Video: Inhofe gets snotty with Miles O’Brien over global warming
posted at 4:12 pm on October 3, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
O’Brien’s taking a beating today for allegedly having cited “The Day After Tomorrow” as evidence of global warming. He didn’t, though, as you’ll see: he referred to a “Day After Tomorrow scenario” which could be a “potential outgrowth” of global warming.
He also did a nice job deflecting Inhofe’s overt hostility.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Perhaps Inhofe is thinking that he will try to imitate the style Bill Clinton used with Wallace.
EFG on October 3, 2006 at 4:19 PM
No, Inhofe just does that.
But he votes the right way and doesn’t screw the help, so I like him.
see-dubya on October 3, 2006 at 4:28 PM
Inhofe is awesome. His senate floor obliteration of Algore’s new man made global warming invention was so fantastic I saved it. Unfortunately, I don’t have the link. I’ll try and dig it up for you scientific-minded folk.
I’m glad there’s a little anger about this buffoonery going on. Too bad it was misplaced in this venue, but, close enough.
NTWR on October 3, 2006 at 4:56 PM
I would love to know what Miles did to Inhofe last week to have him come in loaded for bear. Since I cannot find the transcript and no one watches CNN, including the control room guys, I guess we’ll never know.
Valiant on October 3, 2006 at 5:00 PM
Here. It’s a good read.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
NTWR on October 3, 2006 at 5:01 PM
If the Government will finally classify worshipping the environment as a religion, such as “Gaea Worship,” we would be able to abolish foolish everyday things that are supposed to improve the environment using the clause of separation of church and state.
Like HOV lanes. Idiocy. Build a whole new lane that no one uses, forcing all other lanes to sit bumper to bumper eating up gasoline.
BelchSpeak on October 3, 2006 at 5:07 PM
As I understand it, this was a follow up to a program that Miles did in the last couple of weeks in which Miles stated that Mr. Inhofe was invited to be on, but that he was just to busy to speak to them. I’m glad to see Inhofe turn the tables on the pseudo intellectuals who are indignant that someone would not be available on the day they wanted to run the story. Inhofe was probably only doing the work of the Congress and Miles was just a little miffed.
d1carter on October 3, 2006 at 5:09 PM
POW! Good job Mr. OK.
Kevin M on October 3, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Most of us who follow and study climatology know that there are cycles to the earth weather patterns. The amount of water vapor and carbon dioxide (what I call plant food) just isn’t enough to cause a global warming effect.
The amount of emmissions from fossil fuels, in this country at least, is really restrictive as apposed to the developing nations like China and India. And they are not going to control their emmissions until enough people in their countries get sick enough to do someting about it.
Meanwhile, the media doesn’t have any stories to tell, like how many people getting bitten by sharks. Anyone remember those stories? It’s almost like a deflection against the real issues of today.
I must admit, Science Fiction is a lot more glamorous and fun than reality, and that’s the real inconvenient truth.
Kini on October 3, 2006 at 6:06 PM
Even emissions from man burning fossil fuels are minimal in comparison to emissions from, say, GIANT FOREST FIRES, or VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS. After Mt Pinatubo erupted the earth’s temperature dropped a degree from ash blocking sunlight.
Or what about the heating caused by the increase in forest density due to restricting natural forest fires- a darker substrate absorbs more heat, i.e. evergreen canopies.
Even if Algore’s latest invention were true, we could easily throw ourselves back into an ice age by nuking Mt. Rainier. :)
NTWR on October 3, 2006 at 6:19 PM
That’s a very good point NTRW!
Taking into account natures cycles and not AlGore’s bad breath. Now there’s real emissions of Global Whining.
Kini on October 3, 2006 at 6:42 PM
Oh and I forgot about all those so called scientists with political motivations for a government grant to help fight global warming or something they need money for.
Call it Global Grifting.
Kini on October 3, 2006 at 6:49 PM
Exactly, Kini! Too bad we’re the ones paying for it. I like that, “Global Grifting.”
NTWR on October 3, 2006 at 7:51 PM
It is so refreshing to see people seriously taking on this global warming crap. For those who want more ammo to battle these enviro-whackjobs, just visit junk science. Steve Milloy has a great compilation of all of the measurements, history, calculations, etc.
-FFOG
Fogpig on October 3, 2006 at 7:56 PM
Thanks to a few conservatives, everytime I hear Global Warming I think, Manbearpig.
Supercereal!
DannoJyd on October 3, 2006 at 8:21 PM
I’m a “computer scientist”, and trust me… software that is as complex and dependent upon so many unknown factors as the typical computer model–upon which the entire anthropogenic warming movement is based–cannot possibly be as accurate as they like to pretend it is.
And, honestly, most of those scientists spice up the abstracts for their papers so that an ingorant media will talk about them, while the actually scientific research is much, much less certain. Of course, most of it (as noted) is based ENTIRELY on ridiculously contradictory computer models.
They actually got ONE computer model to correctly “predict” the last century given 19th century inputs, and they trumpeted it all around, like it proved something.
DaveS on October 3, 2006 at 8:41 PM
I call “Global Smarming”.
SouthernGent on October 3, 2006 at 8:46 PM
I call it Global Swarming ;)
BTW, go Inhofe! That guy is a pit bull on this issue.
SisterToldjah on October 3, 2006 at 8:48 PM
Regardless of how this debate went, Inhofe is on the right side of it. Global warming is one of the biggest piles of crap ever perpetuated on the American public, and the world. Who else can’t wait to hear them explain why this hurricane season was such a failure, after all their “scare tactics” (I thought only Bush used those!).
By the way, did anyone else catch the story that Antarctica saw COLD temperatures this year not seen since 1979?
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 9:26 PM
What? You want to talk about REAL science? Not the mythology? This is, well, not quite historic.
Planetary warming is affected by the planet’s reflectivity to sunlight (Ban the NUCLEAR reactions on the SUN!), also known as “albedo.” When Mt. Pintatubo erupted, the ash and dust caused global COOLING for two years. Let’s not discuss that (it’s NOT P.C.).
Thus, if we (the United States) dropped several nuclear weapons on various places inhabited by rather unfriendly people, we could actually achieve global COOLING, due to the ash and dust clouds created by rather minor (on a global scale) detonations. If the heavy radioactive elements fell out of the dust cloud within 2 or 3 days (before spreading to the Western Hemisphere) and made various unfriendly places uninhabitable for the mythological “thousands of years,” well, who (aside from Dhimmicrats) would actually care? But let us look at the actuality of it all, based upon our actual experience in nuclear warfare.
For those people not caught in the neutron and gamma-flux radiation of the nuclear detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki (who WERE irradiated and suffered greatly for it), the nuclear weapons were not statistically significant (except that the irradiated land actually became MORE productive in terms of agricultural yields – and long-term cancer rates were, indeed, raised above national averages). This is why Stalin was not terribly concerned about Western nuclear weaponry. The reality contradicted the mythology. Humankind would perservere. There would be the long-term effects, but the survivor’s offspring would be borne and carry on. This may be a rather brutal assessment of the effects of nuclear war, but at least it dealt with REALITY.
For some reason, the global warming people never want to mention this alternative. I, personally, do not RECOMMEND using this tactic to “solve” global warming, but I have certain locales in mind where multiple nuclear detonations might have a salutory effect on the various unpleasant people (some million of whom are NOT just jihadi suicide-bomber-types) I’ve referenced above.
If someone has ACTUAL scientific results (not political mythology) to refute what I’ve learned (or have been taught) over the past couple of decades, I would be more than happy to examine their data. I try to keep an open mind, and have in the past altered my viewpoints when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. But remember, REAL science (in layman’s terms), NOT Olby-Hysteria-Syndrome.
Not a Dhimmicrat on October 3, 2006 at 9:38 PM
Owned.
Ian on October 3, 2006 at 10:24 PM
Dhimmicrat,
To quote, verbatim, a “pro-warming” climatologist whose name I can’t exactly remember at the moment…
DaveS on October 3, 2006 at 10:26 PM
The Data Don’t Matter.
This guy was an IPCC author!!
You’ve gotta love these guys… models can say whatever you want them to (GCMs are General Circulation Models):
DaveS on October 3, 2006 at 10:35 PM
I loved the way he began by calling O’Brien a SMILING EXTREMIST! Brilliant!
Dude where did you study reading comprehension? Of course he referenced the movies’ take on global warming to make his weak assed point that all the lies he told twelve years ago about GLOBAL COOLING, somehow weave seamlessly into his new vision of “Global Warming”, how does making reference to a fictional scenario in a fictional movie, NOT constitute using the movie to prove his point on global warming?
Soothsayer on October 3, 2006 at 10:35 PM
ibid
Jaibones on October 4, 2006 at 1:04 AM
And another thing: seems like this nitwit Miles O’Brien is tired of being the answer to trivia questions, and wants to be recognized.
Well, congratulations, Miles, you’ve made the big time; now everyone who’s ever heard of you (except AP) thinks you’re a genuine horse’s ass…
Jaibones on October 4, 2006 at 1:09 AM
I would like to say that I cannot believe that he referenced or even mentioned The Day After Tomorrow in relation to global warming, but it is just par for the course. That movie is much more farce than most people would realize. The Instituor has a great debunking of the movie, but they give ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ a pass, so they’re not perfect.
I can’t wait until someone references The Mask of Zorro as evidence supporting reconquista or amnesty.
theholyhermit on October 4, 2006 at 1:10 AM
I’ve got to say, I’m glad to see that I’m not alone here. Being a global warming denier is a pretty alientating decision after all the brainwashing of the past couple decades. I make it my duty to ask simple questions to kids who have never considered that global warming might be a big fat lie. Everytime they say “it’s hotter now than it’s been in (popular time period to site that week)”, I have to ask “why was it that hot back then?” 90% of the time, that’s enough because a light sort of goes on and you can see them wondering how they never considered that and why they had no answer to it.
For a few others – hit your friends with glaciers in Greenland have been naturally shrinking for over a century (recent study. particularly important as Greenland is one of their favorite “points”)
- hit ‘em with up to 1/3 of methane being produced by plants. Methane is supposedly co2’s partner in global warming crime. chop down a tree today!
- hit ‘em with blizzards and extreme cold in Africa this year
- as I mentioned earlier, hit ‘em with coldest temps since 1979 in Antarctica were recorded this year
- glaciers that Pakistan and others in the region depend on for water are growing
- ice melting in the Arctic won’t raise sea levels. If they need proof, either send them to Junior High School, or put an ice cube in a cup, fill it to the top with water, wait til’ the cube melts then sit back and “ooh and ahh” at the fact that it never overflowed.
- Russian scientists say we’re about to start a period of Global Cooling that will last until the middle of the century
(links provided if anyone is interested and needs them)
RightWinged on October 4, 2006 at 7:19 AM
I was discussing media hype the other day with some friends and mentioned Y2K hysteria as an example. A liberal programmer in the group defended Y2K stuff as necessary to prevent problems associated with code using two digit years. People might not have gotten their paychecks, she said, for example. Yes, I said, but they were saying power plants would explode, planes would fall from the sky. That was just the media hyping the issue, she said. Exactly! Just like global warming! She walked into that one.
kmcguire on October 4, 2006 at 8:24 AM
I love Hot Air!
EnvironmentalAnti-Capitalism Wackos! They won’t listen to reason, but I’ll tell you this – after reading this thread, I tell you there are Libs all over the world trying to pick themselves up off the floor.They. Got. ELPWNED
Michael
PS (EL = Ever-Lovin’) My favorite phrase.
y2church on October 4, 2006 at 8:42 AM
By denying the premise of global warning Inhofe owned the moment and I think he made his point.
Mojave Mark on October 4, 2006 at 9:45 AM
Here is proof that Global Warming is about a bunch of unhinged liberals that say the sky is falling.
Gore: Smoking Cigarettes Causes Global Warming
I rest my case…..
ScottyDog on October 4, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Comment pages: