iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

GOP Rep. Bob Inglis Slams His Party On Climate Change (VIDEO)

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 11/18/10 01:36 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Bob Inglis Climate Change

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), an outgoing lawmaker with nothing left to lose after having his fate sealed through a primary challenge from the right earlier this year, expressed his frustrations with the GOP's trajectory toward climate change denial Wednesday in a harsh rebuke that blasted his party's hard-headed refusal to listen to scientific experts.

"Because 98 of the doctors say, 'Do this thing,' two say, 'Do the other.' So, it's on the record. And we're here with important decision to be made." Inglis said of his party's readiness to listen to minority dissenting voices on the issue. "There are people who make a lot of money on talk radio and talk TV saying a lot of things. They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they're experts on climate change. They substitute their judgment for people who have Ph.D.s and work tirelessly [on climate change]."

Then Inglis laid out the potential consequences.

"And 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. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that'll lead the 21st century," Inglis told his colleagues. "So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, 'geez, this didn't work very well for us.'"

Inglis's reflection on the GOP's tendency to reject the findings of climate scientists isn't just about the party's image, it's also indicative a trend that's likely to find its way into the highest levels of legislative leadership, as the top chairman picks for House committees on Energy and Commerce, as well as Science, all have expressed doubts about the validity of climate change.

And these beliefs appear only to be growing in the GOP's freshman ranks. A recent report by ThinkProgress showed that 50 percent of incoming Republican legislators are outspoken climate change deniers. This opinion was just as rampant in Senate GOP ranks.

Inglis has been an unapologetic critic of his party since his torpedoing by the more-conservative Trey Gowdy in June. A month after his loss, Inglis attacked conservative leaders for "demagoguery" in their use of hyperbolic, incendiary and false rhetoric in some of their partisan criticisms. Later that summer, Inglis attributed his electoral failure to his refusal to call Obama a "socialist."

Video and transcript via ThinkProgress:

INGLIS: I'm very excited to be here Mr. Chairman, because this is on the record. And it's a wonderful thing about Congressional hearings -- they're on the record. Kim Beasley (SP?) who's Australia's ambassador to the United States tells me that when he runs into a climate skeptic, he says to them, "Make sure to say that very publicly, because I want our grandchildren to read what you said and what I said. And so, we're on the record, and our grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, are going to read. And so some are here suggesting to those children that here's a deal: Your child is sick -- this is what Tom Friedman gave me this great analogy yesterday -- Your child is sick. 98 doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go. I'll go with the two. You're taking a big risk with those kids. Because 98 of the doctors say, "Do this thing," two say, "Do the other." So, it's on the record.

And we're here with important decision to be made. And 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. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that'll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button. And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, "geez, this didn't work very well for us. The two doctors didn't turn out to be so right. 98 might have been the ones to listen to." then what we'll find is we're way behind those Chinese folks. 'Cuz you know, if you got a certain number of geniuses in the population -- if you're one in a million in China, there's 1300 of you. And you know what?

They plan on leading the future. So whether you -- if you're a free enterprise conservative here -- just think: it's a bunch of hooey, this science is a bunch of hooey. But if you miss the commercial opportunity, you've really missed something. And so, I think it's great to be here on the record. I think it's great to see the opportunity we've got ahead of us. And, I also -- since this is sort of a swan song for me and Mr. Barrett I'd encourage scientists who are listening out there to get ready for the hearings that are coming up in the next Congress. Those will be difficult hearings for climate scientists. But, I would encourage you to welcome those as fabulous opportunities to teach.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), an outgoing lawmaker with nothing left to lose after having his fate sealed through a primary challenge from the right earlier this year, expressed his frustrations with the ...
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), an outgoing lawmaker with nothing left to lose after having his fate sealed through a primary challenge from the right earlier this year, expressed his frustrations with the ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,666
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (38 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:20 PM on 11/30/2010
Speaking of demagogic congressmen, what about Rep. Darrell Issa, the richest guy in the House (~$250 million) and one of the most powerful?

You know, the guy who wants to have climate scientists arrested? Seems Darrell knows a lot about being arrested, having had that happen to him at least 3 times from 1971 to 1979, twice for grand theft auto. Yes, yes, we know. He was only convicted once for illegal possession of a firearm. Smoking gun? This the guy you want setting U.S. policy?

We report; you decide.

Substantiation? Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa#Early_life

Also, http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001007.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/03/2008-04-03_gop_rep_darrell_issa_under_fire_from_eve.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/us/california-recall-backer-feels-heat.html?pagewanted=2 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/05/29/MN81698.DTL http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/06/local/me-issa6?pg=3

P.S. when Issa tried to run for governor, the San Francisco Examiner also put out a series of articles on Rep. Issa's "colorful" history.

P.P.S. The story of how he took over that auto alarm company seems a bit, well "alarming". But it also makes you wonder where Darrell found the money to loan an auto alarm company $60K on an Army captain (or lieutenant's) salary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
09:40 AM on 11/29/2010
He got what he wanted. Press from the ruling class. If he proposed cutting the funding being used to further the study of climate change, he would have been ignored, or chastised. Probably ignored, since climate change proponents are loosing the debate along with their credibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:21 AM on 11/30/2010
Why would he propose that? It is already established that the world is warming, and we need to know as much as possible about it in order to survive.

Ruling class is an unusual terminology for a denier.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
04:18 PM on 11/30/2010
Just because one says its so, does not make it so. The consensus of the scientific community, declared Lake Erie dead in 1960's.

http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/pollution/water/water5.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
12:22 PM on 12/01/2010
Man caused climate change is driven by the ruling class who would like to extract more money from its subjects every time they turn on a switch or start an engine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
08:44 AM on 11/29/2010
Thank you for your words....Its very late.Very very late.Its now or never. If never than we may not have an opportunity to have grand children the unfolding of the extinction level events maybe occuring within a very narrow time scan.Like maybe within 5 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
09:55 AM on 11/29/2010
I think the fear card has been over played. In 1945 the US detonated the 1st nuclear weapon upon the people of Japan. In 1976 I found myself standing watch over nuclear missile silos. While on post I convinced myself that we would not be able to keep this technology away from 3rd world nations, with a dictator who has gotten to the place where they have nothing to loose. I thought this would all occur by the year 2000, and life as we know it would end. I was the victim of the right wing ruling class who used a pending nuclear catastrophe as a means to take more of our money, and greater control of our lives. Now the left wing ruling class is using fear, so it can take more of our money and control of our lives. Of the events that potentially change our way of life, I still believe nuclear war is more likely, the man caused disaster that will end life as we know it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
02:07 AM on 11/30/2010
Obama is definitely not on the left .He is actually further right than Bush Chaney. He talks a progressive talk but acts like a conservative Republican. The health care mainly benefits the Insurance companies. The financial reform is no reform and the Gulf....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:28 AM on 11/30/2010
The science of climate change is completely without fear. It is cold hard fact. It is confirmed by the evidence.

Cold war paranoia bears no relation to climate change science. Cold war paranoia was based on extreme ideology, and an authoritarian world view.

Many were worried, and remain worried about the possibilities of a Nuclear war. The difference with global warming is we don't have to worry about its possibility - we know it is happening. How big the effect will be is not established, but it ranges from very bad, to a possible extinction of the species. It is a much more important worry than Nuclear weapons at the present time, simply because we know there is a possibility that there will not be a global nuclear war any time soon.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:28 PM on 11/27/2010
hatrickpencildi 01:10 PM on 11/20/2010
"The new Congress needs to call for a hearing in early 2011, to once & for all, separate the lies, from facts, from speculation."

Yeeeeeah, boy! I love me a good hearing!
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/293366-1
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:30 AM on 11/25/2010
he didnt simply say the truth because he is already ousted

he stated the truth to GOP masses way before primary.. here he told GOP to turn off hatemongering Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF5UZ4EiFfA
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:23 PM on 11/27/2010
Thanks! I was wondering whether the implication in the article was accurate.

"Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), an outgoing lawmaker with nothing left to lose after having his fate sealed through a primary challenge from the right earlier this year, expressed his frustrations with the GOP's trajectory toward climate change denial Wednesday in a harsh rebuke that blasted his party's hard-headed refusal to listen to scientific experts."

The Huffington Post had a lot of potential once, but the closer it gets to the size and influence of the traditional / corporate media, the more it mimics their sensationalism and disregard for truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
big dubya
01:11 PM on 11/23/2010
Sorry Bob, but you are just too intelligent to be a Republican legislator in the twenty-first century. Buh-hye.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
08:47 AM on 11/29/2010
Bob why not run as a democrat????
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Northern Observer
12:33 PM on 11/22/2010
I really could care less about the whole "Does Global Warming Exist?" argument. For me, it's about polution. Don't make it about reducing emission to stop global warming. Make it about reducing emissions to reduce pollution in general.
02:03 PM on 11/22/2010
It's funny Rep. Ingliss mentions China "eating our lunch" on clean energy, while in China, a new coal-fired plant comes online every few weeks, they don't have the air quality standards we do, and the air is filthy there. Carbon dioxide is clear, odorless, and harmless, but true pollutants do need to be dealt with, and we have been doing a better job here in the U.S. than in China.
01:00 AM on 11/23/2010
And along with all the coal-fired palnts they are the world's leading producer of wind turbines, solar cells and electric cars. They use coal to build the electrical infrastructure as they deply, then in 10 years they turn off the coal and oil. Then they eat our lunch while we take the heat for creating the heat!

Once their middle cals grows the demands will be for cleaner ennvironment just like here, Most likely\, extrapolating our current educational and technical trajectory, most of our techies will abandon our fossil fuel guzzling economy for "greener" pastures maybe in other countries.

CO2 is clear except where it counts, mainly 12 μm, right in the heart of the grey-body emission of planet earth/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:35 AM on 11/23/2010
texfly: "CO2 is clear except where it counts, mainly 12 μm, right in the heart of the grey-body emission of planet earth/ "

True, but science deniers don't understand what that means.

I'm going to steal that response anyway - good one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
08:52 AM on 11/29/2010
No its about The death of the Ocean.The ocean supplies over 70& of the Oxygen we breath.Its about the death of the Gulf Channel.What do yu think scientists are saying about what hapens if the Current both in the atmosphere and the Ocean no longer warms Europe...These currents are inter related throughout he world. Is it a coming Ice age????
12:26 PM on 11/22/2010
Have any of you AGW believers seen this excellent commentary on Climategate? In spite of what many on the left beieve, it has not been "debunked".

http://climategate.tv/2010/11/19/climategate-is-still-the-issue/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:39 PM on 11/22/2010
More science denier disinformation.

For example, the "excellent commentary" declares:

"Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” "

Actually, that quote has been repeated ad nauseum. And explained ad nauseum too, though you'd never know it from that "excellent commentary".

As anyone who understands the science knows, the scientific community would have understandably come down on Jones if he took a seven-year slice of the temperature data and from that declared that the world had cooled - because as anyone who understands the science knows that time interval is too short to make valid inferences from.

If you don't understand why Rick and would like to know I'll go into it with you, but the bigger picture here is that anyone who understands the science knows that there's no "there" there with respect to allegations of scientific fraud.

HTH.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:35 AM on 11/30/2010
Have any of you deniers ever managed to learn anything? If so, why do you keep repeating the same discredited nonsense?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drhirise
Just the facts ma'am.
09:42 PM on 11/21/2010
Hey Inglis, you never said anything when you had power, you worn out dish rag. Another death be confession by an evangelical greed monger.
05:33 PM on 11/21/2010
I love to see people rant about how scientific consensus on climate change is all just some well orchestrated nefarious plot by a faceless ruling liberal elite. The irony is that the muddle confusion is mostly brought about by a well funded apolitical elite known as big energy. For a good site on debunking skeptics... http://www.skepticalscience.com/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
02:43 AM on 11/30/2010
When Microsoft does it in relation to whether anyone else's software will work with Windows they call it FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jericho the Red
moderate before it was called liberal.
09:40 AM on 11/21/2010
Good for him!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hatrickpenry
stepping on academia nuts
01:10 PM on 11/20/2010
The new Congress needs to call for a hearing in early 2011, to once & for all, separate the lies, from facts, from speculation.
Climate change is not the question but the causes for it, what is mans contribution and what if anything can be done to alter the climate of the planet.
10 of the best & brightest from both sides of the issue and have a show down.
It shouldn't take too long to prepare since tons of 'research & data' have been carfully prepared in a scientific manner,... correct?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:30 PM on 11/20/2010
hatrickpenry : "Climate change is not the question but the causes for it, what is mans contribution..."

Yawn.

You somehow seem to have missed the following just downthread, hatrickpenry:

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.

* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
01:19 AM on 11/23/2010
Thde people in Congress do not have the intelllectual capacity to frame intelligent questions that they and the th epublic will understand. Just looking at them on Sunday morning and on CSPAN indictes they can only talk in circles. Have you ever heard them phrase a question? 5 minutes of demagogy then one single low-level question.

What we need is a lengthy panel give and take at a tutorial level with trained scientists who have published in peer-reviewed journals to present the position and support for them -- with ample time for cross examiantion of each other. This process would take longer than you think because it is easy to set down the principles but difficult to put the tons of data into the framework without glossing over a lot. And that is where those who have little or no data have an advantage.

By way of anology: It is easy to paint a comprehendable picture with just a few colors - it is hard to do it when you have thousands of colors you have to integrate. Our system of debate is such that equal time is the governing priinciple. That's why simplistic sound-bites are far more effective the detailed narratives.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
THEE RTWINGER
12:36 PM on 11/20/2010
And this man wonders why he lost...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:22 PM on 11/20/2010
No one cares about so called global warming anymore. Time to move on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jericho the Red
moderate before it was called liberal.
09:41 AM on 11/21/2010
okay, so so if you are apathetic that means there is no problem?
11:09 AM on 11/23/2010
Yeah. Let's just eat our fast food and watch the world die. What more could there be to life? That's the spirit!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treeshack
10:43 PM on 11/19/2010
Even BILL O'REILLY has stated that we should address global warming, if only because living on a clean planet is a good and desirable thing.

Why can't all Republicans take this common sense approach to climate change??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
conservicide
I don't play nice.
07:09 AM on 11/20/2010
Bill O' Falafel also said that Ails likes children in the biblical sense, I tend not to take him at his word.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:42 AM on 11/30/2010
That doesn't surprise me - about Ailes anyhow. I've heard the same about Limbaugh.