Jay Inslee: Republicans Suffer From 'Allergy To Science And Scientists'

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) accused Republicans on Tuesday of having an "allergy to science and scientists" during a House hearing on a Republican-led proposal to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The New York Times reports that the meeting, which focused largely on the effect of the gases on climate change, was contentious and ultimately unproductive, as representatives on both sides of the aisle appeared to stubbornly reject claims that countered their own views.

Despite the impasse, however, the hearing didn't go over without its fair share of sparks.

"If Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein were testifying today," Inslee, an environmentalist with a knack for confrontation over green initiatives, posited, "the Republicans would not accept their views until all the Arctic ice has melted and hell has frozen over, whichever comes first."

In another exchange, Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a man-made climate change skeptic, took a shot at Inslee's wealth of scientific literature when he offered to get him an e-reader to organize it.

The Times reports:

"Oh," Mr. Inslee responded, "would you like to read some? It might be helpful."

"Maybe you'd like to read some of mine," Mr. Gardner said.

"Be happy to," Mr. Inslee said. "It's a much shorter list."

The House GOP voted last month to include a provision that would cripple the EPA in a spending bill to fund the government through Sept. 30. The resolution hasn't passed.

While the GOP has been the primary champion of efforts to restrict the oversight of the EPA, four Democrats from both chambers of Congress recently decided to back the measure.

For more on the hearing, check out the New York Times.

Comments

[absolument]

12:37 PM on 04/04/2011

Inslee is an admirable defender of truth and the environment, but I have to correct him on one fact. Allergies are a reflex, involuntary. Republicans oppose scientific fact by choice, as a matter of policy. It is not a reflex, it is an agenda.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-lakoff/the-republican-ignorance-_b_842844.html

The effects of this agenda are destroying the environment, and US leadership in science, and economically more generally. The Republican agenda is anti-American.

[Theophrastus]

12:24 PM on 03/24/2011

Perhaps if we hollowed out a Bible and handed them our findings in the thundering diction of the old King James?
I mean it's not like they'd really know the difference. As IF they actually read their bibles in the first place.
I mean come on...
If they had, they'd be distancing themselves from Jesus out of a fear of looking sympathetic to socialists.

[Richard2]

04:50 PM on 03/17/2011

Congressman Inslee was interviewed by Joe Kernen on CNBC's Squawk Box on 3/16/11. At about 3 minutes and 45 seconds, Joe Kernan rips into Congressman Inslee over climate alarmism. Wow:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1845959276&68play=1

[ivanalkilovic]

07:33 PM on 03/14/2011

Scientists tell conservatives everything they don't want to hear. Geneticists and biologists tell them that homosexuality is natural. Economists tell them that massive privatization and supply-side economics are dead ideas. Doctors tell them that we should provide birth control and safe, legal abortions. Geologists and astrophysicists tell them that the Earth and universe are much older than what their Bible says. And climate scientists tell them that humans may be contributing to climate change. Scientists, in general, stand for everything that conservatives hate.

[wolshdog]

02:22 PM on 03/29/2011

mmmhm!

[absolument]

11:39 AM on 04/04/2011

The really, REALLY funny thing about that, is most of their obsessions aren't even in their Bible. I mean, religious bigotry is horrible, but not even knowing one's own religion, and imposing a failed translation of it -- well, one could reasonably expect that to lose them some votes. So what's wrong with the voters?

[Dale D]

04:12 PM on 03/14/2011

So we should listen to this enviro-statist push his religion on us? Anyone with a second grade science education would know that carbon emissions cause global colling and that sun spot activity contributes to global warming. Only a religious zealot could believe that we insignificant human beings in this vast universe could do what the sun can do.

[ClimateHawk]

07:06 PM on 03/14/2011

Do you have references to science that supports your claims?

[ILoveFiction]

07:11 PM on 03/14/2011

I like your style. Unencumbered by facts or logic.

Keep up the good work!

[AgingLady]

11:23 AM on 03/14/2011

Great headline! And some thoughtful comments. Thanks.

[Richard2]

09:59 AM on 03/14/2011

"In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again.

The work of the research unit is central to the manmade global warming thesis. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the unit’s e-mails from the and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny of the science by independent panels. This did not happen.

We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science; they kept it secret to stop other scientists checking it; thus breaching one of the foundations of the scientific method." -Labor MP Graham Stringer

[ILoveFiction]

07:15 PM on 03/14/2011

This old story is running out of gas.

We need to DO something about it, don't you think? Maybe a good Al Gore story? (I love those)

[Richard2]

10:30 PM on 03/14/2011

"To stop politicians cheating, athletes taking drugs and financiers embezzling, we have increasingly strong regulators. We cannot assume scientists come from a higher moral plane." -- MP Graham Stringer

[jimboy71]

10:48 PM on 03/21/2011

Get some new memes. These ones are tired.

[Malcolm Hensley]

01:31 AM on 03/14/2011

A science question for either side of the aisle!

North America & Europe basically have done a wonderful job of reducing SOx emissions. North America's SOx footprint is about what it was in 1910! Report out of North Dakota.

Between 2000-2007 North American & European coal consumptio­n has been basically flat or actually decreased a little, depending on different sources, however coal usage for the planet has gone up over 50% with almost all that increase occurring in the fast developing nations of Asia!

Now we all know the oceans absorb large amounts of CO2!

What effect do you think all that SOx coming from Asia is having on our oceans ability to hold CO2?

Just a thought to contemplat­e!

No matter how many 5 year plans the Asian nations come up with they keep dumping SOx into the atmosphere it's going to effect more than their rivers!

So tell me Representative Inslee, With the fast developing nations increasing the worlds output of GHG emissions particularly SOx from coal which we all know is far more dangerous than CO2 every 7 years by 50% and this cheap energy luring American Corporations like Intel and Apple to Asia how the EPA's strategy is going to make a difference?

Please NIMBY environmentalist, do not bombard me with Asian nations 5 year plans concerning cleaning their environment because if they are on plan 12 and they didn't meet the goal of the first 11 are they worth the paper they are written on?

[StephenBP]

08:11 AM on 03/14/2011

Malcolm, whether you are a conservative or not, you continually provide more and more proof of the conservative position's tendency to create confusion, all in the name of keeping us in the carbon era.

Please note that your attempt to make SOx the issue fails. And your logic is so, so tortured, but then the conservative position does seem to favor torture. SOx helps acidify the oceans and deplete cations that might otherwise sequester CO2, therefore, we shouldn't do anything about cutting down our rate of CO2 emissions?

As long as you take the childish attitude of "but the other kids are doing it", you are going to have a hard time regaining US leadership in anything. As long as you fight CO2 legislation, the Indians and Chinese will simply say "why should we bother?". Cheap energy luring American Corporations to Asia? Or very very cheap , practically slave labor, a better educated work force, and lax environmental laws leading to more profit for conservatives? BTW, the Asian people thank all you conservatives for helping to wreck the American public education system! Teach creationism in every US School! Good work!

The USA had a chance to be a leader in energy conservation and cheap energy, but that conservative cowboy with the brain deficit.... Ronald Reagan, helped ensure that his masters, the Southwestern petroleum cowboys, had another three decades to make billions extracting crap from the bowels of the earth.
Have a nice day Malcolm.

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:26 AM on 03/14/2011

“StephenBP as I see it we have (3) three choices concerning man-made Climate Change if it is true!

Choice # 1 is we can have relatively World Wide Free Trade and maintain our manufactur­­ing base only by gutting the EPA. This is where the Republican­­s are going! And we do our part to hasten man-made climate change but maintain a financial base to save many of our rich!

Choice # 2 is we can have relatively World Wide Free Trade and maintain or even strengthen the EPA and lose our manufactur­­ing base. This is what NIMBY environmen­­talist want! Why ask them! We still will have man-made Climate Change if the theories are correct but the only survivors will be the rich in other nations.

Choice # 3 is we can impose taxes or tariffs on products imports or domestic manufactur­­ed based on the environmen­­tal impact of manufactur­­ing, transporta­­tion, and the sustainabi­­lity of those products and strengthen the EPA! This might save us if man-made climate change is real and has the advantage of saving fossil fuels particular­ly oil for future generation­s! Oil is to precious a commodity to burn!

Which DOOR do you think congress should open?

Is there another choice?”

I'm voting for door # 3!

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:28 AM on 03/14/2011

http://www.favstocks.com/study-finds-that-worldwide-so2-emissions-rose-between-2000-2005-after-decade-of-decline-china-shipping-topped-growth/1533042/2/#

In case you ask why I added transportation to aspects of why transportation should be included.

[Kenz300]

10:53 PM on 03/13/2011

Even Republicans that do not believe climate change is a problem should be on board for
alternative energy such as wind, solar, wave energy geothermal and second generation biofuels made from cellulose and algae.

The reason they SHOULD support alternative energy is for national security and economic security reasons.

The reason they WILL NOT support it is because of the entrenched interests of the oil and coal lobby, their campaign contributions and their phony front groups.

Big money in politics and greedy billionaires are doing this country a great disservice.

[Richard2]

10:55 AM on 03/13/2011

…if the climate community wants to get the Climategate affair behind them, the best course of action for them is to voluntarily get any and all documents pertaining to the events on the public record, rather than contesting the production of each and every document. If a NOAA scientist is in possession of documents that have been destroyed by CRU scientists, NOAA should find out precisely what their employees have and voluntarily put it in the public domain. ...Steve McIntyre.

[doriath22]

11:02 AM on 03/13/2011

"Climategate" is a purely man-made "scandal" consisting of nothing but hot air and innuendo. As such, responding to it is an unproductive waste of time.

[Richard2]

04:17 PM on 03/13/2011

It isn't the Republicans who have tried to "hide the decline." It is the Republicans who want full disclosure and presentation of temperature data, such as the tree ring data that showed a temperature decline since 1960.

In this case the Republicans appear to be the supporters of traditional scientific behavior, and the climate alarmists who are still trying to defend "hiding the decline," without much success.

[CSaction]

10:03 AM on 03/13/2011

Allergy my butt.
They hate science because science finds truth and they hate truth.
They can't exist without deception and science is a threat to them.

[ILoveFiction]

11:43 AM on 03/13/2011

Global warming is an inconvenient truth.

It's the "inconvenient" part they don't like.

[Trickish Knave]

07:21 PM on 03/13/2011

The term global warming was inconveniently labeled- now it is called climate change.

[brux]

05:17 AM on 03/13/2011

It's an odd amalgam of world-views, the support or supposed support for business, and yet the total lack of respect and understanding for science. It just adds up to a subordination to the power of the rich and a pandering to those who give them money to gain office and power. The GOP is pretty sick and dysfunctional.

[alteredstory]

08:09 PM on 03/12/2011

Saying that two plus two DOES, in fact equal four is not stubbornly rejecting claims that two plus two equals a banana.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of decades of research based on carefully gathered data on the way the world works. This is the same science that tells us how cars drive, and lights turn on, and cells divide, and lightning is formed, and species evolve, and fire burns and so on ad infinitum. Just because one side stamps their foot and insists that the tooth fairy exists doesn't mean they're right, and we should give them equal credence.

[VirginiaJeff]

07:24 PM on 03/12/2011

 
My conservative friends tell me flat-out they do not want to hear facts about ANYTHING.  They have actually said to me, more than once, "I don't care about facts!"  (This is usually right after I've debunked one of their email chain-letters.)

[Republitarian]

10:14 PM on 03/12/2011

Oh what BS. It's libs who "feel" instead of think.

[VirginiaJeff]

10:28 PM on 03/12/2011

 
You can say that, but we both know that's false.  From Ronald Reagan ("There was this welfare queen") to George W. Bush ("foreign policy not very interesting," "Iraq has WMDs") to Sara Palin ("I read all of 'em"), conservatives are interested in their gut feeling and have little patience for facts.

[Jack Straw]

11:21 PM on 03/12/2011

Because you have facts or you just "feel" that way? Go back to school.