Human Events: Inhofe Blasts Gore Over Climategate
March 2, 2010
Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
In Case You Missed it . . .
EXCLUSIVE: Inhofe Blasts Gore Over Climategate
Posted 03/02/2010 ET
Former vice president Al Gore made his first public remarks since the Climategate scandal broke in a very lengthy New York Times op-ed published on Saturday. Gore, a green technology hawker and, as a result, the first reported green technology billionaire, appeared completely out of touch with the reality of the magnitude of the worldwide climate hoax scandals.
I caught up with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), top Republican on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee yesterday for an exclusive chat about Gore's new diatribe and the EPA endangerment finding.
SEN. JIM INHOFE: In a way, it's kind of humorous. And yet, you have to feel a little bit sorry for Al Gore. He's not been available ever since the first Climategate took place. And that was before Copenhagen. And he's still in denial. ... He has played it down. It's something that is just a misunderstanding or a miscommunication. And it just seems like, this article that he wrote, if you dissect it, everything in there is stuff that has been refuted. And he can't deny it. Although he's in denial, so he is denying it."
I asked Inhofe a series of questions keyed to Gore's claims in the NYT piece.
GORE CLAIM: "We would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world."
SEN. INHOFE: "We're dependent on foreign oil for one reason. We have all of the recoverable resources here in America. We're number one in the world. We're ahead of China, and of Russia. The problem is, the political problem, that the liberals and the Al Gores don't allow us to develop our own resources. And so if we did, we would be-we could be totally independent in a very short period of time if we could just develop our own resources, such as our shale, the oil, our gas-we have enough gas to run this country for ninety years. But we can't get to it."
GORE CLAIM: "We would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy -- the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century."
SEN. INHOFE: China [has] an all-of-the-above approach. We want oil, and gas, and nuclear, and coal, and renewables, wind and all that stuff. So if you take these ones that are currently working, that is, the fossil fuels, out of the mixture, we can't run this machine called ‘America.' And so, as far as China's concerned, they're rejoicing thinking that we'll pass something like the Kerry bill that he's talking about now, which is going to be a CO2 tax, carbon tax. Or cap-and-trade, because they know that they are cranking out, in China, today, two coal-fired generating plants every week. Every week. Now they're doing that so that they can provide the energy necessary so that we start rationing even more than we're already doing it in this country, our jobs will go over to them.
GORE CLAIM: Gore ignores most of the myriad Climategate scandals, writing off emails to over-demands for FOIA information and says the UN's IPCC made innocent mistakes. "What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged."
SEN. INHOFE: All these non peer-reviewed studies that the IPCC's had... the Himalayan Glaciers, said they'd melt by 2035. They've admitted they're wrong. This is Climategate. Global warming would endanger 40 percent of the Amazon Rainforest. They've backed down from that. They've talked about melting the mountain ice caps in Africa and the Andes, the Alps. They've backed down from that. And slashing crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020 -- these things are just fabricated, and they've all been disproven. Everything science that's been in his science-fiction movie has been disproven. ... He's just in total desperation right now to try to come up with something."
GORE CLAIM: "Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation."
SEN. INHOFE: [Saturday] Lindsay Graham said cap-and-trade is dead. What they're trying to do now is rename cap-and-trade. And if you read what they've said about it, about people in different segments, in the agriculture segment, the manufacturing segment of our economy, all of them admit it'll be very costly for the public. ... Now when they say this is almost the same as cap-and-trade, but they're not going to use cap-and-trade anymore, and they're going to talk about corporate responsibility and joining in this thing.
Of course, the big farce there is that the notion, the thing that I said seven years ago, that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic global warming just flat isn't true, it is a hoax. And the general public now realizes, and the majority of the people understand this. So I think they're going to try to rename it, and they're going to try to put together something, I think that Lindsay Graham's always willing to throw in with the Democrats on something that might be, you know, be enhancing to him personally. But this isn't going to work, they can say it all they want, they've been trying to work, by their own admission, for now months and months and months to come up with something where they can pass as cap-and-trade without calling it cap-and-trade, and all I can say is, it's not going to work.
[And on the subject of Lisa Jackson, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA "endangerment" finding:]
SEN. INHOFE: "There are two things that Lisa Jackson has said that are very significant. ... If you pass anything in the United States, it will not reduce worldwide emissions of CO2. China and the main developing countries are the ones that are the major problem. And so, as our jobs move to China, India, Mexico, and places where they don't have these emissions restrictions that we have, that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing CO2. ... Lisa Jackson said the science [for the endangerment finding is] based on the IPCC. Now the IPCC has been totally debunked. ...
"When the lawsuits start coming in March -- well, it's March already -- from people against the endangerment finding, the fact that it's based on science that's been debunked, the judges are going to be aware of that. ...
"Every institution that makes America different from other countries is under attack by this administration. And they are I guess responding to pressure from the Left, ‘Well you can't control Congress, you do it without Congress.' And that's exactly what they're trying to do."
That's what's going to precipitate another 1994 in November.
(HUMAN EVENTS Intern Matt Hadro contributed to this report)