How have Bob Inglis’s comments on climate change been received in the US?

Question

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/19/republican-climate-change-bob-inglis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/
2010/nov/19/republican-climate-
change-bob-inglis

Departing Republican attacks climate-change deniers in own party
Unburdened by the prospect of another campaign, Inglis, in this final hearing, spared no scorn for climate change deniers in his own party and beyond, suggesting that they continue to ignore global warming at their own peril. "I would also suggest to my free enterprise colleagues – especially conservatives here—whether you think it's all a bunch of hooey, what we've talked about in this committee, the Chinese don't," the South Carolina Republican said in his opening remarks. "And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century."

And

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/11/17/17climatewire-outgoing-rep-inglis-blasts-gop-skepticism-on-51296.html?src=twt&twt=nytenvironment

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/11/17/17climatewire
-outgoing-rep-inglis-blasts-gop-skepticism-on-51296.html?src=twt&twt=nytenvironment

Inglis' remarks stood in stark contrast to those of 87-year-old Texas Republican Rep. Ralph Hall, the leading candidate to take the House Science and Technology gavel in the next Congress, who took a potshot at the White House's use of the term "global climate disruption" and said that "reasonable people have serious questions about our knowledge of the state of the science."
In light of those comments and pledges by other incoming committee chairmen to probe the science of climate change, Inglis had pointed advice for climate scientists.
"I encourage the scientists that are listening out there to get ready for the hearings that are coming up in the next Congress," he said. "Those will be difficult hearings for climate scientists. But I would encourage you to welcome those as fabulous opportunities to teach. Don't come here defensively. Say, 'I'm glad to have an opportunity to explain the science.'"
Inglis said that advice was informed by his experience on a congressional delegation to Antarctica a few years ago, where he encountered "master teacher" Donal Manahan, a marine biologist at the University of Southern California.

Answer 1

Technically I should not be answering this because I vote in Canada. It is refreshing to note that the US does have some thinking politicians that can look at both the science and economic aspects of a problem and act in the national interest. The US needs more good men like Bob Inglis.



<"And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century.">

They are doing it today. In my humble opinion, the US needs to focus on manufacturing goods that people will buy rather than trying to make a living by manipulating financial markets. If the economic situation is not remedied soon, the opinions of US politicians on global issues like climate change will become less and less relevant.



Even now, the issue is not in the hands of US politicians because the US imports most of the oil it uses. For oil exporting countries, it makes more sense to sell 1 barrel of oil for $200 rather than 2 barrels of oil for $100. Actually, payment in gold rather than USD will be accepted. Exporters can both increase their return over time (reserves last longer) and take credit for reducing carbon emissions to a level the environment can handle. The US will reduce emissions whenever politicians in exporting countries decide to turn the tap down a bit.

Answer 2

With a huge yawn. a minimum of four cases a 365 days the worldwide is meant to be ending. properly guess what it remains right here. I keep in mind examining an editorial in the Huffington submit, supposedly some vast shot scientist with a phd became into predicting the coast from Florida to Texas down into Mexico became into meant to be destroyed with the aid of a great methane bubble from our little oil spill. i think of it became into meant to burst into flames or some thing. a great hearth ball. did no longer ensue, only like each and every the different end of the worldwide thoughts. i'm too previous to get labored up over frightening thoughts. Had a snake drop from the rafters of a storage onto my shoulder as quickly as and take a inspect to chew my neck. i'm nonetheless right here, the snake did no longer make it. i do no longer scare that common.

Answer 3

When reasonable people start asking serious questions, it's all over for the cause of AGW. Once congressmen realize the whole global warming is based on unverifiable models, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. (This is the opinion of many top climate scientists). Scientists don't even know what's happening to heat today. Apparently a lot of it is disappearing.

Answer 4

Don't you see this as a problem?

First, Climate change or climate "disruption" is entirely meaningless and underscores a politically derived phrase instead of a scientifically driven phrase. Pople are correct for deriding this term. Change always occurs, and I have seen no studies that actually go into statistically significant "changes" or whether the changes are "dramatic". Can you define this and provide evidence of this?



A simple statement of increases global temps is at least defined. Further, How can you blame Hall for thinking the "reasonable people have serious questions about our knowledge of the state of the science." Of course reasonable people have questions. When you have published studies talking about the earth possibly soon being 13 degrees warmer, yet the IPCC is saying 3 degrees warmers, how crazy is it to say 1 degree warmer, especially when 1 degree corresponds to the effect of CO2 alone with no positive feedbacks? When you see that the models are indeed overestimating the warming, 30% of the heat is missing, predictions of ice free norht pole in 2025 are not likely to come true, Hansen's old prediciton of streets in New York being flooded by now, etc. etc. etc. How can you expect people not to questions our knowledge?



You have science journals publishing how poison ivy will grow better in a climate with more CO2, as if this is the only plant that will grow better. When journals show that much bias, how can one not wonder? When you see that the rate of increase in temps have lessened in the past 15 years, how can you not question an exponential model. When you see the large variability inherent in daily and yearly temps, how can you not question whether taking a 15-month running average of the weighted average of all the sites does not indeed show a trend that is not truly there, or truly significant.



A simple pointing to change does not work. There is always change.



Dana,

You are kidding right? You couldn't have created a more clearly politically-driven study if you tried. It seems similar to a study saying cigarettes are partially beneficial because it is more likely to kill the weak lung cells. Millions of types of plants that are beneficial to mankind or at least not detrimental will grow better, but pick one that is hated by mankind? Open your eyes.

Answer 5

"I would also suggest to my free enterprise colleagues – especially conservatives here—whether you think it's all a bunch of hooey, what we've talked about in this committee, the Chinese don't,"



Actually, the Chinese do think "it's all a bunch of hooey." They believe further research is necesary to establish the current warming trend is man-made. Don't forget the Chinese walked out on the Copenhagen summit. That's right, the delegation literally walked out on a meeting with Obama. And there is a book out in state sanctioned bookstores which claims the theory of man-made global warming is “a conspiracy between Western governments and business to protect their own way of life, at the expense of the entire developing world."



You can make up temperature data if your organization controls that data, but making up stuff is more difficult when the facts can be verified by a secondary source.

Answer 6

The only place I've heard about his comments so far is on Climate Progress.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/18/republican-rep-bob-inglis-blasts-gop-right-wing-pundits-for-denying-global-warming-science/



In other words, I think most Americans (particularly Republicans) are just ignoring him. The deniers got something right for once though. There's a good reason he's a "departing Republican" - the reason is that he's not an ignorant AGW denier who panders to Tea Party right-wing anti-science extremists.



For those calling Inglis a "Republican in Name Only", he has a 93.4% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, which honored him earlier this year "for his staunch conservative voting record" in 2009 (even though he only got 92% that year).

http://inglis.house.gov/news.asp?content=sections/news/archive/5-10-10



Inglis is also from South Carolina - one of the most conservative states in the country. This was no RINO, this guy was an extremely conservative Republican who simply wasn't willing to reject the science behind AGW. And because he didn't toe the destructive Republican party line, the people of South Carolina (who are something of an embarrassment to the rest of the USA - South Carolina politicians have a scandal on almost a weekly basis) voted him out of office.



His expulsion simply demonstrates the ideological purity the Republican (Tea) Party requires these days, which unfortunately includes a complete rejection of science.



I think Inglis' advice to climate scientists is good. If the Republicans make the mistake of conducting climate science inquiries, use it as an opportunity to teach the public about the scientific evidence. Republicans are backing down on their pledge to conduct these inquiries because they know it would backfire for this very reason.



*edit @ Expel* "You have science journals publishing how poison ivy will grow better in a climate with more CO2, as if this is the only plant that will grow better. When journals show that much bias..."



WTF? So now you're saying that publishing a study on the impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on poison ivy growth is biased? Please read the paper and then tell me where it even suggests poison ivy will be the only plant to grow faster in an increased CO2 atmosphere.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf+html



But perhaps you would prefer these papers.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034012/

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/45/19368.abstract?sid=638fbac9-85ca-424f-8137-50fd394727cf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5994/940.short



*edit 2* researching poison ivy is by definition "politically-driven" - now I've heard everything. Perhaps reading the first sentence of the abstract might give you an idea why these scientists decided to research the subject.



"Contact with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is one of the most widely reported ailments at poison centers in the United States, and this plant has been introduced throughout the world..."



I swear, everything is political to deniers.

Answer 7

There's a good reason he's a "departing Republican."

Answer 8

There is a good reason he said goodbye. He wasn't wanted. Who cares what a loosing alarmists republicans thinks. I got news for the rest of them. This is only the beginning. Most of us are fed up with the Rhinos almost as fed up as we are with reckless spending Democrats.