So this week Rachel Maddow had her long awaited interview with James Inhofe the most well known Climate Change Denier in the Senate. And it was fairly magical.
Prefacing the segment Maddow set the stage with this piece on the debunction of "Climate Gate".
Here Maddow explalns that the Emails which were stolen from the University of East Anglia which had apparently shown that Scientist were using "Tricks" to hide the "Decline" in temperatures, really weren't doing that. They were actually implementing a correction for the fact that gauging temperatures based on tree rings since 1960 have been shown to be not that accurate, therefore an adjustment has to be made for that data.
So will Inhofe accept or reject that information?
What do you think?
I myself found Inhofe fascinating. He seems like a fairly kindly old man in this segment. Highly intelligent, but a prime example of the kind of Confirmation Bias and Addiction to Preconceptions that I've been thinking about ever since I read John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience where he examined the tendency for the Conservative movement to be afflicted with Authoritarianism.
I think he was right, but I think there's more to it than that. Just watch how Inhofe bobs, dodges and weaves around the facts like a Muhammad Ali vs Frasier. (Also the Tar Sands intro Commercial is quite Hilarious)
His entire "You won't believe this but I'm happy to be here".... schtick is annoying. Why exactly wouldn't she believe that? He starts off nearly with his first sentence by projecting bias onto Maddow, then start pull what he feels are left-wing sources to confirm ClimateGate.
Inhofe: I got to tell you about some of the left-wing and how they responded to it. This Climate-Gate was a big deal. Hold on, just a minute, let me tell you about this...
Note: Maddow did not try to interrupt him - he
pre-empted her interruption when it didn't even happen
Inhofe: The UK Telegraph said this "This is the worst Scientific Scandal of our Generation", the Financial Times said it "was a fraud on a scale I've never seen before" and the IPCC, this comes from the United Nations, Dr. Phillip Lloyd said "Fraud, is not a scientific position",, Newsweek finally changed their position. I mean, you can't find anyone whose "White Washing this thing except you...
Uh what? Ok, doing the Google I do find a blogger at The Telegraph by the name of Jame Delingpole who does continue to beat the
Climate-Gate Hoax drum. He also happens to be author of a book titled "
Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future" so I really wouldn't say this guy is a "Left-Winger" by any stretch.
More recent reports from the Telegraph by actual reporters say this:
The so-called ‘climategate’ scandal prompted three separate enquiries in Britain alone. Although the scientists involved were cleared of any scientific wrongdoing the university was criticised for failing to be more open with information around climate change.
So it's not really the Telegraph's position that Climate-Gate was valid, it's just the opinion of that Delingpole guy.
This is exactly like what Dick Cheney used to do with evidence about Iraq's WMD. He would have his chief of staff Scooter Libby leak (false) information to Judith Miller who would then publish that leaked info in the New York Times, then Cheney would go on Meet the Press and say "See, even the New York Times says this is true". It was like ventriloquism, two mouths speaking but only one voice being heard.
And the Financial Times? They said this:
The emails from climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia did not constitute evidence against established climate change science, the vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told reporters on Saturday, on board the Climate Express from Brussels to Copenhagen.
Yeah, somehow that figures. He's just like one of those Nigerian Email Hucksters trying to get you to spend $10,000 in order to get $150,000 that will never show up.
A few other items that Thinkprogress caught in Inhofe's statements here. He claims that he was a supporter of efforts to curb Climate Change until he found out "How much it costs".
Inhofe: “I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.
He then goes on to claim that it would costs $Billions while Thinkprogress points out that the cost of NOT acting soon could easily be in $1.2 Trillion.
Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions
They also point out how he ignores 97% of the Scientists who agree on Climate-Change.
That isn’t true Rachel. You say something over and over again and your audience, particularly your liberal audience, they want to believe it [...] This 97 percent, that doesn’t mean anything. I’ve named literally thousands of scientists on the floor.
It's clear by this very statement that Inhofe himself understands exactly what Confirmation Bias is - he's accusing Maddow and her audience of having it. Of
wanting to believe that the earth is slowly cooking itself. Yeah, I really want
that cheery thought to be true. I wouldn't feel the least bit relieved if it wasn't.
He then goes on to claim that Nature Magazine reported that an American University Study that proports that the Global Warming proponents outspend the Energy Industry by 2 to 1 in the media.
Inhofe: You got your Move On's, Michael Moores, George Soros and Hollywood...
Maddow: I'll put Exxon against Michael Moore's spending anyday
Thinkprogress :
One of his points was that environmentalists aren’t “winning” despite outspending the energy industry 2-1. But environmentalists are the ones vastly outspent by dirty energy, 8 to 1 in lobbying and contributions during the climate bill debate. Inhofe’s evidence was a discredited Climate Shift report where even the leading expert on the report withdrew his name.
Another amazing thing he says, something that I also heard from Newt Gingrich a few days ago, is that America has all the Oil Reserves it needs for the next 90 years - if you include Shale Oil and Tar Sands. It's the same thing the Exxon Commercial that comes up before the video says - and it's a MYTH. It's even
on Snopes.
The U.S. currently imports an average of about 10 million barrels of oil per day (for a total of about 3.65 billion barrels of oil per year), so even if all the estimated undiscovered oil in the Bakken formation were extracted today, it would only be enough to wean the U.S. off of crude oil imports for one year.
One year of Oil is not worth destroying ground water and
creating Earthquakes.
As much as Inhofe accuses Rachel and her audience of "Not being aware" of things, it is rather interesting when she questions his books criticism of her directly over his visit to Copenhagen and points out that on that particular show she didn't talk about Inhofe in the context of Climate-Change, she was talking about Inhofe's connections to C-Street, the Family and the "Kill the Gays" bill.
Inhofe amazingly, denied any knowledge of the Uganda "Kill Gays" Bill even while claiming that he knows Uganda well, He further went on to claim he didn't know who David Bahati, author of the Bill was at all.
MADDOW: The “Kill the Gays” bill sponsor has brought the bill back now, and he’s telling reporters, as of last month, that the whole idea for the “Kill The Gays” bill came from, as the New York Times put it, “a conversation with members of The Fellowship” — a.k.a. The Family — “in 2008—”
INHOFE: No, that’s just wrong.
MADDOW: This is what he says! This is how he explains where the bill came from.
INHOFE: Who is he?
MADDOW: He is David Bahati. He says he was told by Americans that it was too late in America to propose such legislation. That’s David Bahati speaking to The New York Times.
INHOFE: And can you tell me who he is? I’ve never heard of him.
MADDOW: David Bahati was described as The Family and The Fellowship’s “key man” in Uganda. Did you ever talk to any Uganda legislators?
INHOFE: How would I know if—? How could I—? I don’t have any idea who you’re talking about, and I certainly don’t have any idea on these accusations of executing gays.
Here's what Jeff Sharlet, author of expose on C-Street and "The Family" had to say about Inhofe's claim on twitter.
@JeffSharlet Sen Inhofe: "I've never heard of him" -- #killthegays author Bahati. FLAT OUT LIE. #CStreet
His attack on Maddow in his book,
was wrong. She wasn't even talking about his visit to Copenhagen on the show he referenced, now he expects everyone to believe that he
knows Uganda, he
knows Africa ("Most Senators couldn't find Arica on a map" he says) but he
doesn't know David Bahati or the "Kill the Gays" Bill" that was suggested by members of the Family?
That just doesn't pass the smell test, but what's possibly even worse if you just suppose that Inhofe has essentially deluded himself into not knowing Bahati and what he's up to, just as he's deluded himself about everything else!. It's like selective unknowing. Like I've said, some of these people are truly, deeply, willfully deluded by bullshit. Especially bullshit that helps them C.Y.A.
Vyan