Inhofe ignores Democratic ‘witch hunt’

inhofe addressSenate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe will ignore a politically- motivated “witch hunt” targeting climate scientists who are skeptical of global warming, with aides calling the Democrats’ effort an “exercise in theatrics.”

The Oklahoma Republican is content to ignore the Democratic effort aimed at undermining the scientists’ credibility by showing they were unduly influenced by money allegedly received from fossil fuel companies

Inhofe sees the investigations as an “exercise in theatrics from the minority” that does not warrant a “whole hearing,” the committee aide said. The panel’s oversight team will keep the issue on the radar, but the chairman doesn’t want to do anything that would benefit the opposition party and fuel the Democrats’ agenda.

The issue arose last month after a news article revealed that a scientist known for his skeptical views on climate change had received $1.2 million from an unnamed fossil fuel company.

The article spurred Democrats to start investigations in both the House and Senate, sending more than 100 letters to academic institutions, fossil-fuel trade associations and companies asking for records going back a decade on all funding related to research and outreach regarding climate change and global warming.

Inhofe and a group of GOP colleagues sent a counter letter to the same individuals and groups contacted by the Democrats, rebuking the investigation as an affront to the freedom of speech. “The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate effort to challenge these well-accepted truths,” the GOP letter read. “We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond.”

But that was the extent of the GOP response.

House Republicans dismissed the investigations as mere “political theater” in response to House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raul Grijalva’s, D-Ariz., effort to investigate the scientists.

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, plans to ignore the Democrats’ effort, said a committee spokesman.

“The chairman is not engaging in the investigation, which is simply political theater,” the spokesman said. “Instead Mr. Bishop is focusing on the real issues under the committee’s jurisdiction, including addressing the upcoming forest fire season and promoting reforms based on science-based management practices, increasing energy production in offshore waters and on our federal lands, streamlining permitting, and modernizing up energy, power and water infrastructure.”

Back in the Senate, the Environment and Public Works Committee aide said the panel is too busy to invest time in countering a Democratic witch hunt. Instead, the panel will focus on oversight of the administration’s climate agenda, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant rules, known as the Clean Power Plan.

The plan sets carbon dioxide emissions limits for each state with the goal of reducing greenhouse gases, which many scientists have linked to global warming, from the nation’s existing fleet of power plants.

Republicans argue that the cost of the EPA plan is not justified and will cause irrevocable harm to the country’s economy.


Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    I thought the politician’s were authorized to make the law within the powers delegated and not the out of control EPA doing end
    runs to meet their own agenda .

    The EPA should be formally advised that should they continue to try and attempt to by pass Congress all senior management will be fired for cause .

    • Avatar




      But this whole thing developed out the ” administrative law ” concept nonsense and by leave of the fed and state legislatures who no longer wanted to take responsibility and criticism for what was happening.

      This concept first started with the creation of the federal reserve during the Wilson administration although it was totally unconstitutional for congress to delegate it’s responsibility to regulate the currency and assign it to an unelected and unaccountable private entity.

  • Avatar



    If congress were actually serious about being good environmental and fiscal stewards, they would recognize that they already have expert testimony that would stop this insanity.

    [i]The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of (1) a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, (2) serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and (3) cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives policies, including doing nothing.

    Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific basis to enact regulations. In effect, the warming alarm is like a three-legged stool: each leg needs to be strong. Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three legs.

    We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—leg “1” of the stool. This audit found that the IPCC procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles.

    We also audited forecasting procedures, used in two papers, that were written to support regulation regarding the protection of polar bears from global warming —leg “3” of the stool. On average, the forecasting procedures violated 85% of the 90 relevant principles.

    The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures. Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. This count of “votes” by scientists is not only an incorrect tally of scientific opinion, it is also, and most importantly, contrary to the scientific method.

    We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts that were based on the assumption that there would be no regulations. [b]The errors for the IPCC model long-term forecasts (for 91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based “no change” model.[/b]

    [b]Based on our own analyses and the documented unscientific behavior of global warming alarmists, we concluded that the global warming alarm is the product of an anti-scientific political movement.[/b]

    Having come to this conclusion, we turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the likely outcomes of the warming alarmist movement. In our ongoing study [b]we have, to date, identified 26 similar historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts behind the analogous alarms proved correct. Twenty-five alarms involved calls for government intervention and the government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.[/b]

    Our findings on the scientific evidence related to global warming forecasts lead to the following recommendations:

    1. End government funding for climate change research.

    2. End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy; CO 2 reduction; habitat loss).

    3. End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global warming.

    4. End government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global warming.[/i]

    Testimony to Committee on Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on “Climate Change: Examining the processes used to create science and policy” – March 31, 2011

    Professor J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania,
    with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia,
    and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    I guess the ‘Precautionary Principle’ goes out the window when it doesn’t meet the agenda. 😆

Comments are closed