of the world’s most vociferous climate skeptics, is practically giddy these
days. He’s argued since 2003 that global
warming is a massive “hoax” being played on the American people, and now he
believes he’s got more backing than ever before for his claim, from “Climategate”
emails<\/a> to errors
in the latest report<\/a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to
the recent blizzards
in Washington, D.C.<\/a> (He gleefully
hyped an igloo<\/a> built by his grandkids as “Al Gore’s new home.”)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Inhofe didn’t get as much <\/p>\n I spoke with Inhofe by phone <\/p>\n ———-<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q. Sen. Inhofe, hi, <\/p>\n A. I’m cold, of <\/p>\n Q. You got your snow boots on?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A. I do. [Laughs.]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q. You reasserted in today’s hearing your <\/p>\n A. Who are the victims? It <\/p>\n Q. Who are the perpetrators of the hoax?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A. That’s the United Nations <\/p>\n Q. Major energy companies have said they <\/p>\n A. What you’ve just said is not <\/p>\n NOAA and NASA and all these <\/p>\n Q. What do you believe is the motive of <\/p>\n A. They stand to benefit [from] <\/p>\n We have scientists who are <\/p>\n Q. So you believe that the U.N. and the <\/p>\n A. No, no, no. We’ve already <\/p>\n Q. I’m trying to clarify the motivation <\/p>\n A. It’s very clear that when <\/p>\n Many of [the scientists] know <\/p>\n Q. So you believe the scientists and the <\/p>\n A. Well, that enters into it, <\/p>\n Q. The Pentagon has identified climate <\/p>\n A. The Pentagon does not say <\/p>\n The overriding factor is that <\/p>\n Q. The Pentagon just produced the Quadrennial <\/p>\n A. Keep in mind that the <\/p>\n Q. More than 280 evangelical leaders, <\/p>\n A. If you can’t find 300 <\/p>\n Q. Do you believe that investing in clean <\/p>\n A. Oh, absolutely not.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q. Oklahoma <\/p>\n A. That’s correct.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q. So the wind industry is not creating <\/p>\n A. Yeah, it is. A few jobs. We <\/p>\n Q. I’ve heard that the Chesapeake Energy Corporation, <\/p>\n A. There are a lot of people in <\/p>\n Q. How do you respond to major industry <\/p>\n A. I don’t agree with <\/p>\n Q. So you believe these companies <\/p>\n A. It would be very damaging to <\/p>\n Q. Are there clean tech innovations that <\/p>\n A. I’m interested in wind <\/p>\n In order for us to be <\/p>\n Q. On a personal level, why are you so <\/p>\n A. I was first made chairman of <\/p>\n Q. How do you think that history will view <\/p>\n A. It depends on who’s writing the history.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q. Assuming someone you like is writing the history.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A. I think they’ll say that <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Watch Inhofe at the Feb. 23 hearing:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>* Professor John Reilly of MIT <\/p>\n <\/a>** In fact, the U.S. ranks 12th<\/a> in proven reserves of oil and 5th<\/a> in proven reserves of natural gas, according to the CIA. It does have the world’s largest reserves of <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Gore’s climate remedy must match diagnosis<\/a><\/p>\n Lindsey Graham’s dilemma, part one: How ACES got dealt a poor hand<\/a><\/p>\n Sen. Inhofe’s latest attack is on climate scientists, not just science<\/a><\/p>\n
attention as he might have hoped for during his December
visit to Copenhagen<\/a> to denounce climate treaty negotiations, but he tried
to reclaim the stage this week during a Senate hearing<\/a> that addressed EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. He argued that “the science of the IPCC …
has been totally discredited” and unveiled an 84-page report titled ‘Consensus’
Exposed: The CRU Controversy<\/a>.
“It’s a report on the scandal that has become known as Climategate,” he
explained. “Many of [the world’s leading climate] scientists have manipulated
data to fit preconceived conclusions … They cooked the science.” Inhofe’s
report even suggested that some climate scientists “may
have violated federal laws<\/a>.” (Watch his hearing statement below<\/a>.)<\/p>\n
right after the hearing about who’s perpetrating the climate hoax, who’s being
hoodwinked by it, and why he doesn’t believe clean energy creates jobs.<\/p>\n
how are you?<\/strong><\/p>\n
course, but I’m good.<\/p>\n
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?<\/strong><\/p>\n
would be the United States.
It would be the economy, what would happen to this country according to MIT*<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n
and the IPCC, clearly.<\/p>\n
believe the scientific consensus on climate change. ExxonMobil
said<\/a> 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?<\/strong><\/p>\n
true. There’s not unanimity at all even though you want to believe it. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
the U.N.? What is the motive of the scientists who are perpetrating the hoax?
How do you think they stand to benefit?<\/strong><\/p>\n
government grants and private sector grants [from places] like the Heinz Foundation.<\/p>\n
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<\/a>. I’ve been very clear all along who the perpetrators
were, what the motives were.<\/p>\n
scientists on the IPCC are perpetrating the hoax in order to get grant money?<\/strong><\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
behind the hoax. Why would these scientists want to deceive the global public?<\/strong><\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
U.N. are in it for the money?<\/strong><\/p>\n
yes.<\/p>\n
change as one of the biggest threats to our national security. Why shouldn’t we
trust the American military to judge security threats?<\/strong><\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
even if we did all of this unilaterally, it’s not going to reduce CO2.<\/p>\n
Defense Review<\/a>, which said
climate change will accelerate conflict around the globe<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Quadrennial Review and all that comes out of the White House. That’s part of
the administration. In the Pentagon, they’re good soldiers—they’ll do pretty
much what will ingratiate the commander in chief. That’s what they’re supposed
to do. <\/p>\n
including Rick Warren<\/a>, signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative<\/a> supporting action on this issue. Are these leaders also duped? Are they part of
the hoax?<\/strong><\/p>\n
evangelical or religious leaders, or people who identify themselves as
religious leaders, that can pursue almost anything, then you’re not really
doing your job. It’s kind of funny because I don’t recall any of the people
that I run into who are evangelical leaders who really buy in to this thing.
But that’s fine, there are some who do, I’m sure.<\/p>\n
energy is going to create jobs in the U.S.?<\/strong><\/p>\n
has huge wind resources. My understanding is that wind and natural gas are among
the biggest and fastest-growing sectors of your state’s economy.<\/strong><\/p>\n
jobs in your state?<\/strong><\/p>\n
always look at net jobs, and we have had hearings on this and shown very
clearly that the number of jobs that are lost exceed any new jobs that come in,
and that’s the reason for my answer to your question.<\/p>\n
a big job provider in Oklahoma, favors
cap-and-trade, saying it would actually benefit the natural gas industry. To me
that says it would create jobs in your state. Why oppose policies that would
create jobs in Oklahoma?<\/strong><\/p>\n
the natural gas business who feel that perhaps they can benefit [from
cap-and-trade] in the short term, but they also recognize in the long term that
it would be destructive. If you don’t believe that, talk to the CEO of [Oklahoma
City-based] Devon Energy, Larry Nichols.<\/p>\n
leaders who say climate legislation is going to create jobs, not kill
them, net total?<\/strong><\/p>\n
that. Always look at the motives people
have. There are a lot of companies that would do very well [if greenhouse-gas
regulations were enacted]. General Electric. I better not start naming them.
But we had a hearing on USCAP<\/a>, [a
coalition of] corporations that were embracing some variation of cap-and-trade.
We checked and found out that all 15 or so of them had stood to make huge
amounts of money if they could get cap-and-trade. So that’s my comment about
that.<\/p>\n
and their leaders are going along with a massive fraud that will destroy the
economy in order to make money themselves?<\/strong><\/p>\n
the economy. I think that most of the people who don’t have a dog in this
fight, people who are just looking at it, economists looking to see how
destructive it would be, come to the conclusion that it would be destructive.<\/p>\n
you’re interested in?<\/strong><\/p>\n
energy, I’m interested in geothermal. It’s all of the above. I think you can’t
just say you’re for one thing or another.<\/p>\n
independent, [we need to] develop our own resources. We have the largest
recoverable reserves of oil, gas, and coal of any country in the world.**<\/a> And yet the problem is, politically, we’re not able to
drill in the different places and develop our own resources. No other countries are in that situation. <\/p>\n
passionate about climate change? I know you’ve been committed to this issue for
a long time.<\/strong><\/p>\n
the Environment and Public Works Clean Air Subcommittee back in ‘97. That’s
when I believed that anthropogenic gases were causing global warming because
everyone said it was. Until the Wharton
[Econometric Forecasting Associates] came along<\/a> and said what it would cost
us if we were to go through with this. And of course it was just huge
amounts, so we thought we’d check the science. When we started checking
the science, many of the scientists came to me—once they had a place to come—and showed how they’d been shut out of the process of the IPCC. And I
thought, somebody’s got to take this thing on, and so that’s why I did it.<\/p>\n
your efforts on climate change? <\/strong><\/p>\n
they’re glad there’s one person who was willing to tell the truth.<\/p>\n
last year said Republicans had been misrepresenting
his research on the potential costs of climate legislation<\/a>.<\/p>\n
coal.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"