An Inhofian Train Wreck
There's political rhetoric and then there's Inhofian rhetoric.
And even for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), this is completely over the top.
Or to put it more bluntly, there's a train-wreck and then there's an Inhofian train wreck.
On the Senate floor today during the Republican filibuster debate on the Climate Security Act, Inhofe made the outrageous claim that “everything” in the Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth has “been refuted many times” by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
Now Al Gore’s done his movie, almost everything that’s been in his movie, in fact everything has been refuted. And interestingly enough the IPCC on sea levels and other things, scare tactics, used in that science-fiction movie have been totally refuted and been refuted many times by the — by the IPCC."
Where does one even begin? Or does one even have to begin to refute this?
Of course we all know that Al Gore and the IPCC were the recent recipients of the Nobel Prize for their respective work on climate change, so do we need more refutation than that?
I would suggest not. At this point, with the scientific evidence and observational effects of climate change diametrically opposing Inhofe's wild-eyed blanket statements on climate change, it's much better to sit back and watch the train wreck.
Here it is:
ThinkProgress was on this story first and has more analysis on this, as does their Wonk Room.
well, yeah
"... have been refuted many times, and refuted by the IPCC"
Yes, as any well-invested denier knows, the IPCC was set up to investigate and refute popular science films like the Inconvenient Truth. That is why it is called the Indagare Propaganda Clima Comitato (IPCC), or in English, the Committee to Investigate Climate Propaganda.
End of proof.
You'll notice the Goracle
You'll notice the Goracle never won a Nobel prize in science, he won the peace prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".
You'll also note that his movie has been banned from schools around the world for it's fallacies. Why can't the AGW fanatics just use facts to spread the word . . . oh right, they don't support the theory.
How to tell a whopper:
"You'll also note that his movie has been banned from schools around the world for it's fallacies."
AGW Fanatics & References
Traciatim,
References for 'his movie has been banned from schools around the world for it's fallacies' please!
BTW Regarding 'AGW fanatics', I've ever met one, but I know quite a few people who are very concerned by the implications of the science. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of those who have been convinced by the scientific evidence, rather wish that the evidence didn't say what it does!
Which rather makes me wonder: Presumably, since you seem to despise 'AGW fanatics' (whatever that means) so much, why do you believe that AGW doesn't exist? The objective peer-reviewed science doesn't support your view, so you appear to have got everything backwards.
Oh noes! Gore Derangement Syndrome!
"You'll also note that his movie has been banned from schools around the world for it's fallacies."
No.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Inhofe = Pinocchio
Inhofe is a bare-faced liar!
How does this guy sleep at night?
Perhaps someone should make him eat all the science that he says has been refuted, but hasn't.
I don't think he's lying . . .
I think he really believes what he's saying, and that's even scarier. The trouble is, there are people like Inhofe who are in a position to influence policy who are just too blinkered to get it. For whatever reason, he will never accept what the science is saying. In fact, it appears as though he won't even look at what the science is saying.
Fern Mackenzie
unlike Red Rose Tea
"I think he really believes what he's saying, and that's even scarier. The trouble is, there are people like Inhofe who are in a position to influence policy who are just too blinkered to get it."
Oh, good. So it is not just in Canada, eh? That's a relief, somehow.