Earlier this morning, I had an opportunity to talk with Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), about a wide range of issues. We discussed the East Anglia CRU e-mails, but then moved to Gitmo, the terrorist trials in federal court, the health-care debate, and much more. Sen. Inhofe agreed with me that moving the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill to the spring meant that it was dead, and he says that Democrats have been listening to the groundswell of public opposition and have begun worrying about their jobs. Be sure to watch it all:
Senator Inhofe recommended an IBD editorial on the subject:
As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.
It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.
The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate’s version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.
The Washington Times also interviewed Senator Inhofe about the surprise revelation from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) e-mails over the past few days, especially in how they manipulated data and deliberately hid contradictory information while building their “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming. Inhofe told Melanie Morgan and Jed Babbin that he would call for a Congressional hearing on the e-mails and their impact on the credibility of the AGW movement, especially as it relates to the IPCC and the United Nations:
Inhofe’s site has the transcript:
Senator Inhofe: This is a huge issue and of course we have the Gitmo issue and we have the, of course, cap-and-trade is now taking a new turn. Jed, if I could…
Jed Babbin: Yeah.
Senator Inhofe: Would you let me make one sentence?
Jed Babbin: Please.
Senator Inhofe: This is out of a speech that I made, Melanie, back on the floor of the Senate, and it was repeated, John Gizzi picked it up and put it in Human Events. This was 4 years ago, in talking about the science, cooking the science. I said I would discuss the “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change, the United Nations IPCC.” Now that was four years ago; so we knew they were cooking the science back then, and you’ve been talking about the, you know, what’s happened recently with the bloggers coming up with what they did, what they…
Jed Babbin: Let me interrupt you there Senator, because I think that’s a really important point. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven’t followed that story, what Senator Inhofe’s talking about, in Britain, a blogger got into some of the official government records about climate change and how the measurements were being taken to show…
Melanie Morgan: And the politics behind it.
Jed Babbin: And the – well but they were basically saying, “Oh yea, hey, let’s make it look like Jim so-and-so did that, and let’s help him cook the books, and let’s change the data…”
Melanie Morgan: And “let’s beat up those who don’t agree with us.”
Jed Babbin: Yea, but it’s all a huge fraud! I mean, Senator, am I exaggerating?
Senator Inhofe: No you’re not. If you remember, mine was the hoax statement, and that was, what, five years ago I guess.
Jed Babbin: Well, we ought to give you a big pat on the back for being …
Melanie Morgan: Yea, you deserve an an ‘atta boy, and now you are finally being vindicated.
Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation. ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.
Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?
Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.
Jed Babbin: Should somebody stop further spending on this until we get this investigation, Senator?
Senator Inhofe: Well, I don’t know how you do that, though, ‘cause we’re not the ones that are calling the shots. The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.
Melanie Morgan: Well, Senator, thank you very much for coming back and handling a little bit, a tiny little bit of heat from the kitchen.
Senator Inhofe: Okay.
Jed Babbin: Thanks very much Senator.
Senator Inhofe: Thanks, you bet.
Jed Babbin: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma on the Environment Committee over there, and one of the real fighters.
Melanie Morgan: He certainly is…
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.
Gee, what a great idea! Perhaps the Times could have adopted that policy when it came to terrorist surveillance, banking cooperation on tracking jihadist money, and the location of secret CIA facilities for interrogating detainees captured abroad in the War on Terror. Will we be assured of the Gray Lady’s strict adherence to this policy … or will it only be imposed when the information “never intended for the public eye” contradicts their editorial policy?
Assume that question is rhetorical.