suggestion.

    What a tragedy it is for the nation he was voted out of office, he’s sure it was over climate change too, the age of stupid is now. Another heretic thrown overboard.

    My hat is off to this guy, a patriot, he can walk out with his head held high. We salute you Rep. Inglis.

  18. Daniel Ives says:

    How sad is it that in order for a Republican to say such statements he has to be a lame duck?

  19. FredT34 says:

    Hey, 86% of them oppose any legislation against climate change because they’re old and they think that C02 prevents heart attack (credits DenialDepot)

  20. paulm says:

    Great stuff. This is what is needed. Firm, purposeful, searching, honest and meaningful reflection on the situation. Without hysteria.

    You could say the GOP are honest villans.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/consumers-must-cast-off-victim-culture-if-governments-are-to-hit-climate-targets-2137058.html

    They wear the fact that they dont want to give up the good life on their lapel.

    Its hard, its tough but they/we have to address it…cause we need a future. That is the purpose of life, as far as we can tell, what we’re program to do… to continue.

    Consumerism causes climate change: poll
    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/11/18/climate-change-poll-consumerism.html

    A majority of Canadians believe that consumerism and a push for economic growth are factors responsible for climate change.
    …found that 80 per cent of those questioned feel the climate is being negatively influenced by economic and social priorities.

    Consumers must cast off ‘victim’ culture if governments are to hit climate targets
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/consumers-must-cast-off-victim-culture-if-governments-are-to-hit-climate-targets-2137058.html

    Politicians need to show greater courage and leadership if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change,

    Consumers, however, must acknowledge they are not only the “victims” but the “villains” of global warming and work towards a dramatic shift in life style.

  21. RonGross says:

    A rare Politician who actually says and supports his own thinking and beliefs! However, he doesn’t influence his own constituents .

    When our ‘leaders’ only accept and push/support ‘beliefs’ that fund them, they are then at the same level as others who accept money for whatever is asked of them!

    Lastly, I only hope that our grandchildren and great grand children have the opportunity to study the stupidity expressed by thee so-called ‘leaders’.

  22. Joan Savage says:

    The “98 doctors” analogy that Inglis heard from Friedman came from another esteemed Republican. In an interview by Tavis Smiley on Oct 30, 2008, Tom Friedman attributed the “98 doctors” story to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Lest we forget, Schwarzenegger is a Republican who knows about climate change. His recent remark about the wimps in Washington was on target.

  23. Neven says:

    I watched about 20 minutes of Panel 2 of today”s hearing, but I have to say that Brian Baird (I actually wrote his name down) came across as a very sensible Conservative to me. So clearly there is hope for the GOP as soon as the dangerous nutcases performed enough antics for everyone to see they are dangerous nutcases. The US cannot get out of the mess it’s in without Republicans.

    —-

    Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Don Easterbrook, Tim Ball, Bob Carter, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Fred Singer, Marc Morano, Ian Plimer, Piers Corbyn, Steve Goddard, Tom Fuller, Steven Mosher, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Steve Milloy, Joe d’Aleo, Joe Bastardi, and many, many others:

    Your words and actions are ON THE RECORD. Posterity will know whether you were wrong or not, and what the consequences of your actions have been. Think about that every time you tell yourself that your end justifies what you do. You have a responsibility, and lying and distorting ON THE RECORD is not responsible behaviour.

  24. dp says:

    the advice is running 98-2 against, but in the legislative debate we’re still a little over 50-50 in favor of letting the fossil energy companies run the government

  25. Barry says:

    “a shocking 86 percent are opposed to any legislation to address climate change that increases government revenue”

    But what is the GOP support for climate legislation that does NOT increase government revenue? Say a carbon-tax-and-refund. The “green check” idea that people like James Hansen and others advocate.

    Perhaps there is enough GOP support for a carbon price that never falls into the hands of federal government. It could be direct rebate to citizens…or handed over to state governments to let locals decide how to spend in their states.

    Are enough DEMs and GOPs interested in a national carbon price if the mechanism is carbon tax without revenue going to federal government?

  26. paulm says:

    Good to have The Terminator fighting Climate Warming…

    Arnold Schwarzenegger: my future as a green activist
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/18/arnold-schwarzenegger-green-comeback

    Film star turned California governor prepares to leave office and become a global champion in war against climate change

    “You’ve got to make it hip. You’ve got to make it sexy to be part of this movement.”

  27. Alteredstory says:

    It’s good stuff, but I wish he’d been a little more vocal on this during his time in office (when he wasn’t on his way out).

  28. Peter M says:

    “The cost in human terms with climate change will be enormous- the costs in economic terms catastrophic- and the terms for the planets environment nothing less then 30-50% species extinction.

    And mst of the GOP- just as JFK said in 1960 circle round and round- following each other with their tails- with their glorious leader -Herbert Hoover leading the way.”

  29. Dean Grodzins says:

    There are those who believe in global warming simply because the science says it’s real; Joe is one of these–he is, after all, a scientist. Yet many of us progressives, if we look deep into our souls, would find we are not, in fact, so empirically-minded. We accept the science of global warming because the findings fit comfortably with our ideological and cultural biases. I know I already liked small cars, public transport, and recycling, and disliked oil companies and strip mining, well before I first became aware of the potential dangers of global warming, way back when I read my friend Bill McKibben’s _End of Nature_. The idea of global warming, in other words, confirmed and reinforced my existing likes and dislikes. Again, I can think of times when, I’m sorry to say, I have rejected arguments that I later concluded were basically right, because they ran against my liberal biases–and especially because the arguments were being advanced by people I considered detestably right-wing, using a detestably right-wing vocabulary.

    Understanding these failings in myself, I appreciate the challenge so many conservatives feel in accepting the science of global warming. As Joe has often pointed out, it runs against their biases. I also know, however, that unless a significant number of conservatives can be made to realize that we need to take major action now, America will not take major action, and world-wide catastrophe is almost inevitable.

    How, then, can we encourage conservatives who believe in the science, like Congressman Inglis, to begin an urgent dialogue with their fellow conservatives, so that they can begin to re-frame climate change in other terms than as a liberal/conservative issue, and perhaps find a conservative vocabulary with which they can comfortably talk about the issue amongst themselves? Tom Friedman, who read ClimateProgress, and has credibility among conservatives because he backed Bush on the Iraq war, might be someone to start the dialogue; David Brooks has said a number of things over the years that indicate he could be persuaded to take this issue seriously, as has the conservative evangelical leader Rick Warren. George Schulz and Arnold Schwarzenegger have been outspoken in favor of building a new energy economy. Who else in the conservative political/intellectual universe, in America, but possibly also in Canada and England, might be willing to join in such a dialogue?

  30. John Mason says:

    Neven #21,

    I agree – the most powerful part of the message was how everything going on now would be on the record for posterity. Whether the folk in your list (and numerous others) have ever paused for a moment to consider that notion is debatable at best: short-termism seems to be their thing.

    For one, and I hope all of us on here – I’d be delighted to know that people, maybe 150 years hence, assuming there remains the infrastructure to make it possible, could read what we said and tried to do – good outcome or bad. From every Transition activist, through bloggers right up to the guys doing the frontier science and the top lobbyists – we all do our part and should be proud for that to go onto the historical record.

    We might even end up getting a better world out of it – who knows???

    Cheers – John

  31. Artful Dodger says:

    Neven #21: That’s quite a dance card you’ve lined up there. Too bad most of these old hacks will be long dead before the worst of Climate feedbacks kick in with vicious effect.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to go after the puppet masters in the Climate PR wars, which are large Corporations? After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are people.

    And unlike your list of Mortals above, some of these Corporations may still exist to be held to account after wide-spread Climate disasters become commonplace / continuous.

  32. Neven says:

    Oops, I thought Brian Baird was a Republican. Silly me.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to go after the puppet masters in the Climate PR wars, which are large Corporations? After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are people.

    Lodger (hullo), I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that corporations only do what is expected of them. We have a system that expects them to always maximize profits for their stockholders. No wonder then that they employ think tanks that spread disinformation and set up astroturf organisations.

    Like you say, the (heavily lobbied) law that gives corporations the same rights as individuals should be abolished. The system must change.

    In the meantime it feels good to repeat to pseudo-skeptics (whether they’re paid or they’re so stupid that they lie and distort it for free) that they are ON THE RECORD. ;-)

  33. Wit's End says:

    Laudable, but the analogy is off. Just like somehow, the time yardstick of impacts is 2100, the generational measure is grandchildren.

    NOT!

    Catastrophic impacts are already here, now, US! Drowning in Pakistan and Tennessee, burning in Russia and Australia and California, are all NOW.

    Ocean acidification killing coral reefs, toxic tropospheric ozone killing trees, reducing crop yields, and essential phytoplankton loss of 40%, are NOW.

    Who are we kidding?

    The analogy should be, 98 oncologists tell you that you have cancer and you have to undergo emergency surgery and chemotherapy. One masseuse and one homeopath tell you those treatments are unnecessary.

    You’re not a doctor – who are you going to put your faith in?

  34. John Mashey says:

    Here is a +1meter floodmap, centered on Charleston, SC. The dark blue is below sea level although of course not necessarily under water. Of course, that’s only +1; figure 2100AD is somewhere between 1-2m, and 220AD: beats me, you can try to higher numbers. For cross reference, here’s a 2000 census SC population map.

    SC doesn’t seem to accept AGW but does want small Federal government, akin to many states from VA to TX. At least as of 2001, {MS, AL, VA, LA, SC} all got more money back from Federal government then they sent.

    So, when the coast from VA to TX starts to hurt from SLR and storms, how many people from the rest of the US will be pleased to send their tax money there to help out? SC has a lot of low-lying coast, with a lot of people living there, at river-mouths … the worst sort of place for dealing with SLR, since you cannot just put dikes along the coast.

    Another thread talked about LA professor. The existence of New Orleans is useful beyond LA, but what fraction of the 2050 Federal budget should be spent to keep N.O. in existence? How about the 2100 budget?

    As usual, the Dutch are pretty smart when it comes to thinking ahead about water.

  35. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    Given the reactions above I suggest that the disasters of climate change will pass almost unnoticed except for those directly affected. In the last twelve moths we have had a series of one in 500, 1 in 1,800 and unprecedented climate events.

    Other than Colorado Bob, did any one notice the floods in Vietnam. Without desalination, many in Western Australia would be without water, virtually no run off this year. In the food basket of Eastern Australia water quotas have been savagely cut.

    So many very low Dams that supply supply The West Coast.

    Disaster after disaster and yet we talk about climate change as something happening in the future. Even when it rains on the Trans Antarctic Mountains we will still have our eyes closed (Ridiculous? but already there is melt ponding on the interior edge of the Ross Ice Shelf, not so far away)

  36. Will G. says:

    “Not a Lawyer” is correct, Inglis, along with Republican Jeff Flake (AZ) and Dem. Lipinski (also voted out) introduced a fantastic “revenue neutral carbon tax” that Pelosi and co. were stupid not to pick up.

  37. Esop says:

    #23 (Neven):
    Brian Baird is a Democrat.
    He did an excellent job, and obviously had a firm grasp of the science, down to the physics behind the GRACE measurements.
    An great communicator too, using analogies that most folks could understand.

  38. Bob Doublin says:

    I wish I had remembered that line from the Holiday Inn commercials.That is so perfect and hilarious. We all should make it an integral part of our repartee.These doofuses need to be mocked mercilessly. They ARE NOT serious seekers after truth worthy of ANY respect in the slightest. By treating them as such we are insulting the agony suffered by people who suffered in the name of science and/or moral truth. It REALLY IS that clearcut.

  39. Jeff, excellent comment as usual.

    However, I think this will still hold for as long as there is enough money:

    “Unless the Repubs believe in the perpetual power of marketing to change fact”

  40. Wit’s End, you are on the money, again, and I wholeheartedly agree with your more apt analogy:

    “The analogy should be, 98 oncologists tell you that you have cancer and you have to undergo emergency surgery and chemotherapy. One masseuse and one homeopath tell you those treatments are unnecessary.

    You’re not a doctor – who are you going to put your faith in?”

  41. Peter Sergienko says:

    I love Gail’s (Wit’s End) analogy except, sadly, I think it is even more accurate to say that these are the diagnoses and recommendations we would receive if we felt sick enough to actually go and see the doctor at all. Unfortunately, it seems like 99% of us in the United States don’t personally experience symptoms at a level that cause us to go and seek treatment even though we’re riddled with cancer.

  42. Does Patrick Michaels have grandchildren?

    I sure am glad he’s not a member of my family.

  43. Rabid doomsayer, do you have a MODIS image link for this:

    “already there is melt ponding on the interior edge of the Ross Ice Shelf”

  44. Barry says:

    Desmog reports: “Incoming Head of House Oversight Committee Rep. Darrell Issa Now Says He Is Unlikely To Probe Climategate”

    I think the rapid anti-climate lockstep by GOP in the election was a short-term ploy for power by many of GOP politicians. Not all…but enough to leave hope that sanity prevails in there somewhere.

    I particularly like what Dean said in #29. We need to find a climate policy that resonates with the belief systems and world views of at least a sizable number of GOP voters and politicians. It is the only hope. They aren’t going away. And their carbon won’t go away either until we have one.

    Hey, if the cost of a price on carbon is a policy where GOP get to say they were right and liberals and enviros like me were “wrong”, I’m more than ready to sign up.

    We need a national carbon price in a policy wrapper and storyline that GOP can sell to their voters as a “win”.

  45. Anthony says:

    From what I observe in the UK Bob Inglis is a brave man and I imagine will now be the target of an unprecedented ideoligicla withc hunt from those on the right. Reminds me of a great and brave UK statesman in the 1930s who was a lone voice in the wilderness against the rise of fascism and Communism, Winston Churchill. Ultimatly he was proved right. As will Bob Inglis and another great politician from the right, margaret Thatcher, just google Margaret Thatcher and Climate Change too see what she had to say on the subject.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Rabid Doomsayer says:

    ‘ Given the reactions above I suggest that the disasters of climate change will pass almost unnoticed except for those directly affected. In the last twelve moths we have had a series of one in 500, 1 in 1,800 and unprecedented climate events. ‘

    Given that the earth has a 4 billion year history, ‘unprecedented events’ as you label them, simply do not exist. 1-in-500 and 1-in-1800 events have happened many times.

    The only real problem here….is that in terms of your environment, you haven’t been alive for long enough to know what to be frightened of, and what to shrug off.

  47. CW says:

    Messaging alert:

    Inglis shows that China references work with moderate Republicans.

  48. Dr tender says:

    The problem is that belief in an unproven theory is highly correlated with poitical preferences. The left believes in global warming because it is an excuse for more government intervention through regulation and subsidies. That’s why we rightwingers are suspicious

  49. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    I think that the doctor analogy might be better expressed as follows. Your child has swallowed a poison very profitably peddled by witch-doctors as a panacea. 98 doctors advise that you administer an expensive but available antidote. And two of the witch-doctors who peddled the poison are demanding that you not only do not administer the antidote, but instead force your child to swallow more poison.

  50. Esko Pettay says:

    Many who dislike USA are happy to see the country fall behind in technological development. They are also happy to see the country loose reputation and power. USA is making it too easy for China to become the dominant world power.

  51. Charles says:

    Reps. Baird and Inglis were great. Santer did respond quite well to Michaels, but Richard Alley is the go-to guy. A fabulous communicator. I thought he was by far the best of all.

  52. Artful Dodger says:

    Mulga #48: Oh, you’re so close now. How about, “You’ve swallowed Poison, you’re just starting to feel sick, and the witch-doctors want your Grandchildren to swallow it too”?

  53. Phil Clarke says:

    Heads Up

    “I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

    National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country’s National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists. ”

    Sherwood Boehlert WaPo

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805451.html

  54. Steve Brown says:

    As a Brit watching all this Tea Party / Sarah Palin (will she / won’t she) stuff in the news from the outside and being scared witless, it’s great to see that people like Bob Inglis exist in the GOP. There may be hope yet.

    I shall instruct my government to put the invasion plans on hold for the moment ;-)

  55. Robinson says:

    China is already eating your (our) lunch. Our CO2 laws will push even more CO2 emitting industries to China, where their costs are lower. Meanwhile, for every coal-fired power station you close in the US, 2 open up in China. Not only will China be producing the turbines for your wind farms, they’ll be selling you goods, produced emitting more CO2 per ton, that you could have produced yourselves if you hadn’t taxed your industries to oblivion. The “green economy” is simply fantasy.

    With respect to the 98 MD analogy, let me say that it’s only in the 20th century that Doctors have started curing more people than they killed. That is to say, if 98 doctors agree that putting a leech on your bottom is going to cure your HIV infection and 2 think there’s no evidence to suggest it will, it’s entirely a question of your personal belief system as to which group you believe.

  56. caerbannog says:


    Not only will China be producing the turbines for your wind farms, they’ll be selling you goods, produced emitting more CO2 per ton, that you could have produced yourselves if you hadn’t taxed your industries to oblivion. The “green economy” is simply fantasy.

    From http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/71731,news-comment,news-politics,us-faces-trade-boycott-by-2020-over-climate-change-pollution-carbon-global-warming

    US ‘faces trade boycott’ over climate change

    The United States faces trade restrictions – or even a boycott of certain goods – if it doesn’t clean up its act on greenhouse gas emissions, according to Lord Stern, the climate change economist.

    In an interview with the Times, Lord Stern issued a warning to the world’s biggest polluter: “The US will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and ten years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty.”
    ……
    Lord Stern sees a distinct difference between the European Union and China, which are making efforts to price carbon into goods, and the US.

    While Beijing considers plans to cap its overall energy consumption by 2015, the Obama administration has all but given up hope of passing a carbon trading law – ‘cap and trade’ – through Congress.

    “If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not,” he says, “you will take that into account. Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”


    With respect to the 98 MD analogy, let me say that it’s only in the 20th century that Doctors have started curing more people than they killed.

    Presuming that this statement is true, doctors would *still* be killing more people than they cured if they understood modern medical science as well Robinson understands modern climate science.

  57. Robinson says:

    Presuming that this statement is true, doctors would *still* be killing more people than they cured if they understood modern medical science as well Robinson understands modern climate science.

    I don’t believe I said anything about Climate Science at all. I simply pointed out that as you decommission your coal fired power stations, China simply constructs new ones. Not only that, but because its energy is so much cheaper than yours, it can produce your “green economy” items much more cheaply too (and any other item you care to mention). You thus gain nothing in terms of reducing CO2 (China continues to increase it for you).

    You can, as Stern suggests, erect trade barriers if you like but I expect these would be easy to get around, much as current green schemes are easy to scam.

  58. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    Tenney Naumer
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8070

    Not a modis picture but from NASA 2007.

    Shows 2005 as year of first melt for the interior edge of the Ross ice Shelf.

  59. Roger Wehage says:

    When times are good as the result of abundant fossil fuels, the population tends also to be good. But when times turn bad as the result of climate disasters and economic collapse, so will the population. If I were a direct descendant of any official who would, on record, impose death sentences on future generations, I would be deathly afraid, for who else would likely be held accountable? All you children and grandchildren of GOPers and Tea Partiers might want to keep that in mind during your family get-togethers over the holidays. Perhaps you could talk some sense into their heads.

  60. Chris Winter says:

    Robinson wrote (#57): “I don’t believe I said anything about Climate Science at all.”

    You commented on an analogy to climate science. Thus Caerbannog’s response was germane. It’s true you did not mention climate science directly. It’s also true that the Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state.” But look how badly relying on that literal truth turned out for another candidate on 2 November.

  61. William P says:

    #35 Rabid Doomsayer

    Why no recognition of the emergency in the face of clear, strong current signs?

    Man is wedded, melded, welded to remaining in a mental state of “business as usual”. Any thoughts or statements threatening “business as usual” are discarded and put firmly under the rug.

    Read James Lovelock’s last two books for interesting discussion of this fatal tendency of Man.

    But what will Man do when suddenly he realizes food is dangerously low? What kind of violent panic will set in quickly? I recall the gasoline boycott of the 70s and there was violence and panic. People got nasty very fast – and that was gasoline.

    Think of how they will react with no food supplies. Wow!

  62. Steve Case says:

    Willima P said, “Think of how they will react with no food supplies. Wow!”

    A world with warmer weather, more rain and more CO2 will produce more food, not less.

  63. BillD says:

    Steve Case

    It appears that large part of the globe will be turning into desert and that increased rain will often come in the form of floods. Grain production in Russia and Australia has been decimated. Exactly where is this increased food production expected to come from? CO2 per se is rarely a limiting factor in plant growth.

  64. Schlonz says:

    This guy’s a hero. He’s the only one who understood that science is democratic.