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.
What to make of the new climate poll
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Threaded
Benny Big Eye Posted 9:49 am
21 Mar 2007
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
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
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
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
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
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
Zoning rules in Al Gore's upscale Tennessee neighborhood have prevented the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.
... Terry Franklin, Belle Meade's building officer, said the town only allows power generating equipment to be placed on the ground level. "Solar panels are generators," Franklin said.
"We told them they couldn't do it," he said. "They wanted to try anyway, but we convinced them it was something the board wouldn't allow."
New rules on April 1 will allow homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. ... The builders at Gore's home plan to make the application for solar panels once the new ordinance goes into effect.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:23 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
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
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
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
"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
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:24 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
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
Permalink
bertignac Posted 4:41 pm
21 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:57 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
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
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:05 pm
21 Mar 2007
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:06 pm
21 Mar 2007
Permalink
Steven T Posted 5:07 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:19 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
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.
OK, here goes Inhofe. ... Cherry-picked scientific studies contradict you. Specifically, two things. Hurricanes aren't connected to global warming. And Antarctic ice isn't melting. ... Now he's citing the hacktastic New York Times piece. Lordy. ...Now he's saying the costs are going to be enormous. Crippling! We can't do it to the American people!
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:22 pm
21 Mar 2007
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:27 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
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
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
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
Permalink
bertignac Posted 5:47 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:01 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:46 pm
21 Mar 2007
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
http://www.okiespotlight.com
jetflash
Permalink