With the Republican takeover of Congress in the midterms, new individuals will be chosen and approved for committee leaders and other governmental offices. One such office is the leader of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. The GOP choice? Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who not only denounces global warming, but also one compared the EPA to the Gestapo.
In general, Inhofe believes that global warming is a hoax developed by liberals searching for a way to tighten restrictions on the actions of businesses. He even wrote a book in 2012 titled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future in which he describes himself as the lonely crusader against an environmental-liberal conspiracy. Repeatedly he has called for limitations to be placed on the EPA, even calling for congressional action to limit EPA regulations on clean water. He believes that the EPA requirements exceeds the agency’s authority and tramples on the rights of the states. To top it all off, Inhofe also believes that the increase in carbon emissions (one of the root causes of global warming) can be beneficial to mankind, claiming in a 2003 paper that there is a substantial amount of scientific information that carbon emissions help plant life and animal environments. In the same paper he also equated U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a “Soviet-style trial.”
Not surprisingly, Inhofe and the US as well as international science community don’t tend to get along very well. For instance, Inhofe has often claimed that hundreds of scientists disagree with the idea that global warming is the result of human activity. Unfortunately, the statistics do not back him up as 97% of international scientists working in fields related to the environmental study agree that human activity is the driving force behind current global warming trends. In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that such a statistic “doesn’t mean anything.” Likewise, Inhofe also holds that the rising temperature is simply one of the Earth’s 30-year cycles. The scientific community, however, disagrees. The 2012 Start of the Climate report by the American Meteorological Society (compiled by 384 scientists from 52 countries) emphasized that warming trends are happening much more rapidly than any natural warming process. The current state of the climate is not simply part of a “cycle.”
What is most concerning is that currently Inhofe is set to take charge of a committee that oversees public policy. While this may cause uproar among environmentalists, it will also create a headache for the GOP. A Democratic aide even called Inhofe’s potential promotion a “silver lining” to the Democrat’s losses as Democrats could potentially use Inhofe as the face of GOP scientific ignorance and know-nothingness. “Leave it to today’s GOP to put someone who doesn’t believe in basic science at the helm of the committee that oversees environmental protection,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in an email Monday.“It’s unfortunate that Republicans continue to put more stock in their rigid ideology than science and what’s best for the country.”
I believe that Inhofe’s selection for this position is an enormous misstep by the the Republican party. In recent years, the GOP has become a symbol of individuals who are out of touch and ignorant of recent scientific revolutions, often being criticized as out-of-date. With individuals like Inhofe in chanre it will only solidify this stereotype. Moreover, the decisions Inhofe may make in this position could be extremely detrimental to our nation’s environmental policy. From my perspective, a politician who does not have some form of scientific background or refuses to cooperate and work with the scientific community should not be left in charge of our countries environmental policy. What do you think? Do you believe that Inhofe has any qualifications for the position? What effect do you think it will have on the American people’s perception of the Republican party?
Sources:
11 comments:
Kassie, I totally agree with everything you've said. I think its blasphemous that the Republicans even entertained the notion of Inhofe being chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I cannot fathom how the Republicans made such a large oversight, selecting someone who has absolutely no knowledge on the board they're going to lead.
Personally, I’m all for people having their own beliefs; if someone choose they do not believe in science, by all means go ahead and think that, but don’t chair a Senate commission on science if you don’t believe in it. Inhofe is letting his personal beliefs get in the way of policy and is doing so at the expense of actual research for change that needs to happen. In fact, Inhofe thinks the United Nations invented the concept of climate change to "shut down the machine called America.”
Furthermore, Inhofe thinks this argument is pointless: he says, “God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” This highlights a key divide between religion and science that has characterized the Republican Party for decades. On a side note, though, to add to list of blunders Inhofe has committed, even the Pope has admitted that God is not “a magician, with a magic wand.” If the Pope says that, there is no way Inhofe can think he’s right.
Bringing Inhofe’s climate transgressions back to America, the choice of Inhofe reflects poorly upon the Republican Party in its entirety. If they thought it was a good idea to pick a completely unqualified person to hold a position of power, they were sadly mistaken: the typical American person is not that clueless. They know that Inhofe’s class that CO2 emissions will help one live longer are false, as well as disbelief of science. With these, the GOP has dug itself a hole that will be hard to get out of.
On a final note, just to remind us how lucky we are we have common sense, I want to illustrate just how little clue Inhofe has about anything. Paraphrased, Inhofe says science is for suckers: “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.”
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanham/james-inhofe-climate-change_b_6142170.html
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=562:beware-of-the-climate-trap&catid=126:kr&Itemid=395
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/10/28/god-is-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-says-pope/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/223056-inhofe-ill-chair-environment-committee
Kassie, I completely agree that Inhofe’s position in this issue reinforces the people’s belief that the GOP is full of ignorant politicians who have little knowledge regarding the sciences. If Inhofe has minimal, if any, scientific background, then it would prove to be difficult for him to communicate with the scientific community, let alone work with them. Such a man should not be in charge of our country’s environmental policy if he will place his interests for his state above the interests for the United States.
Inhofe claimed in 2003 that no one has demonstrated any scientific proof that increases in global temperatures would lead to catastrophes; in fact, he stated that “increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.” Again, in 2012, when there was more development in climate change science, Inhofe cited the Bible and said, “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” He is allowing his religious beliefs to interfere with his decision making that will ultimately affect the rest of America. If Inhofe is uneducated in the science field, he should at least be open to listen and understand what today’s scientists have found.
Although we may question his qualifications, for the position, one thing that is clear is the policies that he will pursue with the Republican majority in Congress. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who represents Kentucky, a “stronghold of coal interests,” had made clear that he supports Inhofe’s leadership, and that he will aim to fight the new rules that are aimed at reducing the amount of coal burned, along with “approving the Keystone XL pipeline, and expanding U.S. energy production. Other people may find this outrageous, but the people of Kentucky may support these policies because it will stimulate their economy and benefit them financially. Obama is expected to veto if it ever is presented to him as stand-alone bills, but he will face more difficult challenges if Republicans bundle these policies as “‘rider’ provisions in broader legislation that he may be reluctant to reject, such as budget bills necessary to keep the government operating.
Links:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/jim-inhofe-u-s-environmental-overseer-climate-change-denier/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120134/climate-change-denier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee
Kassie, I believe that this is a catastrophic because it is no doubt global warming exists and humans are the cause, statistics indicate it without question. To me it is quite clear that Inhofe is using fake statistics such as a lot of scientists do not believe humans are the cause of global warming when 97% do, just to further his political agenda to give business's more freedom. He is so biased towards the businesses that there is no logical reason to put him in charge. This type of position needs a neutral person who is open minded, has scientific experience, and uses real statistics. All of these Inhofe lacks. Statistics have proven there are rising sea levels caused by global warming which will severely threaten many countries, including our own, it is projected in the future that Manhattan could be partially underwater. Inhofe clearly does not care about the environment or people for that matter; all he cares about is the economy and business. This will have an astounding negative effect on the Republican Party due to the fact that such blatant disregard to the well being of the country in order to further help businesses is disgusting and immoral. I am slightly republican however this infuriates me that Inhofe might become the next head of the EPA which would essentially make it a joke of a government agency since nothing will ever get done. This in my opinion will be political suicide for the Republican Party because of such a sensitive issue that will effect not future generations but my own and would force people like me to vote against Republicans. Overall, putting such a stubborn, arrogant, and biased person in charge of such an important government agency is a recipe for disaster that it will cause the environment to suffer such devastating negative effects and hurt the Republican Party as well.
Undoubtedly, it was a mistake to even suggest that Inhofe should be put in charge of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. Environmental issues are some of the biggest problems that our country faces today - it doesn't do any good to stick our heads in the sand, much as Inhofe has been doing. His ignorance is honestly astounding, and why the GOP chose him to lead the committee is beyond me. This situation reinforces the reputation of the Republicans of being the more traditional, "go with the status quo" party, but with a more negative connotation. I find it kind of surprising that the GOP chose Inhofe because ignoring climate change seems like a very unpopular stance. Generally politicians support policies that will get them elected, but it seems like the majority of the population supports taking action to reduce the causes of global warming. At the very least, most people recognize that global warming is a legitimate concern - it is difficult to argue with science. Regardless, Inhofe appears to disagree with facts, which only makes him seem misinformed and ignorant. His opinion will most likely alienate both himself as well as the Republican party as a whole from the electorate.
I agree that this is a poor decision by the Republican Party. After just gaining a majority in Congress, they have already taken a serious misstep and are losing popularity fast. Inhofe has no right to be the leader of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. His evidence and ideas supporting his opinion on global warming and the overall state of our world's environment are factually wrong and are rarely backed up by and scientific evidence or findings. As you mentioned in your post, 97% of international scientists take an opposite stance on the idea of human activity and global warming. This man should not be in charge of an environmental agency if only a small minority of people agree with his views.
The person to hold this position should come from a scientific background and should have previous knowledge of human interactions with the environment. It should not matter which party is in control at this time, but rather we should select the candidate who is the most qualified for the position and who will do the best job to protect our environment for future generations. As you made clear in your post, Senator James Inhofe is not the right choice.
This decision by the GOP will absolutely have some repercussions in future polls and elections. As environmental issues have come to the forefront of our society over the past couple decades, believers in global warming and the harm that humans are causing to the environment will no longer side with the GOP, due to this decision. As a result of this action, I think that the Republican Party will lose supporters in upcoming elections.
Kassie, I completely agree with your opinion on Inhofe. It is foolish to place the fate of our country’s environmental policies in the hands of man who clearly has no accurate scientific knowledge on the problems our environment is facing. Furthermore, it is even worse that Inhofe refuses to accept scientific data that rejects his own claims. The leader of the environmental and public works committee should at the very least have a measured response to both sides of the issue. A good chair of a committee, in other must be willing to compromise and negotiate with people of opposing viewpoints in order to come to an agreement that provides for the good of the common people.
Based on the sources you quote Kassie, it appears Inhofe is unable to use critical thinking and see both sides of the situation. These are signs of a stubborn and uncompromising leader and as a result of course he reflects poorly on the GOP.
Additionally, appointing Inhofe reflects badly on the Republican Party because his opinions don’t represent what all of the Republicans believe. There are clearly Republicans who know Inhofe’s ideas are wrong, yet who are not objecting enough to stop Inhofe from taking this position. Are Republican’s really going to sit back and accept a man in a leadership position who is rejecting what 97% of scientists claim is true? Unfortunately, this appears this is the case.
Democrats already dislike the Republican Party, so this won’t make Democrats think any less of Republicans. The real problem is what the world will think based on this Republican decisions and their selection of leaders. If this were just a local committee, this leadership selection would not be a huge problem. However, Inhofe is taking reigns of the environmental committee overlooking the entire country. As a result, his poor decisions and inaccurate interpretation of scientific data will inevitably reflect negatively on our country.
It was indeed a mistake that Republicans would even think to put Inhofe as the chair of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee. It is sad to think that Republicans have just taken over Congress and with choices like this loose many of their popularity fast. In today's society, environmental issues have become one of the largest problems out there and Inhofe will be ignorant enough to let it be played down. It interests me that GOP would take inhofe political stance on climate change when he seems to know little about it. 97% of international scientists take an opposite stance on the idea of human activity and global warming. So maybe we don't have the right man for the job. It is evident that we need someone who will reflect on what is happening in America today and have some common sense about science research. Global warming is a legitimate problem today and needs to be noticed.
While I do agree with the rest of the commenters that climate change is an extremely serious problem that should be addressed by our government, I think most of you are seriously overestimating how many people believe in global warming. In a recent Gallup poll, it was found that 65% of Americans believe global warming will happen in their lifetime. Only 54% of Americans believe it has already begun. What’s even more surprising is that only 36% believe global warming will pose a serious threat to their way of life during their lifetimes. Based on this poll, one third of Americans don’t believe in climate change at all and nearly two thirds don’t think it will impact their lives in any way. These people are unlikely to take exception to Inhofe’s incorrect and inappropriate beliefs. Many of you have said this will be a catastrophic event for the Republicans, when in truth it is unlikely to change much. When living in a more liberal and forward thinking area like Ridgefield, it is easy to think that much of America holds similar views. The stark reality however is that a large portion of America holds very conservative views regardless of any scientific evidence to support the contrary. The United States must do more to address the issue of climate change, and President Obama has been making good progress recently. The only way to really make a big change, though, is to educate Americans on the consequences of climate change.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/not-global-warming-serious-threat.aspx
As a believer in global warming, along with most of the scientific community, the fact that the man that the Republican Party wants to put in charge of our Environment and Public Works Committee does not believe in global warming is sadly laughable. There is a wealth of scientific evidence proving that global warming is real and a true threat to all. If we just look at the north east, storms, such as Hurricane Sandy, which normally occur every 100 years have been occurring much more frequently. Personally saying that global warming is not occurring follows the same logic of not believing in gravity or the fact that people need oxygen to breath. However everyone has tge right to believe in what they want to, so Mr. Inhofe does not need to change his point of view. However the Republican Party should know better than to choose Inhofe as the committee's leader. Despite the Republicans recent win in the Senate midterm election, they do not generally have the best public appearance. Having a leader on the board of environment who does not believe in global warming would be suicidal for their future elections. If the Republican Party wants to expand their stereotypical public image they will appoint a leader who will mediate the conversations that take place or who believes in what the scientist have to say. The Republican Party needs to think about the long run and what implications appointing Inhofe could have on their public image. Satisfying the public's wish and not the desire of one man is why they are in office and they should think about this before they give Inhofe the job.
I agree with Nancy in that a person with little to no scientific background is certainly not the right person for a job which involves the necessary scientific proof and reasoning to make the correct decisions involving the environment. As Ben stated, the number of people who acknowledge or believe in global warming is startlingly lower than expected, and I believe that is all the more reason that Mr. Inhofe should not be given the position. The public needs to be educated on a issue that will seriously impact their lives as well as the lives of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and and official who does not even have significant education on the subject cannot provide this for them. I believe that giving Mr. Inhofe the position will only bring attention away to such an important issue that not many people understand the full extent of to begin with. It will become a cycle. If people are uneducated about the issue, they will not feel as though it is important to have a scientifically minded official in charge of this subject, and without a scientifically minded official in office, the issue will only receive less attention, and the cycle will begin again. In order for global warming to receive the attention it deserves, an official who knows what he or she is talking about needs to be utilized.
Kassie, I agree with you in the sense that leaving a man who abhors the EPA and the preemptive measures it takes in charge of the Environment and Public Works Committee is ineffective, but I'll draw the line at that in terms of agreement. First off, I think that the concept behind Inhofe's potential nomination is brilliant: put a man who doesn't agree with the actions of a certain part of the government bureaucracy in charge of a significant part of it. This could result in inaction by said branch of the bureaucracy, and eventually lead to the downsizing of not just the government, but the behind the scenes untouchable organizations that run it as well. Maybe a bureaucratic organization that protects the environment isn't necessarily the best place to start, but the idea is there. Secondly, I think that you underestimate the advantage of having a politician that is outspoken against climate change and mainstream belief in power. Although it may be alarming to those who posted that such a man could obtain power in the face of such overwhelming facts, he could use his power and opinions for good. For example, his opposition to regulation of carbon emissions could serve as a bolster to "dirty energy" companies, which have been under attack lately. Now, many of the libs might shout "but there's green energy instead!"...but if you look on (I believe it was Kevin's) a previous blog post, you'd see that Green Energy has had money funneled into it, but has not been able to get off the ground because of oppressive business regulations. So, If you want someone like Inhofe out of office, liberals would have to fold over on their beliefs and butt out of the economy by deregulating green energy, allowing it to grow, and therefore setting America on the mainstream path of green energy. However, that won't happen. This next bit may sound offensive, but I don't really see any reason for it to be false. Republicans tend to foster the heavily religious and faith-based, while the Democrats have the atheists and agnostics (generally)...but where Republicans falter politically because of deep rooted beliefs (such as Inhofe hating the EPA), Democrats falter in the same way in order to retain whatever power is in question (such as how deregulating green energy would solve this entire issue, but they would never do so because they wouldn't have any power over it). As a result, Inhofe will be a point of great friction and deadlock in the future should he win office, and will definitely be subject to argument amongst politicians in months to come. (ps to Bea, since you tried to criticize him with the Bible...his belief that we shouldn't tamper with the Earth's cycles because it is God's doing is derived from the books of Genesis and Exodus, where the overall message is "don't question God's ways, they are beyond the understanding of humans, and are a part of a grand plan." So, without trampling upon the man's beliefs or declaring yourself a God [which would be the actual definition of blasphemous, a word you used], could you criticize him from that standpoint? I don't believe so.)
Post a Comment