I know that Sen. James Inhofe is a far-right bomb-thrower. I know he's built a career out of saying absurd things, particularly about global warming. I know nobody expects anything different from him.
Despite all that, I was astonished at his performance in today's hearing.
It's not that he disagrees with Gore. Plenty of legislators in both houses disagreed with Gore, thoughtfully and respectfully. What Inhofe did is flounce around and bitch and moan like a petulant adolescent. He could not have made Gore look better if he'd tried.
First, he spent the beginning of the hearing whining about the rules, and whether Gore submitted his testimony in time, and whether he was going to get his full 15 minutes, and whether if Gore's answers were too long he'd get time added, and etc. etc.
Then when time came to question Gore, he started by demanding yes-or-no answers to charged and misleading questions. He repeatedly cut Gore off and talked over him. At one point he demanded that Gore respond in writing! Then he said verbal responses are OK if they're "brief." When Boxer tried to intervene to give Gore a little time to answer, he snapped and her and whined about not getting his full time.
Then -- the hacktacular coup de grace -- he asked Gore to sign a pledge to reduce his personal home energy use to that of an average American. As gimmicks go, this one would embarrass a high school student, but Inhofe's band of knuckle-draggers seems quite pleased with themselves. I'm sure there were frat boy back slaps all around.
When Gore tried to respond that he's purchasing green energy and offsets and trying to put solar panels on his house, Inhofe just rode right over him.
Ponder for a moment: What could any of that conceivably have to do with the business of the U.S. Senate? Even if you think Gore's wrong, is trying to catch him in a clumsy gotcha the way to advance your case? What a small, sad man.
You think I'm kidding about any of this? Watch this video.
The man is a U.S. Senator. Boxer had to treat him the way I treat my three year old. Even his fellow Republicans on the committee were visibly embarrassed.
Obviously I'm not a good judge of these things, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that Inhofe came out of the exchange looking like an idiot -- and in contrast, made Gore appear even more the statesman. By the end, Gore seemed measurably energized. Like, "I was worried about this dimwit?" He glided through the rest of the hearing.
Counting Senate votes on climate and energy
The Climate Post: Has the political climate changed?
Bo Webb to Al Gore: come to Ground Zero in climate battle
Comments View as Flat
Benny Big Eye Posted 9:49 am
21 Mar 2007
On the evening news
The only shot of Inhofe's temper tantrum that made its way onto CBS, was the brief aside when Boxer had to pick up her gavel to calm him down.
I think that most journalist saw him as a nut job. Not that I'm trying to sully the name of any nut jobs who might be reading this.
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
bertignac Posted 10:17 am
21 Mar 2007
Benny and Boxer
Boxer is a hypocritical fool, making stupid remarks.
Wow, she held the gavel. How impressive. When Gore went on and on, pontificating instead of addressing Inhofe's questions, and Inhofe tried to stop Gore, then Boxer jumps in trying to let Gore go on, and in her pathetic condescending manner, tries to put Inhofe down.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 10:21 am
21 Mar 2007
go wonks
The Senate hearing was less substantive in terms of policy discussions. It was more oriented towards playing to the base (of both parties) and the 15-second sound bites for network news consumption. Apparently some of the Senators don't realize YouTube videos run for 10 minutes...
It was striking how several Senators made canned statements raising issues that Gore had just finished answering in detail. Made me wonder if they were even listening to Gore at all.
Clinton had the best question, all wonky stuff about policy implementation. I could listen to an entire hearing just about that. I'd really like to hear some economists analyzing those proposals.
Inhofe's prattling about pledges and litmus tests that he thinks Gore should knuckle under to is just creepy.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 10:22 am
21 Mar 2007
David Roberts and his comments
David Roberts,
After all your puerile and perjorative personal characterizations of Inhofe I feel that equal time and treatment permits me to say that you sound really like the kind of person who would like Gore, i.e. a basically unintelligent type who likes to congratulate himself for banal observations, and poor writing style, yet feels free to sneer at anyone who offends his puny world view.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 10:26 am
21 Mar 2007
Go wonks
"Inhofe's prattling about pledges and litmus tests that he thinks Gore should knuckle under to is just creepy."
Inhofe pointed out the personal hypocrisy at the heart of Gore, who moralizes and is immoral., Or I should say, who ecologizes but is im-ecological. He is after the mold of the hypocritical minister in the Sommerset Maughn story, "Rain".
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:04 am
21 Mar 2007
this is getting old
Am I the only one who is getting really tired of reading comments from people who are only here to disrupt and discourage truly interested people from reading and participating in the discussion?
Let me point out the obvious to you folks; you will never convince anyone who reads this blog out of genuine interest in the health of Earth's environment that global warming is a hoax, or that Inhofe has a shred of honor or decency.
By expressing such views here, to this audience, you can only accomplish one thing- discouraging people from participating. There can be no other motivation for choosing positions so obviously contrary to overwhelming evidence, and opposite to the purpose of this blog. You are like a cat who jumps into a pack of dogs and starts meowing.
I for one refuse to stop reading because of your verbal flatulence; I vow to ignore you.
Dave- if you put the writer's ID at the top of the comment, we could skip over the disruptions with ease.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:46 am
21 Mar 2007
gore goes solar
Interesting -- yet another twist on the Gore residence story:
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:23 pm
21 Mar 2007
Child's play
Bertignac appears to have just shown up today, so perhaps his/her job is to spin the hearings for Inhofe and move on.
If he/she sticks around I hope that more effort is put into making substantive arguments. Insults that aren't backed by any facts or logic sound rather childish.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 3:58 pm
21 Mar 2007
unbelievable !!!
You people are unbelievable. Substantive arguements? About what? I was commenting on David Roberts' orginal post. Have you even read it? What is it about? A attack on Inhofe. Nothing more. Nothing substantial.
I quote:
"What Inhofe did is flounce around and bitch and moan like a petulant adolescent."
"First, he spent the beginning of the hearing whining about the rules ..."
"When Boxer tried to intervene to give Gore a little time to answer, he snapped and her and whined about not getting his full time."
"As gimmicks go, this one would embarrass a high school student, but Inhofe's band of knuckle-draggers seems quite pleased with themselves. I'm sure there were frat boy back slaps all around."
"Boxer had to treat him the way I treat my three year old."
"By the end, Gore seemed measurably energized. Like, "I was worried about this dimwit?" "
So, liberal in redville, and Steven T, did you even read the original post? I won't hang around here because you are obvious a block of mutual backscratchers and circle jerkers, without a clue.
The original post demands not discussion and debate around substantive issues, but mutual mooing likes cows of the same "opinions", I guess everyone feeling a warm glow afterwards about how
bright they are. Oh, excuse me, I've got to run to the toilet, that nausea is coming back.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:04 pm
21 Mar 2007
to liberal in redsville
"Let me point out the obvious to you folks; you will never convince anyone who reads this blog out of genuine interest in the health of Earth's environment that global warming is a hoax, or that Inhofe has a shred of honor or decency."
- Who are "you folks?"
- Who said global warming is a "hoax"? I didn't.
- Who are you to impugn anybody's honor or decency?
Where do you get off, anyway? From your comments you appear to be a fascistic kind of person who can't stand anybody who thinks differently than you do. Who speaks for other people, and can read minds, and judge honor and decency. It is your comments which are indecent. And dumb.Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:06 pm
21 Mar 2007
birdboy...
In answer to your question, no, you're not. This guy, and a couple of others that I could mention, are a waste of bandwidth. And you know something's got to be truly worthless, to count as a waste of something so cheap as bandwidth :).
More to the point, trolls like Bertignac are a waste of time and, as you say, a distraction from potentially interesting and relevant discussions. There are people out there who shed more heat than light, but still contribute something substantive. Bertignac is not even one of those. He just produces low-grade heat.
I don't think its worth going through all the gnashing of teeth that would be associated with banning pests like these. But it would be mighty handy to have a feature on the blog like a Usenet killfile (user specified permanent supression of specific individuals).
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:12 pm
21 Mar 2007
Steven T
One thing I am not, and that is "child's play". If there had been substantive arguments to comment on in the original post, maybe I would have, to the best of my ability. But the only "arguments" made were such as these:
"He (Inhofe) could not have made Gore look better if he'd tried."
"As gimmicks go, this one would embarrass a high school student ..."
"What a small, sad man."
"By the end, Gore seemed measurably energized. Like, "I was worried about this dimwit?" He glided through the rest of the hearing."
Now, be honest Steven T. Are these "substantive" arguments that one can respond to? Or are they childish, insulting remarks?
The "liberal in Redville" speaks of verbal "flatulence". I know my strong and weak points, and verbally flatulent I am not. So I will make one last point and bid you all adieu. Someone, maybe not myself, needs to come in here and give you all a sound intellectual thrashing to wake you up to yourselves. Or maybe a simple verbal bitch slapping would do.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:20 pm
21 Mar 2007
Well, birdboy ...
you certainly have fascistic tendencies ... you remind me of Gore ... another one who does not practice what he preaches. The hypocrisy and lack of spine on this thread is amazing. From the original post on, there hasn't been one thought. Only character assasination and insults, and without one bit of wit or humor. What a little, sad blog.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:24 pm
21 Mar 2007
Inhofe
Berti,
Inhofe is an ass with a fossilized brain, or at least fossilized opinions and political views (which is much the same thing, if you're a Senator). That much is evident to the most casual observer. He has shown absolutely no ability to respond effectively to, or even parse, any information that does not support his preconceived views.
Who said global warming is a "hoax"? I didn't.
You didn't say it, but you certainly implied it, by suggesting that Inhofe's views on the subject were worthy of any kind of serious consideration. They're not. Constant tired refutations of the same stale talking points is not a substantive position.
Speaking of substantive, I will grant you one small point: this thread isn't exactly a serious discussion of relevant issues or exchange of ideas. Some Gristmill threads are that; this one isn't. But hell, when the world's coming down around your ears, sometimes you've got to laugh so you don't cry. And Inhofe would be an even more depressing commentary on humanity if we couldn't laugh at him.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:36 pm
21 Mar 2007
To Green engineer. Familiarly breeds contempt.
First of all, I am not "Berti". Tossing around insulting epithets I could do, but they wouldn't be in Inhofe's direction, they would be in Gore's. So there. If you want to criticize the views that Inhofe uses to support his arguments, be substantive. Claiming that views opposed to yours are fossilized, or that the person expressing those views is an ass, is disrespectful, to everybody concerned. And that is the tone of this blog.
Be precise. I didn't imply anything of the sort. The arguments against Gore are not that global warming is a hoax. (Anyway, the substance of the debate today is not about whether global warming is taking place, but why it is.) They are that the politicization of this issue is disproportionate and dishonest, and that there is much room left for debate and research on the scientific level, which has unfortunately been cooped by too many non-scientists. We are not even talking about science anymore most of the time, but about politics and policy.
To say that views you disagree with are stale talking points is to say that you know better. Or that you would like everybody accept the "party line" and stop dissenting from the majority opinion. Well, that type of attitude breeds groupthink or worse.
Don't cry. The world is not coming down around our ears. Or, if you prefer, it has always been coming down around our ears.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:37 pm
21 Mar 2007
oops
That was "recitations" not "refutations". Though constantly having to refute the same tired points isn't much of a discussion either.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:41 pm
21 Mar 2007
GreenEngineer
When a group of people feel comfortable throwing around ad hominem attacks, they bring dishonor to themselves. I don't accept that, even from people I am in perfect agreement with. This is what I saw on this thread and another thread initiated by David Roberts. I wouldn't be proud to be a member of that kind of club.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:57 pm
21 Mar 2007
You want specific
Fine, let's get specific.
Pollution is waste. Waste is economically inefficient.
According to Livermore, our electrical generation sector wastes 3/4 of its energy input, and transportation wastes 4/5. (The chart used to be here -- http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ -- but seems to be offline at the moment.)
And these numbers, let me assure you, are very conservative. In terms of what is possible with current technology, the waste fraction is more like 9/10.
This waste represents an enormous economic opportunity. And Inhofe is entirely incapable (or unwilling) to see this and respond appropriately, to the detriment of us all. He is stuck in an old model, that used to apply but no longer does, in which labor was scare and resources cheap. Now resources are dear, though they are still cheap, thanks in part to people like Inhofe. In helping to maintain this state of affairs, he is specifically failing at his job of leading this country.
It is for his instrangience on this issue, as well as many others, that I accuse him of having fossilized opinions.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:59 pm
21 Mar 2007
Is GreenEngineer a secret fascist ... ?
" ... it would be mighty handy to have a feature on the blog like a Usenet killfile (user specified permanent supression of specific individuals)."
Then later, you could be applying the same tactics in the real world. You and your friends could form groups and wear brown or black shirts, develop a salute. You could develop a political program to get rid of all the asses with stale talking points, even permanently suppress specific individuals.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:05 pm
21 Mar 2007
waste
The subject at hand is not waste, but what policies should (or should not) be put into effect on the issue of contemporary global warming. The background is scientific, but the debate is about policy. I live in France, and here at least, the public would never tolerate any leader that gave lessons about conservatively using energy and they ran around in private jets, and spent inordinate sums of money on energy consumption in their own homes. We need leaders who practice what they preach.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:05 pm
21 Mar 2007
killfiles
The killfile -- not my term; blame the unix hackers :) -- would be a better way to deal with trolls than a ban, because it would allow them to continue to waste their own time, but it would allow us the rest of us to permanently resist the temptation to waste our own. They would spend hours and hours pouring vitrol and absurdity through their keyboard, and no one would be reading it, and they'd never know.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:06 pm
21 Mar 2007
Green Engineer
Oh, I see, you are attracted to a Gulag-type idea. Pathetic.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 5:07 pm
21 Mar 2007
Playtime's over
For all of bertignac's wordage he/she hasn't actually SAID anything substantive yet. This is a classic gambit of "professional" trolls. It works particularly well on lefty blogs where the "civility" card trumps all.
Hey, bertignac, time to tell us something useful: If you are so interested in the science of global warming, what do you think of the IPCC findings? If you disagree with them, then which research do you prefer? Most importantly, why?
I take it that you like Ihofe's policy positions on global warming? If so, please explain. Which ones and why? If not, then what do you see as a reasonable course of action?
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:07 pm
21 Mar 2007
Green Engineer
... with a Manchurian Candidate twist ...
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:19 pm
21 Mar 2007
something useful
I am not so interested in the science of global warming. In all honesty, I can't even follow the scientific debate in much depth. Can you? I am interested in the politics and policy choices for the future that are involved.
The issues, as I understand them today, is how to allocate resources. If the underlying scientific question is whether contemporary global warming is due to humans, then the policy questions are, what can we do about it, if anything? This debate is really beginning, though some people want to pretend that it is closed.
I listen to arguments about the IPCC findings, some critical and some supportive. I am not sure. I find that science and politics have become so intertwined in some quarters that it is difficult to see where one ends and the other begins.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:22 pm
21 Mar 2007
The issue
The overall issue to climate change policy. The immediate issue of this exchange (which forms the basis of this community's dismissal of Inhofe' position) is whether or not Inhofe is an idiot.
I maintain that he is, on the basis of his many idiotic position statements, and on the fact that those positions never change or evolve.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:22 pm
21 Mar 2007
Steven T
By the way, "time to tell us something useful" sounds a bit weird to me. Who is us? Do you speak for yourself? Why don't you say something useful yourself? I haven't heard anything from you except non-erect invective so far.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:27 pm
21 Mar 2007
Green Engineer
Hey, what do you know anyway? Quite little I am sure about climate science, or about economics, or policy-making. I guess you are an expert idiot-detector.
PS: Buzz words like "cherry picked" are tired. They don't make you sound smart anymore, just hackneyed.
PSS: Making up words like "hacktastic" (what is that supposed to mean anyway?) is poor style. Using it more than once is a serious faux pas.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:31 pm
21 Mar 2007
One more thing
I don't know about French politics, but in our country humor has a fine old tradition tradition as a political weapon, and highlighting the absurdities of one's opponents is an effective way to diminish their power. Especially when their positions have become so absurd that they can no longer be seriously debated. Having suffered through this sort of idioticy from Inhofe before, some of us have decided that the only reasonable response is to ridicule the man. That's a decision that greatly predates this thread. So if it seems we are pre-judging Inhofe, it is because we are: We have had plenty of opportunities to form an opinion of him, based on his own statements, and we have concluded he's an idiot who should be removed from power before he does any more damage.
What they hell do you care, anyway? You don't have to live with the (direct) consequences of his stupidity.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:39 pm
21 Mar 2007
What do I know?
I know renewable energy, both the technical and the economic side. I know green building. I know energy efficiency, and passive solar design, and energy modeling, and gardening, and permaculture, and how to raise and kill my own meat.
I know that the building stock and the transportation system in this country is a travesty of inefficiency. It's much, much worse here than in Europe. There's a reason that our footprint is so much worse than yours. I know this from personal experience, and from running the numbers.
I know that sustainability is not possible without vast improvements to the infrastructure. I know that those improvements are possible, but politically and economically inconvenient to the existing economic power bases. And I know that people like Inhofe perpetuate this situation, keeping in power the companies and people that are raping our planet and our future for the sake of personal profit.
The thing I do not know is whether Inhofe is a bought tool, or really believes the crap that he spews.
What do you know?
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:40 pm
21 Mar 2007
humor, or lack of it
Green Engineer,
Calling someone an idiot is not humor. Nor does it highlight the absurdies of one's opponent. Name calling is not wit. It seems your favorite words are "stupidity" and "idiot". You don't seem (and I use the same plural you that "you" (singular) have been using when saying "we") ... YOU (plural) don't seem to have a whit of wit around here. So stop talking about the fine old traditions of American politics, unless you can serve some up. Besides, France has the same tradition, as I imagine so many cultures do.
"What they hell do you care, anyway? You don't have to live with the (direct) consequences of his stupidity."
That is an odd point of view considering we are talking about global problems and global solutions.
PS: I am an American so as well aware as you I presume about American traditions.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:42 pm
21 Mar 2007
humor
Oh, I wasn't trying to be funny. I'm just being disgusted. Inhofe was the source of the humor. Gallows humor, granted.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:47 pm
21 Mar 2007
What do you know?
I guess you live out there somewhere in a beautiful solar paneled house, raising chickens, and shooting the occasional game. Fine, sounds nice. But look around you. Most of the world does not, and cannot live like that. It is easy to say that an infrastructure is not coherent. But infrastructures come together bit by bit, over time. The internet infrastructure could be much better, but we need to use what we have because to tear it up and start from scratch is impossible.
In France, only one thing allowed this country to industrialize in the 1970s and that is nuclear power. Without it, France is back to dams, and gas, and coat heating in the cities. Back to an agrarian economy.
Policy making involves realistic choices, not pie in the sky. And leaders need to lead by example. Gore and Leonardo de Caprio (et al) do not do that.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:50 pm
21 Mar 2007
to each his own, Green Engineer
Well, you are entitled to you opinion of Inhofe. I just think that name calling is bad form and lowers the level of discussion to mudslinging. Be assured that your worst opinions of Inhofe are a fraction of mine concerning Boxer.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:01 pm
21 Mar 2007
Well, actually
I live in the city, and I rent. I garden and raise animals in my backyard.
I'm very aware of the difficulties of retooling any complex system while it is in use. I'm also very aware of the incentive structure that made it the way it is, and perpetuates it. Your analogy is poor: The 'net is a mess because it's a very new, young thing. But we've been building houses for ages, and the newer ones are generally worse than the older ones, because of the incentive structure that rewards shoddy work for a quick buck. And that incentive structure is grounded firmly on cheap and ever-growing energy supplies.
Permalink
bertignac Posted 6:09 pm
21 Mar 2007
in the city
Your neighbors must wonder.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:46 pm
21 Mar 2007
Wonder?
No wonders about the good faithbased folk like you though. Hehey.
You all voted for a chimp! Twice!! Ooo oo eee ee ahh ahh! As in, not a human. Appointed the most powerful person on earth.
A chimp that started a war he can't finish.
So let's not pick on poor berti, she is already suffering under monumental guilt. Her irritability is understandable.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jetflash Posted 9:11 am
02 Apr 2007
Inhofe makes he laugh to
Along with about 500 other Oklahoma politicians. Talk about a merry go round full of over the counter ignorance addicts these guys we have here in sooner land have to pay someone else to think up stupid ways to shoot themselves in the foot. Check out my crusader web site if you want to have a hoot at the expense of the drug store cowhands.
www.okiespotlight.com
jetflash
Permalink