NY Times understated Inhofe's views on global warming
SUMMARY: In an article discussing potentially competitive 2008 Senate elections, The New York Times understated Sen. James Infohe's views on global warming, reporting that Inhofe "has said that its effects are exaggerated." In fact, Inhofe has repeatedly referred to global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and reportedly compared Al Gore's global warming documentary to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
A March 7 New York Times article discussing potentially competitive 2008 Senate elections understated Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) views on global warming, reporting that Inhofe "has said that its effects are exaggerated." In fact, Inhofe has repeatedly referred to global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and reportedly compared former Vice President Al Gore's global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Indeed, in a January 6, 2007, editorial, the Times referred to Inhofe as "the Oklahoma Republican who regards global warming as an elaborate hoax drummed up by environmentalists and scientists in search of money."
In a "Synthesis Report," the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated:
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6
Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gases] concentrations.7 It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
The authors of the IPCC report stated that the phrase "very high confidence" translates to an "at least 9 out of 10" chance of being correct, and "very likely" translates to greater than 90 percent probability.
Inhofe on global warming
In an October 9, 2007, press release, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) announced that Inhofe is number one on its 2008 "Dirty Dozen" list of legislators it is targeting for defeat in November. LCV senior vice president Tony Massaro was quoted as saying in the release, "Our future will be significantly impacted by how we work to fight global warming, yet Senator Jim Inhofe won't even acknowledge that global warming exists." Massaro added: "During his tenure in Congress, Senator Inhofe has made it his mission to vote against commonsense solutions to global warming and our nation's energy challenges, earning an abysmal 5 percent lifetime LCV voting score and a place on our 'Dirty Dozen' list."
Indeed, in a July 28, 2003, statement on the Senate floor, Inhofe, then chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, asserted that he had learned five things from the scientists and economists he talked to about global warming, including that "the claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science" and that "CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters. Actually, it would be beneficial to our environment and the economy." Inhofe continued:
INHOFE: With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is.
And if we allow these detractors of everything that has made America great, those ranging from the liberal Hollywood elitists to those who are in it for the money, if we allow them to destroy the foundation, the greatness of the most highly industrialized nation in the history of the world, then we don't deserve to live in this one nation under God. So I say to the real people: Wake up, make your voice heard. My 11 grandchildren and yours are depending on you.
In a January 4, 2005, floor speech, Inhofe reiterated:
INHOFE: As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.
As the blog Think Progress noted, on the July 20, 2006, edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Inhofe claimed that "all of the recent science ... confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax." Also, during an interview on the November 28, 2006, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Inhofe asserted that there is no "relationship between manmade gases and global warming." Inhofe has also falsely claimed that "[i]t was warmer in the '30s than it is today" and baselessly asserted that "it was warmer in the 15th century than it is today."
Inhofe on the "big lie" of global warming
Further, Inhofe has reportedly compared those who believe that global warming is a manmade problem with the Nazis. In a July 14, 2006, article, The Albuquerque Tribune reported:
[Sen. Pete] Domenici [R-NM] said he's not interested. But if Domenici is indifferent, Sen. James Inhofe is downright hostile Inhofe is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has authority over the environmental areas not covered by Domenici's committee.
The Oklahoma Republican compares "An Inconvenient Truth," which he doesn't plan to see, to Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf."
"If you say the same lie over and over again, and particularly if you have the media's support, people will believe it," Inhofe said.
Similarly, as Think Progress noted, in a July 22, 2006, article, the Tulsa World reported:
Indeed, Inhofe insists that he feels even stronger about taking on what he sees as the current hysteria about global warming than he did several years ago when he first uttered that now-famous hoax statement.
In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.
"It kind of reminds ... I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said.
"You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their strategy."
Inhofe's committee
During his tenure as chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe repeatedly called people who shared his views on global warming to testify at Senate hearings. In a December 7, 2006, article, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
The views of the witnesses at Wednesday's hearing held few surprises. Two of the witnesses, David Deming, a University of Oklahoma geophysicist, and Dan Gainor of the Business and Media Institute, have written opinion columns praising Inhofe's skepticism on global warming. A third witness, paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, has penned scathing critiques of Europe's efforts to curb greenhouse gases.
The views of witnesses picked by the minority side were just as predictable. Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at UC San Diego, is the author of a study that found there is almost unanimous consensus among scientists that humans are the primary cause of rising temperatures. Another witness, Daniel Schrag, a geochemistry professor at Harvard University, has published research suggesting that rising carbon dioxide levels are contributing to hurricanes and more severe weather.
Similarly, an August 5, 2003, New York Times article reported that "Inhofe convened a hearing on Tuesday that focused on the work of the small core of researchers who insist that there is no evidence for human-caused warming of any import."
Inhofe and the Republican staff of his committee have also produced several reports supporting his position on global warming:
- In a January 30 report titled "Polar Bear Extinction Fears Debunked," the minority staff of the committee claimed that "[s]cientists and recent studies cast doubt on man-made melting of Arctic."
- In a December 8, 2006, press release, Inhofe announced the "public release" of the 64-page booklet, "A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming." According to the release, the booklet "includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore."
- In a September 2004 report to Inhofe titled "Political Activity of Environmental Groups and their Supporting Foundations," the majority staff asserted that "[t]oday's environmental groups are simply political machines reporting millions in contributions and expenditures each year for the purpose of raising more money to pursue their agenda." The report noted that several of the organizations cited curbing global warming as one of their priorities.
- In a report titled "The Facts and Science of Climate Change," Inhofe expanded upon his July 2003 Senate floor speech, concluding: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
From the March 7 Times article:
In Oklahoma, environmental groups are raising money to support Andrew Rice, a young state senator hoping to use Senator James M. Inhofe's views on global warming -- he has said that its effects are exaggerated -- to galvanize voters and deny Mr. Inhofe a fourth term.
Among those sending Mr. Rice money was Adam Browning, the executive director of Vote Solar, an advocacy group in California.
"When you look at what's happening in Congress right now, the magic number is not 51, it's actually 60," Mr. Browning said. "There has been a bunch of very important legislation from an environmental perspective that Republicans have successfully filibustered."
In an interview, Mr. Rice said: "What I find among swing voters statewide is it's time for change. Inhofe has been in there too long. They really don't care whether I am a Democrat or a Republican."
Republicans say Mr. Inhofe, 73, is a sure thing.
They sure grow them stupid in Oklahoma, don't they? I bet a significant percentage of Okies believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC and that dinosaurs were all drowned in the Great Flood, too.
I have no doubt that Inhofe will cruise to re-election. Even knuckle-dragging bottom-feeders deserve representation in the US Senate. And as long as Jack Kingston is in Congress, Inhofe will never be the dumbest person on Capital Hill.
I bet a significant percentage of Okies believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC and that dinosaurs were all drowned in the Great Flood, too.
And that would differ from the other 49 states how exactly?
Sadly, I think you are probably right. I suspect that the percentage of people who believe such nonsense is higher in Oklahoma than the national average, but probably not by all that much.
The other day, I heard the guy filling in for Rush Limbaugh complaining that the media never gives us the "good" news about Global Warming- that it would lead to "more warm summers, which means more vegetation, which means more food," to which the caller on the line said "how can we get the media to cover THAT side?" The guest host said "you can't, because we aren't talking about science here, just POLITICAL SCIENCE."
This is the junk millions of people consume every day. God help our grandchildren.
Hey TBONE:
Wouldn't you agree that it is fairly logical to believe that the dinosaurs, who were all killed during a very short time period, might have been killed by a natural disaster, such as a flood which would have drown them all? I mean, what is so inherently "knuckle-dragging" about such a thought? Hey, you guys actually believe Al Gore is telling you the truth about our impact on global temperature fluxuations, furthermore people like you believe that Gore is preaching his nonsense for totally alturistic reasons... HA Talk about knuckle-dragging!
Senator Inhofe is correct of course. It takes only a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics to understand that the earths temperature is controlled by the sun. It's sheer arrogance to think that mankind is affecting anything.
Regardless of man's affect the planet would have heated up after the last ice age.
The amount of carbon man puts in the atmosphere will not stop the next ice age.
There are plenty of real problems we should be solving as a species before we go running after imagined problems.
You know..... Molly Ivins was correct when in her book "You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You" she said on pg's 47-49 about the difference between liberal compassion and right-wing fanatism.
That when we liberals show compassion through compromise on an issue those on the right are fanatically passionate about that issue that it is seen by them as a gift of sorts or a sign of weakness and that the more we give in to their passion we exacerbate their fanatism.
And certainly Mr Inhofe and the likes of Rush and many in the White House fit this description to a tee!
Your statement comes very close to the "evolution is religion" garbage I've seen spewed out for years.
Scientists with training and experience in a specific field thoroughly evaluate mountains of data collected through measurements, observation and experimentation. They issue opinions based on that evidence. The volume of evidence accumulates to the degree that nearly all of those scientists are in agreement as to what it means.
Then along come some clowns who don't like their conclusion and try to dismiss it as some kind of blind faith. Pretty lame.
Climatologists have as good of a record of predicting future climate change as drunk monkeys with a dart board. There is a political agenda to the science that makes the opinion of the scientific community worthless. Like hula hoops and cabbage patch dolls, this will fade as the dire predictions turn out to be hogwash. Then the scientific community will begin the spinning that it really wasn't a consensus but some kind of overexhuberance by well-meaning, caring people.
Man can pollute the air with toxins and cause acid rain or polluted rivers and oceans, but man is a but is a pebble of sand on a beach in the amount of control we have over global warming. Worse yet, scientists are making outlandish predictions when they do not have the scientific capability to even understand the process let alone control it.
This is getting ridiculous. I've seen that "political agenda" nonsense spouted by creationists against those in the evolutionary sciences quite a bit, also. It fails both logic and the smell test. The scientific community is no more politically homogeneous than is any other well educated group of individuals. You'll find a full range of political opinions among scientists from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal, with the vast majority lying in between.
If the conclusions from research seemed to favor one particular side of the political spectrum, but was based on bad science, there is no way it would gain the consensus status that global warming has achieved. It has won over the support of the vast majority of climate scientists, liberal and conservative, based on the strength of the evidence, not because if advances a particular political agenda. The idea is laughable.
Climatology, like all sciences, is cummulative in nature. Their predictive models are constantly getting better and are currently much better than you give them credit for.
Your question: "Why is it stupid to believe that man-made pollutants can affect the climate?"
Answer: 1. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. 2. Human activity produces approximately 3 percent of the total carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere; the other 97 percent is produced by our "mother", the Earth. So, your idea that CO2 is killing the Earth is not only ridiculously laughable, it suggests that Mother Earth is commiting suicide.
Your other question: "What basic scientific principle does that violate, exactly?"
Answer: The principle that life begets life and our planet is a self-sustaining, self-adjusting, self-repairing system of life-giving elements that are estimated to continue sustaining life for several more billions of years or at least until the Sun burns out. Does that answer your question?
Better question: "What basic scientific law SUPPORTS your first assumption voiced in your first question, above?"
First: Name ONE example where your liberal compassion has been compromised in favor of conservatives who have poo-pooed as a sign of weakness your gesture.
Second: Your liberal compassion ALWAYS manifests itself in the taking of other people's money. You liberals should be made to put your so-called compassion where your money is, as normal people do. Try donating your own hard-earned cash directly to a family that is in-need, and leave other people's hard-earned money to themselves.
Finally: Here's an example of modern liberal compassion at work: Between 1940 and 1960 the percentage of poverty among American Black people dropped from 87 percent to 37 percent. This was before the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as before the "affirmative rights" movement of the 1970's. Further, this poverty rate among blacks declined from 47 percent to 30 percent during the 1960's, and then only from 30 percent to 29 percent during the 1970's. The most significant decline in poverty levels among Black's in American occured BEFORE the big modern liberal political movement of the 1960's was even though of. Yet, your typical liberal believes incorrectly that his "compassion" is to be credited with these decreases. And what's odd is that these same liberal, self-professed ultra-educated, progressive thinkers call us conservatives "knuckle draggers...." HAAAAA.... What a joke!
Q: "Umm, how can global warming be a religion when it is supported by science and empirical evidence?"
A: It isn't.
Q: "Isn't religion based on faith, which is the exact OPPOSITE of that?
"
A: Boy, you are a bright one, aren't you! Yes, but what's that got to do with politically-charged pseudo-science, such as man-made global warming?
Here's a question for you, Einstein: Since when has science ever been settled by, or based in "consensus"? ....that is, aside from the silly anecdotal cases wherein politics are at play?
"Republicans say Mr. Inhofe, 73, is a sure thing."
Does that make Andrew Rice an Inhofe denier?
CopiousConsent is retarded.Just smile and nod at his irrelevant links.
Good boy, CD. You did good.
COPIOUS,
Oh boy.... here we go again......
I went to that little link you gave us and decided to research the man that that particular post was about Roger Pielke (This is just one that I found).
Me thinks he is just another scientist that took money from one side and sold his expertise to it!
Regardless of whether global warming is man made or not... it is happening and I'm getting real tired of those of you closed minded fools that want to disregard it simply because liberals and Al Gore have taken it up as a cause that needs to be debated and considered!
Attack the messenger not the message seems to be the motto of the right-wing!
Knowing the potential impact of global warming upon the human race I wonder where the 'conservative compassion' is that if it turns out to be real and we did nothing, I can see you people blaming us liberals for not twisting your arms enough to have listened or rant and rave about how money and time was wasted because of our alarmist ways if nothing happens.
Which is exactly why my first post above was about Molly Ivins talking about fanatism of the right-wing and why it absolutely needs to be brought up in this thread!
Here is what I really don't get about the right wingers who just deny, deny, and deny some more that global warming is happening (with no facts behind them mind you). Answer me this:
Why is it bad that we want to clean up what is being pumped into the environment? How is that a "bad" thing? And don't go all anti capitalism on me, there are plenty of large businesses in the US who are asking for regulations to be put into place, because they know sooner, and or later, it's going to happen, and they'd rather be ahead of the curve. Look at businesses in Europe who were yelling and screaming about how invoking the Kyoto protocol was going to ruin their businesses. Said corporations are now making more money than ever.
Why is it bad that we want to save the planet that we ALL live on? This is the one question crazed right wingers who want to spew as much pollutant as possible into the air have yet to really answer. And HOW is that really political?
Sweetsouthernflower,
I am not oppossed to keeping the planet safe for us and our children. My problem is with the motivation of the effort behind the science to tell us the sky is falling.
When younger, I remember when I was not allowed to enter the waters of the Hudson just to swim. Now it has a thriving aquatic population and I have caught plenty of fish from there. The same with the great lakes, and now swimming in them is even encouraged for recreation! This has happened in my lifetime. Why, the power of the conservation movement in the 70's and the beginnings of manufacturing loss in the late 60's and early 70's. The steps were reasonable and allowed for economic growth along with environmental sensitivity. But the science has also improved auto engine perfomance through competition and innovation, plants have started using gasified coal rather than not produce power at all and the individual consumer has shopped for inexpensive products that saved money and encouraged eco-friendliness. I am a hunter and fisherman and consider myself to be a conservationist, but I also don't want to live in the stone age either.
My belief of today's environmental movement is that it prefers a stopping of economic progress and human imprint on the world. Energy is available that can inexpensively retrieved, power our economy and continue to be friendly to the environment. Remember before any inconveniet truths, Algore claimed that the combustible engine was the greatest threat to mankind.
"In his book, "Earth in the Balance," written after he lost his first White House bid in 1988, Gore warned that the next generation might experience "a decade without a winter," that deforestation could create damage for "tens of millions of years" and that the automobile presented a cumulative global threat "more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever against likely to confront."."
The fact is the use of fossil fuels is cleaner now than ever before. If you want to believe that CO2 will irreparably damage the earth but also know that we have nothing available, we can't put windmills near Martha's Garden you know, to sufficiently sustain our world's economic engine. While India, China and Russia go on accessing cheap fuel and not caring at all about the pollution they spew nor the Kyoto protocols by the way, we place ourselves in real peril by then allowing them to become economically more powereful than us. China and Russia in particular have about as much interest in keeping the environment clean as they have historically about human rights.
Look at how we are hamstringing ourselves by not going into ANWR or Gulf coast regions when Russia is in the Arctic Ocean claiming mineral rights or China is looking to drill off of the Cuban coasts. They aren't there because they hate the caribou or the porpoises, they just want the oil and gas found there. And unfortuantely countries with socialistic/totalitarian traditions could give an endangered rat's patoot about protecting the environment.
We can acquire the stuff cleanly and immediately ease the extreme pressure fuel prices that are hammering our economy. Within 24 hours of allowing drilling the wasteland in ANWR, the cost of a barrel of oil with drop $25-30 and rather than cutting production, the arabs would be expanding to thwart any more threats of expansion on our own soil.
Your question about what's political about a clean environment?, it's political because many here and overseas would rather see a weakened America and using politics attached to alot of topics including the environment to bring about that end, makes it so.
Proudconservationist
Proudconservative;
I note that you also styled yourself a conservationist. Reagan had an Interior Secretary that pointed out that there is a fundamental difference b/t preservationists and conservationists, a distinction I was not previously aware of. A conservationist sees nature as a stewardship, while a preservationist sees man as an intruder.
I recently heard of a book written by a green that explored how much better the world would be if there were no humanity despoiling it, if we weren't here! (I wonder who would read his book?)
These are the folks who say we should give up our freedoms to follow their agenda. No thanks!
I'll just address one thing about ANWR. Your argument that oil would drop $25-$30 immediately after drilling would begin is, well, an outrageous and un-true claim. How would this come about? Bear in mind that the oil underneath ANWR wouldn't be used to produce gas, since it's not the sweet crude required. How would it help? It would be years before the market impact of drilling there would help anything, if at all.
See, the thing I see most about global warming is that the right wingers are the ones constantly harping on about how this is political. How this is some sort of liberal plot to take away power from America. Hooey I say, pure BS. Nobody that lives in this country, and loves it, wants us to lose our standing and our power in the world. Nobody wants us to lose our economic power either, and yet, here we are. We are losing jobs, not due to environmental concerns and regulation, but because Americans like cheap crap made in China.
There are plenty of american corporations, as I said before, who are ASKING for regulations to be put into place, so that they can get ahead of the curve, so that they can start working things out. As I mentioned before, Europe put into place regulations, some of them pretty tight, and those businesses that had to cede to those regulations are doing great.
Engine technology you say? I say I work in the automotive industry, and most of the engines of the big 3 in Detroit are still being made with 1940's technology, with some small improvements. Hemi ring a bell? That's about a late 1940's design.
You call yourself a conservationist, and I don't doubt that you are. I am as well, but I believe we see conservation different. I want to conserve our country, and world, and I think that's more important than just about, well, anything. I do not want to live in the dark ages either, and we're never going back that way, that's just a strawman argument, but that's OK. Sure there are some kooks out there who want to head back that way, but the vast majority of people in the world are not among them. Al Gore, is not among them. His goal is not political at all. His goal is to literally save the world, which I find to be a pretty good goal. The problem with people who always claim that the environmentalists are in hysterics about this, is because there are people such as yourself who fail to recognize what's happening around you.
orangeblossomhater,
As for oil prices, remember this is sold on the commodities market. Speculation about future cost is what drives the price up or down. When arab nations see that the price is too low, they generally slow down production to raise the value of the resource. If all of a sudden, a major field is going to be drilled, then they will increase production and commodity traders will respond by lowering the speculative price. It's part of the forces of a market that set the price, not our wish for lower gas prices. You may know more about the quality of the crude in Alaska, but heavy crude is used in industry, diesel and home heating oil I presume.
With regard to the automobile, how could you like a guy like algore who claimed the car the destructive force to the environment he claims? And I would agree that the combustible engine has similar technology, but don't we burn gas more efficiently in newer engines? Or at least, haven't we gotten better mileage from our cars when compared to the 1940's?
Finally, your idea that Al Gore’s goal is to “save the planet” is a good goal, therefore Al is acting as a good guy not as a politician is one of those “feel-good” arguments that lacks any semblance of logic and/or reason. First off, the world does not need to be saved, by you, me, or by Al Gore. There is absolutely nothing you or I or any person on the planet will be able to do that will alter the climate or temperature of our planet. The “warming” trend over the past 120 years has been to the extent of less than one degree centigrade, 0.6 degrees C, which is about 1.2 degrees F. This is NOT significant. Furthermore, even if this were a significant increase, global average temperatures this winter have been so cold that the resulting global temperatures have reversed all “warming” trends of the past 120 years. It’s a crock. Gore IS a politician and a salesman, selling his ridiculous, useless carbon offset credits.
And, your claim that we “right wingers” rally against people like Al Gore and followers, because we don’t pay attention to what is happening around us is a load of completely unfounded propaganda; in a word INCORRECT. But then, you’re a liberal, so what’s to be expected if not PC ignorance and name-calling.
Where did all the Marxists go, long time ago...
They all went to academia, and turned green. Have you heard or seen any proposed global warming solution that doesn't expand government's powers and diminish individual freedom?
Man-made global warming is a hoax, pure and simple. And Algore is the snake-oil salesman of the century. P.T. Barnum would be a billionaire if he were alive today.
Guaranteed, if it were humanly possible to reverse global climate changes, an American entrepreneur would find a way to make a buck out of doing it.
The problem with the global warming hysteriacs is that they think the only cure for any problem is greater government involvement. Reagan was right, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. Keep the government out of it, and if it is humanly possible, free men will find a way to fix it.
But that's not the green way.
No, they won't.
Why? Because in the "free market" approach you espouse, it's cheaper, and easier to do it dirtier, therefore despoiling the place in which we live in. Think, Robber Barons for a good example of how non regulation, and non governmental involvement in business is bad.
Keep thinking the so called free market will fix everything. It won't.
Adding more government regulations does nothing more than making it more expensive to do business in a given country. Such tactics add extra burden and expense to companies. Therefore many companies choose to set up shop elsewhere, off shore, where the expenses are lower. It's called economics. Our companies in the United States are doing no substantial harm to our environment which is, by the way, cleaner today than it was 35 years ago. Your liberal idea that larger government is the answer to everything comes directly from Marx, Engles, Lenin and other related morons. Maybe you ultra educated, progressive thinking libs should continue to develop your so-called higher intellectual capacity by reading some good books, such as "Economic Facts and Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell, for starters. I know most of you would never dare to read Hohner's "Guide to Global Warming and Envrinmentalism", but if you ever grow the gnads and/or the desire to become as well-informed as you claim to be, then you'll do yourself a huge favor by reading both books.... for starters, that is. Finally, your reference to 'robber barons' is ancient history, i.e., relative to nothing current. Libs, grow up and learn about the modern examples of success and flush some of your university indoctrination down the poop hole where it belongs.
"Global warming" is the biggest canard of my lifetime. It is a cheap scam - a way to increase the cost of doing business. The government wants to control everything and they are usuing scare tactics to control the activities of private companies.
The "global warming" movement is rooted in socialism. It is a cheap attack on capitalism. You have lost the ideological debate vis-a-vis captalism vs. socialism, so you resort to these back door tactics.
Turn up the temperature.