ClimateGate: Data Fraud is the Method, Statism is the Goal
With ClimateGate broken wide open, you knew it was only a matter of time before Congress’ leading crusader against global-warming alarmism, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), entered the fray. Last night on Fox, he and Sean Hannity had an interesting discussion about the scandal…but it could have been better if Hannity had let his guest make the point he was trying to make.
The Senator pointed out that it’s not just right-wing corporate shills who think ClimateGate is a real problem for the environmental Left, recounted his meetings with skeptical scientists who were being shunned from the discussion, and blasted the White House’s insistence on clinging bitterly to bad data. Inhofe also said:
Barack Obama “is gonna go [to Copenhagen] with two messages that are really pretty scary. One is, I think, that he’s gonna announce that the United States is going to reduce by, uh, I think they said 17 % by 2020. Now, that’s not gonna happen, but a lot of people over there in other countries, they think that if a President says it, they don’t know that we have a Congress […] and the other one is, which I’m sure you’ve heard, he’s gonna commit $10 billion a year to, uh, developing nations, to help them, to do something about emissions in their countries.”
Inhofe was going to expand upon Obama’s second message, but Hannity cut him off, steering the conversation back to the East Anglia scientists’ misconduct. Granted, hosts have the right to guide the course of their show to keep segments on topic, and ClimateGate’s inherent sleaziness is worth repeating, but we’ve heard it all before. I, for one, would much rather have heard more about Obama’s latest policy schemes, about which even Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) warned the President:
“…the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming [conference],” but “As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”
And as for the rest of the world’s contribution to reducing global carbon emissions, National Review’s Greg Pollowitz reminds us that it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘cuts’ is:
“Government sources revealed [India] could curb the carbon emitted relative to the growth of its economy — its carbon intensity — by 24% by 2020. The target would mean emissions would continue to rise as the government aims to lift millions out of poverty, but by less than currently predicted.”
Again, it’s all well and good to remind the American people of the Left’s propaganda tactics—repetition is an important part of getting a message across—but we can’t lose sight of why they cook the books: to advance their crackpot policy initiatives and all-encompassing vision of government authority.