On Wednesday, March 17, Senator Inhofe welcomed Senate passage of a long-term extension of the Federal Highway Program. Through his leadership position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe has made passage of an extension a top priority. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 68-29, and the bill now goes to the President for his signature.
"I am pleased that the Congress has finally passed a long-term extension of the Federal Highway Program," Senator Inhofe said. "After months of delay, due to politics as usual in Washington, Congress finally passed an extension that will ensure states receive the money they are owed and provide the long term certainty that is the lifeblood of state and local highway and bridge programs.
"In my state of Oklahoma, according to Gary Ridley, Oklahoma's Transportation Secretary, the impact of the failure to pass a longer term extension before September 30th of last year has been severe. Oklahoma, like all states, has been on life support relying on federal funding measured in days rather than years, essentially killing their ability to let contracts as the country approaches the peak of the 2010 construction season. To make matters worse, the uncertainty and erratic fudging for states from 4 short term extensions has been accompanied by a $1 billion a month cut in funding from what they received in 2009. This means that Oklahoma, in a time when 9 ft pieces of concrete are falling off of a major interstate in Tulsa, has been losing $15 million a month in federal highway funds. This is just plain wrong.
"Further troubling, Congressional inaction came in the midst of a recession with construction unemployment approaching 30%, costing over 64,000 jobs in February alone. Worse, this should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Senator Boxer and I have been sounding the alarm on this one since last July. We tried on numerous occasions to pass a longer term extension. To that end, all of the Chairmen and Ranking members of the Committees involved in the transportation bill sent a bipartisan letter to Senator Reid last November, pointing out the problem we were facing, but unfortunately our requests were ignored.
"With this long-term extension soon to be signed into law, we can now turn our attention to working together on a multi-year reauthorization of the Highway Program. As I have long said, transportation spending is one of our primary responsibilities as lawmakers here in Congress. I look forward to working closely with Republicans and Democrats in both Houses to produce a bill that is good for Oklahoma and the nation."
Senator Inhofe was pleased to welcome Oklahoma State Senator Bryce Marlatt, (R-Woodward) before the EPW Committee on Thursday to discuss Oklahoma transportation needs. The EPW Committee is conducting a number of hearings on America's transportation needs as it continues its work on the reauthorization of the next surface transportation bill.
Inhofe welcomes Sen. Marlatt to EPW Committee Hearing
At the hearing, Inhofe welcomed Marlatt by saying: "Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome to all you guys here. Confession is good for the soul, I say, Madam Chairman. One of our witnesses, Bryce Marlatt, used to work for me. He had Western Oklahoma, he did a great job. Now, he decided he wanted to get personally involved, so he ran for the State Senate. He's a good friend. He has a good handle on what needs are out in rural areas. So, Madam Chairman, I think this is a significant hearing. It's another one where you and I will get along. We'll probably come to the same conclusions. And I am very glad to welcome Senator Marlatt here."
In testimony before the Committee, Marlatt stated, "We have made great strides in investing in transportation infrastructure reversing the tide of declining funding for Oklahoma's roads and bridges. I know that with innovation and determination, other states are working hard to meet their states' rural and urban transportation needs. However, we will never have the jobs and the economic development we need in rural and urban America if we don't address our infrastructure. I appreciate this Committee's work toward addressing the needs of our national transportation infrastructure."
‘In particular, I have been working to upgrade Oklahoma Highway 270 which stretches from west of Oklahoma City through northwestern Oklahoma and through the Oklahoma Panhandle," Marlatt said. "$319 million of private investment has been poured into the Woodward and northwestern Oklahoma to develop wind energy infrastructure. NW Oklahoma is a major wind energy corridor, and State Highway 270 is the major transportation corridor to transport that infrastructure to NW Oklahoma. Transportation corridor improvements like 270 need modernization to place and keep rural Oklahoma and rural American in the national economy. Any legislation that Congress considers must accommodate the need for added capacity on our nation's highways and bridges, much like Highway 270."
In his written testimony, Martlatt also stressed:
"I respectfully urge this Committee to consider the vast needs of rural America and to continue making the backbone and core of our nation's infrastructure - our existing roads and bridges - a top priority."
"While public transit and things such as high-speed rail may make sense for densely populated areas, in rural Oklahoma we are still focused on the fundamental need to more adequately fund roads and bridges. I respectfully urge this Committee to consider the vast needs of rural America and to continue making the backbone and core of our nation's infrastructure - our existing roads and bridges - a top priority."
Inhofe invited Marlatt for his leadership on transportation issues in Oklahoma. Inhofe asked Marlatt to discuss legislation he authored this session to find ways to implement innovative funding alternatives for Oklahoma's state roads and bridges. Senate Bill 1941, by Marlatt and Oklahoma State Representative Jason Nelson of the House, would create the Innovative Funding for Oklahoma Roads Task Force. The task force would study and evaluate innovations, technologies and new methods being employed nationally and by other states to more adequately and equitably fund road and bridge infrastructure, including both new construction and maintenance.
Sen. Inhofe yesterday commented on the announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a public meeting to discuss how the agency will conduct a study on hydraulic fracturing. (See Oklahoman: Hydraulic fracturing study welcomed)
"The first use of hydraulic fracturing occurred near Duncan, Oklahoma in 1949. Since that time, hydraulic fracturing has become an essential production method in the completion of up to 80 percent of today's natural gas wells," Senator Inhofe said. "It has been used safely for decades and has helped strengthen America's energy security and created millions of good-paying jobs. As the Ranking Member of the EPW Committee, I will be working closely with EPA to ensure this important study is based on the best available science. I also believe that in order to be credible, the study must follow a legitimate, objective peer-review process, as well as rely on data and expertise from state oil and gas regulatory agencies, and independent groups such as the Ground Water Protection Council. Furthermore, to encourage public input and analysis, EPA must be transparent and open in the process of conducting this study."
Watch/Read: Inhofe Delivers Floor Speech: Global Warming Alarmists Running for Cover After Climategate
In a speech on the Floor of the United States Senate, Senator Inhofe said on Monday that global warming alarmists are "running for cover after climategate." Remarks as printed in the Congressional Record are included below along with links to YouTube videos of the speech.
Transcript of Inhofe Floor Remarks from the Congressional Record
Mr. President, after weeks of the global warming scandal - and we talked about it on the floor, what happened with climategate just prior to the Copenhagen convention - I had the opportunity to visit and to uncover some of the things we had suspected were going on for a long period of time. Five years ago, I had occasion to give a speech on this floor, where I outlined, from information that had come through the backdoor to me from scientists, how bad the science was and how it had been, in fact, cooked. Then, of course, along came climategate.
After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first potential climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I am talking about Al Gore. He is under siege these days. The credibility of the IPCC is eroding, EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing, and belief that anthropogenic global warming is leading to catastrophe is evaporating. Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions. Nevertheless, he is desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive.
It is my understanding that tonight he is having a high-level meeting of all his global warming alarmists around the country to see how they can resurrect this issue and regroup.
Consider Gore's nearly 2,000-word op-ed piece that recently appeared in the New York Times. It is a sure-fire sign of desperation. Gore's piece was about China, solar and wind power, globalization, rising sea levels, big polluters, melting glaciers, and cap and trade. One searches in vain for any explanation of the IPCC's errors and mistakes or of Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit. That is in East Anglia. We heard a lot about him. He was the one who was actually assembling a lot of the science - or so-called science - or creating the science, I should say, to support the position of those who believe anthropogenic gases cause global warming.
Seven years ago, I believe this month, I had occasion to study on the floor and find out that, in fact, we had spent so much time on this issue that everyone was believing this to be true. When we realized the science was not there, I made the statement that the notion that anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
What is Gore's take on the climategate scandal? Climate scientists, he wrote, were ``besieged'' by an ``onslaught'' of hostile information requests from climate ``skeptics.'' That is it, nothing else. Even the IPCC announced last week an independent review of its process and procedures.
You see, former Vice President Gore was saying: Oh, that was nothing; that was just a few comments. I might add, one of the largest and most respected publications in the UK, which is called the UK Telegraph, said this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.
The Atlantic Monthly, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek and Time and many others are saying this is a legitimate scandal and reform of the IPCC is absolutely essential. Let's keep in mind, IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the United Nations. They put this together back in 1988 to try to scare people into changing our policy in this country.
Today, Senator Inhofe welcomed the Senate confirmation of Bill Ostendorff, Bill Magwood, and George Apostolakis as commissioners on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
"I am very pleased that the Senate has confirmed Bill Ostendorff, Bill Magwood, and George Apostolakis to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I believe that all three gentlemen will keep a safety-focused mindset in their new roles," Sen. Inhofe said. "With the nuclear energy industry poised for growth, the Commission has plenty of work to do. Congress intended that the Commission function as a collegial body in its mission to protect public health, safety, and the environment. It certainly functions best with the full complement of five commissioners and I'm pleased that the agency will now benefit from its full measure of leadership."
Senator Inhofe released the following statement Wednesday, March 17, at a Hearing on the Government Accountability Office's Investigation of EPA's Efforts to Protect Children's Health:
I am a father and grandfather so, obviously, protecting the health of children, born and unborn, is a personal priority. The best way to protect children's health is to use the best available science to properly assess risk. In some cases, children can be more susceptible, in other cases less susceptible, and in many cases equally susceptible, to environmental exposures when compared to adults. On a body weight basis, children can have greater exposure than adults, but not always. EPA takes these susceptibility differentials into account when assessing potential risks to children.
This follow-up GAO investigation into efforts to protect children's health suggests to us, among other things, that the Agency has not fully used the Office of Children's Health Protection and has not prioritized children's health considerations in light of advisory recommendations.
However, what the report does not fully address is the fact that EPA must always balance recommendations on children's health with objective scientific standards, legal requirements, and practical realities. For instance, we have been told that EPA should incorporate more of the recommendations of children's health advisory groups into agency actions. But, advisory groups do not have to base their recommendations on risk: they can base their opinion on the use of precaution. They do not have to balance economic impacts and resource limitations: federal agencies do. And, advisory groups almost never address whether the federal government should be or actually is authorized to regulate all issues suggested by their recommendations.
So, while EPA always takes advisory recommendations very seriously, the Agency must independently review advisory findings and balance these opinions with the other factors that direct rulemaking and guide policy management.
Elements of GAO's report are instructive, and I look forward to hearing more. I especially agree with the report's favorable view of the National Children's Study. The National Children's Study will fortify the government's commitment to the health and well-being of children-bringing together the top experts on children's health and the environment. The Study is the largest long-term study of environmental and genetic influences on children's health ever conducted in the United States. It will follow 100,000 children from before birth to age 21. Researchers will better understand how children's interactions with their environments affect their health and development.
But, in contrast to what some of the witnesses will say today, I do not believe that EPA needs additional congressional authority to specifically protect children's health. Rather, I believe that EPA has the existing authority and processes in place to build upon ongoing federal efforts to properly protect children's health. That said, I look forward to hearing your perspectives and welcome you to the Committee.
Should California decide what kind of cars the rest of America drives? Should families in Kansas City, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, or Little Rock, drive vehicles mandated by bureaucrats in Sacramento? This is no mere speculation; it's the logical outgrowth of the "historic" auto deal, the "One National Program" for fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards, crafted in secret last May by the state of California, White House Climate Czar Carol Browner, and auto company executives.
As stated in a letter sent today by the Auto Alliance, the deal gives California the keys to set fuel economy standards for the entire country. It requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which sets federal fuel economy standards, and EPA, which had initiated its rulemaking to set GHG standards for mobile sources, to "coordinate their rulemaking processes and promulgate a joint regulation establishing consistent fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for model years 2012-2016." In turn, California, which wanted to set its own GHG standards for cars, and which was granted the authority to do that by the Obama EPA, agreed that "manufacturers who complied with federal greenhouse gas rules would be deemed to be in compliance with the state standards for model years 2012-2016." On top of that, the auto companies agreed to suspend litigation against California and the 13 states that chose to follow California's new GHG standards.
Sound like a good deal? Think again. The problem is California, which sees this deal as a spring board to tougher standards after 2017. California believes it has the authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own GHG standards-and it wants to make them tougher than what the feds have proposed. This could create the very patchwork the autos want to avoid. Or it could force yet another deal after 2017 in which the Golden State reigns supreme.
Consider the remarks of Paul Hughes, the program manager for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low Emissions Vehicle program. As he said recently: "California's efforts are aimed to move out in front and establish where we need to be by 2050. This is the first step in that process through 2025, and we expect we'll be coordinating on the national level to achieve a harmonized program in the future." Mary Nichols, the director of CARB, was equally grandiose: "The time has come to move beyond dealing separately with the pollutants we have regulated successfully and the recent focus on those that are building up in the atmosphere. We need to look out more than a few years and envision the car of the future." In other words, California will set national emissions standards, thereby dictating the type of cars Americans drive.
The Auto Alliance is not blind to this threat, as it clearly expressed fear of California's dreams beyond 2017. "It's time for Congress and the Administration," the Alliance wrote, "to enact and implement measures to make a national program permanent for 2017 and beyond." [Emphasis added]
We see great merit in reducing dependence on foreign oil and promoting automotive innovation and technology. But we also see, and wish to thwart, the economic bomb dropping after 2017, as California seeks to impose its automotive vision on the entire nation. California saw the future in a new vehicle mandate in the 1990s. In the face of reality, the state weakened the mandate over time. The mandate has been costly and has failed to make meaningful improvements in air quality.
So much for the "historic" auto deal; California is in the driver's seat. Meanwhile, assertions persist that the deal will unravel upon passage of Sen. Murkowski's resolution of disapproval on EPA's endangerment finding. This is simply false, as the general counsel of NHTSA recently conceded. The deal has no legal basis-it merely serves as a launching pad to realize California's green vision writ large.
California is suffering from 12 percent unemployment (the national rate is 9.7 percent), a $24 billion state budget deficit, and burdened with disastrous job killing global warming taxes and regulation. California's auto dreams should be a wake-up call for the nation.
Inhofe EPW News Round-Up
Fox News.com: Questions Swirl Around U.N.'s Climate Auditors (03/18/10) - But in the decade it has existed, the IAC has accomplished little relevant to climate change -- the four major reports it has produced have focused on topics ranging from African agriculture to the role of women in science -- leading some experts to voice concerns that its review ultimately will be a whitewash, designed to silence them and provide cover for politicians. "I've never heard of the group," Howard Hayden, editor and publisher of the Energy Advocate newsletter, told FoxNews.com. He cited the first sentence from the IAC's 2007 report, "Toward a Sustainable Energy Future," which states that "achieving a sustainable energy future presents an urgent challenge for the 21st century. Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity." "From that much, I doubt we can expect objectivity," Hayden said.
Slate: Climate scientists are getting a little too angry for their own good (03/18/10) - Scientists are also susceptible to the biases of their own political ideology, which surveys show leans heavily liberal. Ideology shapes how scientists evaluate policy options as well as their interpretations of who or what is to blame for policy failures. Given a liberal outlook and strong environmental values, it must be difficult for scientists to understand why so many Americans have reservations about complex policies that impose costs on consumers without offering clearly defined benefits. Compounding matters, scientists, like the rest of us, tend to gravitate toward like-minded sources in the media. Given their background, they focus on screeds from liberal commentators which reinforce a false sense of a "war" against the scientific community.
The Economist: Cap-and-trade's last hurrah (03/18/10) - This composite approach is necessary because the charms of economy-wide cap-and-trade have faded badly. The ability to raise money from industry is not so attractive in a downturn. Market mechanisms have lost their appeal as a result of the financial crisis. More generally, climate is not something the public seems to feel strongly about at the moment, in part because of that recession, in part perhaps because they have worries about the science (see article), in part, it appears, because the winter has been a snowy one.
Bloomberg: Cancun Climate Talks Get Dim Prognosis Nine Months Before Start (03/18/10) - Government negotiators are already writing off chances for a global treaty to fight climate change, nine months before the annual talks begin in Cancun, Mexico. Kunihiko Shimada, principal international negotiator at the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, said yesterday a deal this year is "almost impossible." Jos Delbeke, who spearheads European Union climate policy at the European Commission, ruled out a "comprehensive legal agreement" in 2010. Their remarks call into question whether efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions are progressing after failing in Copenhagen in December. President Barack Obama's energy proposal is bogged down in the U.S. Congress. Without a U.S. commitment, China and India, two of the fastest-growing polluters, may be reluctant to limit greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Christian Science Monitor: As Climate Change debate wages on, scientists turn to Hollywood for help (3/15/10) - Keeping the public looped in on what scientists are discovering has never been easy. For one thing, the traditional explainers - journalists - can distort, hype, or oversimplify the latest breakthroughs. But the need to communicate science broadly and clearly has never been more urgent...One effort, announced at the meeting, will recruit Hollywood to help scientists tell their stories. NAS and the University of Southern California will team up to draw on USC's expertise in film, TV, websites, and video games. The partnership will be the first between a federal agency and a film school. ‘Entertainment media has been pretty much untapped as far as science literacy goes,' Dr. Fink says. A huge portion of the public doesn't go to science museums or watch science programming on TV, she says. ‘Those are the eyeballs we're trying to capture.'
Newsweek: Their Own Worst Enemies - Why scientists are losing the PR wars (03/18/10) - One new factor is also at work: the growing belief in the wisdom of crowds (Wikis, polling the audience on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire). If tweeting for advice on the best route somewhere yields the right answer, Americans seem to have decided, it doesn't take any special expertise to pick apart evolutionary biology or climate science. My final hypothesis: the Great Recession was caused by the smartest guys in the room saying, trust us, we understand how credit default swaps work, and they're great. No wonder so many Americans have decided that experts are idiots.
The Oklahoman Editorial: Fossil fuel economy is far from becoming extinct (03/15/10) - Those who believe the world economy can be sustained with a quick switch to renewable energy sources are engaged in pipe dreams. Ditto for those who believe the world is quickly running out of fossil fuels - or for those who actually believed President Obama's State of the Union speech pledge to make America more energy independent. "Pipe dreams" is an apt term because the fossil fuel commodity with the most promising future is moved chiefly by pipeline. It's natural gas. Jim Mulva, chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, used the term "pipe dreams" in a remarkable speech last week at an energy conference in Houston. He also used the term "hydrocarbon deniers." This is apt in light of the derision of climate change skeptics. They're called "global warming deniers."
USA TODAY: Poll: Worries about environment hit low (3/16/10) - The Gallup Poll finds that of eight environmental issues, Americans worry least about global warming and most about drinking-water pollution. Even so, it cites record lows of 50% in the share of those who worry "a great deal" about drinking-water pollution, 33% on the loss of tropical rain forests, 31% on the extinction of plant and animal species.
CNN: Climate change's Hail Mary (3/17/10) - In the next couple of weeks, lawmakers are expected to unveil an unprecedented climate change proposal that may open up more areas for offshore drilling and cut emissions through a cap on greenhouse gases and a tax on gasoline. Details on the proposal, put forth by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are scant - the actual bill isn't expected until at least the end of the month.
Politico: How to Cut Deals Without Looking Like They're Cutting Deals (3/16/10) - Senators working on a major climate bill have a near impossible task: how to cut deals without looking like they're cutting deals. Such is the toxic legislating environment in wake of the so-called Cornhusker Kickback on health care - even mild legislative compromises designed to attract votes are now under much greater scrutiny, as lawmakers fear political repercussions from anything perceived as a side deal. So very carefully, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have been conducting climate bill negotiations across the Senate, hoping to make a few palatable deals that will get them to 60 votes.
E&E: Critics on both sides assail EPA on mountaintop regulation (03/18/2010) - Republicans on the EPW Committee say permitting delays threaten the loss of more than 17,000 jobs, imperil 81 small businesses and prevent the production of more than 2 billion tons of coal. Citing interviews with permit applicants, the Republicans say about 1 in 10 delayed mining permits are for mountaintop projects. Most of the rest are for surface mines, but at least 20 are for underground mines or coal processing facilities, a Republican staffer on the EPW Committee said. "Although they're doing this in the name of mountaintop-removal mining, they're actually going after all coal mining, including underground permits," the staffer said. "If these permits are so bad for the environment, they should veto them, instead of just holding onto them indefinitely."
Politico: Gas Tax in Kerry-Graham? (3/17/10) - Climate bill supporters are leaning toward exempting big oil companies from a broader cap on greenhouse gases as a way of winning critical support from industry players and key lawmakers. The three co-authors of the Senate climate bill hope the proposal - backed by several large oil companies - will bring a new set of players to the negotiating table. They are floating the idea of levying a carbon tax on each gallon of gasoline, which would be passed along to consumers at the pump. The fee would be linked to the market price of carbon emissions bought and traded by utilities and other industries.
WSJ: White House Officials Link Economic Recovery to Cap-and-Tax (3/17/10) - Senior Obama administration officials say the nation's economic recovery could stall if Congress doesn't pass a climate bill this year. The officials warn that investors are so uncertain about the future cost of emitting greenhouse gases that they are sitting on capital rather than pouring it into "clean" technology, new power plants or energy-intensive manufacturing. The administration has for months been moving away from advocating climate legislation primarily as an environmental issue and toward a jobs-creation argument.
Congress Daily: Questionable Appetite for Having Democrats from having to swallow another divisive issue (3/17/10) - There has been increasing speculation that the trio would wait until after the recess to unveil a draft so as not to get too tangled with the aftermath of the highly contentious healthcare debate, though Reid has promised EPA would analyze a bill before it was debated by the full Senate. There is also questionable appetite for having Democrats -- particularly those who may be vulnerable this election year -- from having to swallow another divisive issue such as climate change this year.
The Hill: Murkowski: Dems leaned on automakers to oppose her on climate (03/17/10) - Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Wednesday said that auto industry opposition to her plan to block EPA climate change regulations stems from pressure by Democratic leaders. And Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), who supports Murkowski's plan, said the automakers' position is no surprise given the financial aid they've received from the Obama administration. "Two weeks ago, it was reported that automakers were pressured to weigh in against the bipartisan, bicameral disapproval resolutions that have been introduced to halt EPA climate regulations. Today, we see a letter that stems from that pressure," Murkowski said in a prepared statement.
E&E News: Partisan health care push will 'poison the well' for Obama's entire agenda -- Graham (03/15/2010)- Democrats are putting President Obama's energy and climate agenda in peril by making a partisan push this week to pass health care, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned yesterday. "If they do this, it's going to poison the well for anything else they would like to achieve this year or thereafter," Graham said on ABC's "This Week." Graham said that he is still upbeat about the talks with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on legislation that would put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and expand domestic oil, gas and nuclear energy production. But he said those efforts could be undermined because of the push to pass health care in the Senate through the budget reconciliation process that requires a 51-vote majority.
Investor's Business Daily: Editorial - We, The EPA (3/15/10) - The New York Times says the EPA should use its authority to regulate our very breath if a Democratic Congress isn't "goaded" into action. Whatever happened to government of the people? It's been a pattern of this administration that if the American people are adamantly opposed to it, ram it through anyway. So it's been with the health care overhaul, offshore drilling restrictions and now the Environmental Protection Agency threatening to become the uber-regulator of the air we breathe...As Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noted: "Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today (issuing its finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."
MailOnline: Minister's global warming nursery rhyme adverts banned for overstating the risks (3/14/10) - Two government advertisements which use nursery rhymes to warn of the dangers of climate change have been banned for exaggerating the threat. Commissioned by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the adverts are based on children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub and assert that climate change will cause flooding and drought. The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts - which attracted 939 complaints - made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus.
Politico: Inhofe slams Gore on climate 'hoax (03/15/10) ' - In front of the backdrop of a blown up Weekly Standard cover featuring Gore, Inhofe railed on the former vice president. "After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I'm talking about Al Gore," Inhofe charged. "He's under siege these days. The credibility of the IPCC is eroding. The EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing. And belief that global warming is leading to catastrophe is evaporating. Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions nevertheless. He's desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive today." Inhofe also floated a political conspiracy theory focused on Gore.
Roll Call: Baring It Al. (03/16/10) - There was a naked Al Gore on the Senate floor Monday. But the former vice president and Democratic Senator from Tennessee wasn't streaking his old workplace - the nude Gore was courtesy of a large poster that Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) brought to the floor to serve as a backdrop for an anti-global-warming speech. Inhofe used the startling image - a large blowup of a cover illustration for the Weekly Standard magazine that featured Gore in the buff, standing on what looks like a polar tundra, while two polar bears look on and giggle - to illustrate his criticism of Gore's climate change crusade. Inhofe, a vocal critic of climate change, said Gore is "drowning in a sea of his global warming illusions" and noted that the former veep is holding a "high-level meeting of global warming alarmists."
Hot Air: Video: Inhofe blasts Gore for accusation of criminality for AGW skepticism (03/16/10) - Let's set the stage properly for this moment from yesterday. Sen. James Inhofe responded to two accusations from AGW activists. Inhofe has been accused of "McCarthyism" in his demand for an investigation into potential fraud in the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) movement, specifically basing that on the exposure of attempts to deceive governments, hide data, and sabotage skeptics at the East Anglia CRU. At the same time, however, Al Gore has no problem casting AGW skeptics as "a criminal generation" in the New York Times. Which seems more McCarthyist, and which seems more grounded in reality?
Newsmax: Inhofe Chides Gore for 'Climate Hoax' (03/15/10) - Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the leading critics of global warming science in the Senate, attacked former Vice President Al Gore on the Senate floor Monday, calling climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." "When it comes to reform and openness and transparency and peer review, and when it comes to practicing good science, Gore stands alone," Inhofe said in remarks first reported by Politico. Inhofe also denounced the climate change legislation being worked on by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John Kerry, D-Mass., saying that if any form of a cap-and-trade bill passes "people are going to be the losers."
Newsbusters: Inhofe Blasts Gore On Senate Floor: He's 'Running For Cover' (03/16/10) - "He is under siege these days," said Inhofe in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor. "The credibility of the IPCC is eroding, EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing, and belief that anthropogenic global warming is leading to catastrophe is evaporating." "Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions," he continued. Nevertheless, he is desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive." Unlike most on the Left and their media minions, Inhofe also spoke specifically about some of Gore's investments, and how the Nobel Laureate has positioned himself to amass huge profits from his climate alarmism.