Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is an avowed climate science believer who comes from a state with enough solar resource to power the entire nation. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is an avowed climate science denier who comes from a major oil patch state.
So why has McCain voted with Inhofe and against clean energy and the environment a staggering 42 out of 44 times since the mid-1990s? And that doesn't even include eight straight votes on extending the renewable energy tax credits that McCain missed in the last year, where he would have sided with Inhofe and against a clean energy future.
The answer is that "Few politicians in history have more successfully sold a phony image about caring for the environment than Sen. John McCain" -- which is the central point of my new Salon piece, "John McCain's hot air." The facts are clear: McCain is at best an out-of-touch greenwasher and at worst simply a pathological liar.
For instance, at an Aspen Institute meeting in August, when McCain was asked about those missed votes, he simply lied to the audience:
I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. I come from a state where we have sunshine 360 days a year ... I've always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote.
As for McCain's "long record of that support of alternate energy," consider the votes on renewable energy funding and a federal "renewable portfolio standard" (RPS) that he did show up for this decade:
- Tax credits for clean energy R&D (2001)
- Require a 20 percent RPS where utilities buy 20 percent clean energy ('02)
- Reduce 20 percent RPS requirement ('02)
- Waive 20 percent RPS if utilities balk ('02)
- Increase clean energy R&D funding ('05)
- Clean energy incentives ('05)
- An RPS to require utilities [to] buy some clean energy ('05)
- Tax oil companies windfall profits to fund clean energy ('05)
In every case, McCain voted against renewables, as did James "Global warming is 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people'" Inhofe. On the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the biggest congressional effort to push alternative energy in more than a decade, McCain voted against it along with just 11 other senators. Even Inhofe voted for it.
As for, "I have not missed any crucial vote," how about these two -- just in the past 12 months:
On Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate was considering a bill to spend $13 billion on renewable power over five years. The cloture vote to allow the amendment to be brought to the Senate floor required 60 votes; it received 59 for, 40 against, and one senator absent. Yes, you guessed it: No McCain. A spokesman later said "he would not have supported breaking the filibuster."
Again, in February, the Senate tried to include in a stimulus package an extension of the renewable tax credit, plus nearly $3 billion more for alternate energy. The cloture vote again failed 59-40-1. And again, McCain's absence didn't kill an unpopular alternative energy bill -- it stopped a popular bill from even coming to a vote.
So McCain missed two absolutely crucial votes and long opposed alternative energy. Yet if you watch the Aspen video, McCain seems so earnest, so genuine. He does, after all, "come from a state where we have sunshine 360 days a year." Who could believe such a person could ever be so steadfastly opposed to solar power, that such a person could be an eco-Luddite who believes "The truly clean technologies don't work"?
McCain is either a very practiced liar who can fake sincerity, a pathological liar who believes his own lies, or a man with simply no memory of key events even a few months ago.
Either way, at this point, it is impossible to believe anything that John McCain says. The only thing dirtier than McCain's lies is his environmental record.
Check out the full Salon piece here.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Wind: still enough to save the world
Why we overestimate the costs of climate change legislation
The faint silver lining of the Waxman-Markey clean-energy-mandates cloud
Comments View as Flat
okcchemist Posted 7:41 am
22 Sep 2008
Elections
I hate to be the one to advise you that Inhofe will easily be re-elected here in my state of Oklahoma. It appears that McCain will also win the Presidency. I'm not saying that I support either one, I'm just a realist.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:16 pm
22 Sep 2008
Inhofe, can't speak about him...
But as for McCain, it's going to take something major to get him into the White House.
His campaign is coming apart. He got some positive bounce with Palin but that has totally faded.
He's having major problem with the press, even the conservative pundits are openly questioning his truthfulness.
He's got a financial advisor who is held to be a major reason that the financial markets got to far out of control.
He had to bury his other financial/business advisor when her tongue got away from her. And then there was the $40+ million golden parachute that she got which doesn't play well with his anti-parachute statements.
He's got an assistant who was lobbying for Georgia and appears to have got some favors for the country from McCain.
And his Chief of Staff was just outed, which is not going to be welcomed news to his religious base. Especially as McCain was apparently very aware of his orientation.
Even the 10 cars and 3 golf carts are getting a lot of press ....
Permalink
Snorbert Zangox Posted 6:12 am
23 Sep 2008
As wrong as Romm
The 2003 ice core data clearly show that throughout the past half million years that temperature increases have preceded carbon dioxide concentration increases. The ice core data also show that temperature decreases have always preceded decreases in carbon dioxide concentrations. The data that have accumulated during the present warming period also show that temperature increased before carbon dioxide concentrations increased.
Data collected over approximately 600 years of sun observations show that there is a nearly perfect correlation between solar activity (sunspot numbers) and global temperature. Several researchers have identified the increased electromagnetic field associated with increased sunspot activity as an agent that deflects incoming cosmic rays from the solar system. Those cosmic rays increase low-level cloudiness, which reflects incoming solar radiation and leads to cooling beyond what we would expect from decreased solar output alone. The prevention of low-level cloudiness would increase global temperature beyond what we would expect from the increased solar output during periods of active sunspots.
High quality scientists used classical chemical methods to measure the concentration of carbon dioxide at many locations around the world between circa 1800 and 1961. Those data show that the concentration of carbon dioxide exceeded the present day concentration on at least 3 occasions during that period, on one occasion the concentration approached 500 ppm. During none of those periods of high carbon dioxide did the global temperature tip over a precipice and go spiraling out of control. In fact, the global temperature did not increase at all because of those high carbon dioxide concentrations.
The models predict a hot spot between 3 and 10 km altitude over the tropics. The temperature in this zone would increase about 3 times faster than the temperature at the surface if the warming were the result of carbon dioxide. Satellite and balloon data agree that the hot spot does not exist. In addition, the temperature today is below the error band of the model projections made just 10-years ago. The models are wrong.
All of these facts are consistent with sun-driven temperature changes and carbon dioxide changes in compliance with Henry's Law. None of it is consistent with carbon dioxide-driven warming. The hypothesis has failed to describe reality and we must discard it and move on.
The sun is now more quiescent than it has been since the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Global temperatures have held steady or even decreased slightly since 1997. If the sun continues on its current course, we may have another period of uncomfortably cold weather.
I fervently hope that President McCain turns out to be as wise as Mr. Romm thinks that he is. We need protection from the forces of warming hysteria.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:45 am
23 Sep 2008
It is a joke or what !!
On one side, we have idiots who don't even believe that global warming is happening (Republicans)
On the other side, we have idiots who cut funding to GNEP - the very technology that can best prevent global warming and solve energy woes (Democrats)
Good luck American people. You are screwed both ways.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Snorbert Zangox Posted 8:01 am
23 Sep 2008
Idiots
Perhaps, before you start calling folks "idiot", you should offer at least one shred of physical evidence that carbon dioxide causes the climate to warm.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:27 am
23 Sep 2008
re: Snorbert
Lets start off with satellite records only.
You effectively got 2 atmospheric layers that make up the near entirety of our atmosphere.
You got sunlight coming into the earth, and heat reflecting back out into space.
If "something" in the lower layer, were blocking heat from getting to the upper layer; Then what you'd expect to see is that the lower layer would get hotter while the upper layer would get colder.
On the other hand, if increased solar activity were the cause, then the lower layer would get hotter, the upper layer would also be getting hotter.
Well guess what's been happening. The upper layer is getting colder.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
___
-
As for Natural factors.
-
For 15,000+ year time scales, the primary variable to consider is earth's orbit changing.
Catch being it's far too slow to have any meaningful impact on 100 to 1 year time scales.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
-
Natural factors alone do not explain the warming trend we've seen in the past 4 decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
-
The El Nino Cycle however does explain 1998 and 2008.
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
-
1934 was not the hottest year "globally"
http://greyfalcon.net/ustemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png
-
There are zero scientific organizations, world wide, that say that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past four decades. (And I'd be extremely surprised if you could find even one.)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
___
Sun spots specficially, you are probably referencing this, right?
http://greyfalcon.net/solar7.png
Where you have Eigil Fris Christensen mentioning that,
____
As for Svensmark's cosmic ray theory, that doesn't really hold much water.
First he tried high clouds, Then low clouds.
Then he tried a smog filled chamber, and did have some success creating dust particles.
The catch being that these dust particles were far too small for water vapor to condense on them.
Whats more, the salt spray above the oceans would be far more dominant in creating airborne dust than Svensmark's cosmic ray dust.
Lastly of course, Svensmark has no coherent correlation.
This here, would be Svensmark's FOURTH paper, each with entirely different methods and supposed mechanisms, but all with the same conclusion.
Which basically points to him attempting to do the scientific method in reverse.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cos ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:30 am
23 Sep 2008
Oh
And for fun on the "OMG CARBON LEVELS ARE WRONG" issue.
There's plenty of individual measuring stations and ice core records that all agree with each other.
But if you want someone to tell you about it, how about you listen to this guy say:
"Of course, the reason why we have had a rise in CO2 over the past century, obviously, that has been caused by industry."
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Snorbert Zangox Posted 3:54 am
24 Sep 2008
Observations
All of the GCMs predict a hot spot between 3 and 10 km above the tropics. The reason is that carbon dioxide cannot add significantly to the heat absorption of water vapor at lower elevations. Water absorbs strongly across the entire IR band at which the Earth emits heat. Carbon dioxide has one narrow absorption band at about 10 to 12 microns. Even though the extinction coefficient of carbon dioxide at that wavelength, is about twice the water extinction coefficient, the concentration of carbon dioxide is about 400 ppm, while the concentration of water vapor is about 20,000 ppm (80 F at 50% R.H.). Even with the higher extinction coefficient, carbon dioxide can augment the heat absorption of water only by about 4% in the only band in which carbon dioxide absorbs. Add the heat absorption of water at all of the other wavelengths and the possible contribution of carbon dioxide to warmth in the tropics is minimal.
At higher elevations, the vapor pressure of water is far less. For example, the temperature at 10 km is about -40 C and the vapor pressure of water is about 130 ppm. Under these conditions, carbon dioxide can and does add to the heat retention of water vapor. Thus, the upper air must warm first and most.
After a gas molecule absorbs a photon of IR, it will convert part of the IR energy into kinetic energy and will emit IR on a longer wavelength. The direction of emission is random, so half goes up toward space and half returns toward the surface (ignoring curvature). The time taken by repetition of this process delays the loss of heat to space.
This reasoning also demands that higher elevations and Polar areas warm faster than temperate areas.
As I said, neither the satellite nor the balloon data show the requisite hot spot. The hypothesis failed this necessary condition and we must abandon it before we cause irreparable harm to the most vulnerable among us.
I am not convinced that cosmic ray attenuation during solar maxima causing low-level cloudiness is the complete answer to the question "What causes climate change?" As you say, there are many other possible causes. I do say that IPCC has not investigated the cosmic ray effect thoroughly and has dismissed it without just cause. Svensmark, Svensmark, and Calder have presented a strong case for solar reduction of the muon fraction of cosmic rays during high sun spot activity as a cause of warming. We also have Shaviv and Veiser demonstration of correlation geological scale climate changes with migration of our solar system through our galaxy and with nova activity.
When I look at the data there seem to be too many correlations between cosmic ray activity and the climate of Earth to ignore. Nevertheless, ignore them is what IPCC has done.
You mentioned Nino and Nina events. I agree that they too affect climate. The 1998 oceanic heat dump is a prime example. I saw one article, I believe by Anthony Watts, which displayed an excellent correlation between climate warmth and a combination of PDO and ANSO events and sun spot activity.
I would say that what Svensmark is trying to do is discover a mechanism by which sun spot activity affects our climate. That is a perfectly legitimate scientific approach. You notice a correlation and you attempt to discover why it is so.
We do know that cosmic rays cause condensation in moist atmospheres. After all, scientists have used chambers of moist gas for centuries to count cosmic ray activity. You just count the tiny little contrails that the energetic, charged particles leave behind as they penetrate the chamber.
The ice core data give a faulty estimate of long-term average concentrations. The 1993 measurements at Vostok yielded 1,000-year average values for temperature and carbon dioxide. The data showed temperature and carbon dioxide increasing and decreasing in lock step. Al Gore uses these data in his presentations and used them in his movie.
In 2003, the researchers returned with better equipment, equipment able to yield 100-year averages and found that temperature changes always preceded carbon dioxide by about 500 years. Al Gore made his movie in 2005; do you wonder why he did not use the improved, 2003 data?
It is difficult to blame the recent increases in carbon dioxide concentration on industrial emission for several reasons. The total accumulation of carbon dioxide is approximately equal to half of the industrial emissions, and is approximately 4% of the total carbon dioxide flux between the atmosphere and the biosphere. Second, the rate of accumulation of carbon dioxide did not increase when our emissions increased. The slope of the carbon dioxide line does not track the slope of the emission rate line. Third, the amount of carbon dioxide in the oceans is about 1,000 times the amount in the atmosphere. If water-borne carbon dioxide emissions are increasing in compliance with Henry's law, anthropogenic emissions would pale by comparison.
It also is true that the signs of warming preceded the onset of rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide by at least 100 years. Glacier retreats began in the 1830s, growing season lengthening and warming temperatures began about the same time. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions did not increase significantly until after 1900.
Permalink