GOP Senate Environment Committee Rants that Climate Change a Hoax

We had plenty of warning that batshit craziness would ensue once Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) became the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee and Inhofe has wasted no time in demonstrating that he's lost touch with objective reality.   Inhofe took to the Senate floor for a long speech about how he believes human-caused climate change is fake. Never mind that the consensus of scientists (other than those funded by the oil industry) is nearly unanimous.  Think Progress looks at Inhofe's lunacy.  Here are highlights:

Wednesday was a big day for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). In the morning, he officially took the gavel as chairman of the Senate’s Environment Committee. In the afternoon, he took the Senate floor for a long speech about how human-caused climate change is fake.

[T]he speech has everything. References to the oft-debunked “ClimateGate” stolen e-mail “scandal”, a poster of a Time Magazine cover from 1974 claiming an ice age is coming, and multiple references to former Vice President Al Gore. It has a mention of a survey of weather-casters who think global warming is caused by natural variation, but does not mention that weather-casters are not climate scientists. It even includes the claim that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “started” the whole idea that climate change is happening . . .

Inhofe says he has compiled a list of 4,000 “renowned scientists” scientists who disagree (“this is all in my website,” he said). Inhofe’s list actually has 650 people, some of whom are television meteorologists, geologists, anthropologists, and even a man with no college degree. 

Conversely, one of the most recent peer-reviewed studies on the state of climate science showed that out of 4000 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of global warming — 97 percent of these endorsed the point that it was human-caused. In the video, Inhofe says this is “just not true.”

Don’t expect this speech to be the end of climate denial in the Senate. Indeed, Inhofe ended his speech by promising more of it, citing his new position as head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

 The Republican Party that I grew up in is truly dead and gone.  Insanity, racism, bigotry and the embrace of ignorance are now the GOP norm.  As for Inhofe, he belongs in a mental institution.

Additional GOP climate change deniers

The Pope and American Catholics See Climate Change as a Crisis

In yet another bad sign for the ignorance embracing Republican Party, the Pope is preparing to release an encyclical—or "papal letter"—that will be sent to churches worldwide which calls for call for action on climate change.  Surveys show that a majority of American Catholics agree with the Pope's assessment of the crisis. No doubt Fox News, GOP Senator James Inhofe, and American fundamentalist Christians will describe all of this as part of an international conspiracy to further the climate change "hoax" as they call it.  Mother Jones looks at the Pope's planned action and Catholic support for it.  Here are excerpts:

Pope Francis, the leader the Catholic Church, is closing out 2014 in his typically headline-grabbing fashion. . . . Next on his list? Climate change.

Over the weekend, the Guardian reported that the pope will issue the first-ever comprehensive set of Vatican teachings on climate change, in the form of an encyclical—or "papal letter"—sent to churches worldwide. He will also personally lobby for climate action action in a series of high profile meetings ahead of the all-important UN global warming negotiations in Paris next year. From the Guardian:

Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated…by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world's 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners. According to Vatican insiders, Francis will meet other faith leaders and lobby politicians at the general assembly in New York in September, when countries will sign up to new anti-poverty and environmental goals.

Mobilizing believers to embrace climate action could be a very big deal, given the sheer number of people who identify as Catholic in the US—around 75 million—he said. "If we had just a fraction of those acting on climate change, it would be bigger than the networks of some of the biggest environmental groups in the US," he said. "That could help change the way we live our lives, and impact our views on public policy."

The impact would be felt beyond Catholicism too, said Mary Evelyn Tucker, director of the Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University. She called the forthcoming letter "one of the most important documents on the moral implications of what we are doing to our planet." 

[W]ould America's Catholics welcome climate advocacy from the pope? Recent polling by the Public Religion Research Institute and the American Academy of Religion suggests that many would.

** Nearly three-quarters of Hispanic Catholics surveyed agree that climate change constitutes a "crisis" or a "major problem." The same is true for a majority (53 percent) of white Catholic respondents.

** Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of Catholics surveyed said climate change is the "most pressing" environmental issue we face.

** Majorities of all groups surveyed—including 69 percent of Hispanic Catholics and 63 percent of white Catholics—agree that dealing with global warming now will help prevent economic calamities in the future.

GOP Senator Inhofe's Grand Climate Conspiracy Theory

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) surrounded by reported at the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark Virginia Mayo/AP

Outright insanity and a refusal to accept modern knowledge has become de rigueur in today's GOP.  And not just among the party's increasingly ignorant, bigoted, religious extremist base.  It infects even high elected officials such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)  who will be taking the helm of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee next month.  Like much of his party's base, Inhofe wears ignorance as a badge of honor and is only too ready to see a conspiracy under every bush, especially when it comes to climate change.  Mother Jones looks at Inhofe's lunacy and the danger he poses.  Here are excerpts:

The recent news on the front page of the New York Times was stark. As thousands of diplomats were gathering in Lima, Peru, to work on an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, scientists and climate policy experts were warning

that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet's atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding—events that could harm the world's population and economy.

But with an effort under way in Lima to protect the difference, as the newspaper put it, "between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one," one fellow in Washington is readying himself to prevent any progress toward a climate accord: Sen. James Inhofe. The 80-year-old Republican from Oklahoma is one of the most notorious deniers of human-induced climate change. He has contended that God controls the Earth's climate, not Homo sapiens, and he has quoted the Bible to make this point: "As long as the Earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night." And Inhofe, thanks to the recent elections, is in line to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans assume control of the Senate next month.  He has vowed to do all he can to block regulations aimed at cutting emissions.

In December 2009, the United Nations hosted a global gathering in Copenhagen to hammer out what some participants hoped would be a binding accord that would compel a reduction in emissions around the world.  . . . [Inhofe] slithered in and out of the cavernous media filing center, ever at the ready to speak to reporters looking for the other side quotes denigrating the proceedings, claiming that climate change was no more than a hoax, and celebrating the summit's failure to produce a binding and comprehensive treaty.

I said [to Inhofe], spreading my arms wide. There are thousands of intelligent and well-meaning people in this gigantic conference center: scientists, heads of state, government officials, policy experts. They believe that climate change is a serious and pressing threat and that something must be done soon. Do you believe that they have all been fooled?  Yes, he said, grinning.

That's some hoax, I countered. But who has engineered such a scam?  Hollywood liberals and extreme environmentalists, Inhofe replied.  Really? I asked. Why would they conspire to scare all these smart people into believing a catastrophe was under way, when all was well? Inhofe didn't skip a beat: To advance their radical environmental agenda. I pressed on: Who in Hollywood is doing this?
The whole liberal crowd, Inhofe said. But who?  Barbra Streisand, he responded.

Did this senator truly believe Barbra Streisand was the devious force behind a completely phony global campaign to address climate change? He seemed to.

In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe does mention Streisand—but only once, lumping her together with Leonardo DiCaprio and John Travolta as celebs whose environmental "alarmism" had to be debunked. But his book did not shy away from clearly identifying the charlatans and hoaxers who have hornswoggled the planet: "environmental activist extremists," Al Gore, MoveOn.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, and, yes, "the Hollywood elites."

The man belongs in a mental institution, not the U.S. Senate.   This man is down right scary.  And he's the face of today's Republican Party.

The Damage That Can Be Expected from a GOP Controlled Senate

James Inhofe - climate change denier and environmental saboteur.

I continue to try to be optimistic that enough Americans will get their heads out of their asses and/or make the effort to go vote so that the Republican Party fails to win control of the United States Senate.  The polls suggest, sadly, that too many will stay home or vote their racial hatred or fear of modernity and pull the GOP lever.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the damage a GOP controlled Senate may inflict on America.  Here are highlights:

If, as expected, Republicans take control of the Senate, they will try to repeal Obamacare and pass a string of other outlandish bills, all of which President Obama will veto. Or they might block some judgeships but work with the president in a few areas in order to build an agenda to run on in 2016. In other words, we’re told, this election is No Biggie.

This analysis, which you will hear again tonight on all the networks, ignores the ferocious radicalism of today’s Republican Party. As majority leader, Mitch McConnell might want to cut deals, but he will be dealing with a GOP caucus in the Senate that increasingly resembles the one John Boehner must contend with in the House, not to mention a base that has derailed several attempts to present a more moderate agenda on issues ranging from taxes to immigration.

The biggest impact of a GOP takeover will be on appointments. Many Obama administration sub-Cabinet positions (e.g. Surgeon General) have gone unfilled because of GOP opposition. Now many will likely remain vacant for another two years. Republicans don’t care.

The federal bench will be harmed by dozens of vacancies going unfilled, causing a case backlog. Meanwhile, none other than Sen. Ted Cruz is slated to become chairman of the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee responsible for constitutional rights. Imagine the hearings he will hold. With any luck, the press won’t cover them, but don’t hold your breath. 

Should Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a cancer survivor) or one of the other justices have to step down, all hell would break loose. Republicans would likely block any Obama nominee to the high court, especially for one of the conservative seats, leaving a 4-4 partisan split until early 2017, meaning that important cases would go undecided. Talk about gridlock.

The worst effect of a Republican takeover would be on the environment. The climate-change denial caucus would likely grow larger and more radical. Take Joni Ernst, a GOP darling now favored to be the next senator from Iowa. Ernst, best known for castrating pigs, doesn’t just want to ease environmental regulation; she favors abolishing the EPA altogether.

The ostrich-in-chief—and proud of it—is a former mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who once compared the director of the EPA to Tokyo Rose and the agency to the Gestapo. If Republicans win the Senate on Tuesday, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, now in his fourth term, is set to become the next chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, a position he held from 2003 to 2007, when the Republicans last held control. He will make it his business to carry water for the fossil-fuel industry, smear climate scientists, and do everything else in his considerable power to prevent the country and the world from confronting the slow motion crisis of climate change.

The world’s most eminent climate scientists, who all believe climate change is real, are, according to Inhofe, “in it for the money” and apparently part of the vast conspiracy that he says he will devote the rest of his days to exposing.

Even in an era when the public detests Washington, the U.S. Senate remains a powerful platform to advance ideas, including historically bad ones. So voters might want to consider who else—and what else—they are elevating when they go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for ostriches.

How did the GOP become so insane?  Look no farther than the Christofascists/Tea Party. 

GOP Senator Claims Pentagon Policy Allowing Gays To Marry Harms Straight Couples

One of the worse gay haters and homophobes in the United States Senate is GOP Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who I suspect in truth would favor establishing a Christofascist ruled theocracy in America after an over throw of the U.S. Constitution in substance.  There seems to be no end to the man's anti-gay batshitery.  Now he is claiming that Pentagon policy allowing gay service members to marry is harming heterosexual couples.  Like most of what comes out of Inhofe's mouth its crazy bullshit.  Inhofe over looks one important fact: unlike gays, straights can marry in every state in America.  It's a huge difference. Think Progress looks at this batshitery erruption.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) blasted a proposed Pentagon policy aimed at giving same-sex couples the time to travel to states where they can legally marry on Thursday. Inhofe, who takes great pride in having no LGBT relatives, wrote to Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel that doing so would amount to “special uncharged leave benefits” for same-sex partners.

Following the Supreme Court’s June ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Department of Defense has been working to update its systems to ensure it treats same-sex marriages equally, as required by the ruling. Since just 13 states and the District of Columbia have statewide marriage equality, the military is reportedly considering granting a few days of uncharged leave to soldiers and sailors who need to travel to a state where they can legally marry.

Inhofe, the ranking minority-party member of Senate Armed Services Committee, objects to the idea, suggesting it is an illegal benefit and that it would amount to discrimination not to offer the same amount of leave to those entering into opposite-sex unions:

Inhofe’s claim that he supports fair and equal treatment seems to conflict with his record. His official Senate website boasts that he has “consistently supported and defended traditional marriage between one man and one woman as a cornerstone to the strength of our society,” and that he strongly opposes “the Obama Administration’s attack on traditional marriage and attempts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.” Inhofe voted for the unconstitutional DOMA law in 1996 and co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Of course, if his concern about “disparate treatment” is sincere, the solution is obvious: he should work toward making sure same-sex couples, especially those who serve their country, are free to marry in all 50 states. He could start with his own state of Oklahoma,

GOP Backed Bill Would Require English Only in Federal Documents.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Right: Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Remember how the Republican Party is supposedly trying to broaden its base and re-create a "big tent" atmosphere to attract Hispanic and other minority voters?  Well, the GOP has a very strange way of engaging in such out reach.  Two GOP members of Congress - both of whom are in my view despicable racists - are seeking to outlaw the use of Spanish and other non-English languages in federal documents.  The bill would impact everything from ballots at the polls to many other federal documents that currently are also printed in other languages, especially Spanish (e.g., many IRS forms).  Its all a party of the GOP base's effort to send a message that if one in not white, straight and conservative Christian, one is not welcome in America.  As I have noted before, how long will it be before KKK robes are handed out at the beginning of GOP city and county committee meetings?  Think Progress looks at the GOP sponsored and almost unanimously backed bill.  Here are highlights:

Republicans are continuing their minority outreach efforts this month by introducing a bill outlawing Spanish and other non-English languages from being used in federal documents.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), most recently in the headlines after attacking President Obama’s young daughters for going on vacation, introduced the English Language Unity Act in the House earlier this month, along with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) in the Senate. As King notes on his website, the bill would require “all official functions of the United States to be conducted in English.” Federal and state governments print thousands of documents every year, many of which are translated into other languages besides English.

One major impact King’s bill could have is to stop the decades-long practice of printing non-English ballots in areas where there’s a significant non-English language group. Indeed, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 currently requires local jurisdictions with a substantial number of non-English speakers to allow them to vote in other languages.

English-only bills not only discriminate against immigrants and minorities; they’re also wholly unnecessary. Conservatives fret that immigrants today aren’t learning English like immigrants of yesteryear, but are instead confining themselves to permanent non-English enclaves. That idea is, to put it mildly, nonsense. Though first-generation immigrants often have limited-English proficiency, their children quickly adopt English, just as it’s always been in the proverbial American melting pot. By the second generation, more than 80 percent speak English exclusively or very well, and the figure jumps to nearly everyone in the third generation. In fact, as Professor Tomas Jimenez at Stanford University notes, “immigrants today are learning English faster than the large waves of immigrants who came to the United States during the turn of the last century.”

Republicans have spent the months following last November’s election in a tailspin trying to figure out how to win over minority voters. Their autopsy, released this month, singled out minority outreach as an area where the Party has consistently fell short and planned to improve going forward. However, the GOP put forth no new policies, only a promise to be more sensitive in their communication. That pledge was quickly violated by Rep. Don Young and RNC Committeeman Dave Agema, among others.

Pentagon to Remove Ban on Women in Combat

In recognition of the roles that women have already been playing in the fool's errand armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan launched by Chimperator George W. Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney, the Pentagon is poised to remove the ban in women in combat positions.  The ban is a recognition of reality and will remove the barrier that has barred women from full recognition for their valor and kept many from advancing up the ranks of the military.  One can just imagine the shrieks of Phyllis Schlafly and Christofascists who want women kept as subordinate chattel in the home - bare foot and pregnant if you will.  Obviously, I do not believe that all women should be required to go into combat positions, but those who want them should not be held back.  The Washington Post looks at the policy change:

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta plans to announce Thursday a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military, defense officials said.

Panetta made the decision “upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official said Wednesday, an assertion that stunned female veteran activists who said they assumed that the brass was still uneasy about opening the most physically arduous positions to women. The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military’s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15.

“The onus is going to be on them to justify why a woman can’t serve in a particular role,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan before the official announcement.

The decision comes after a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women demonstrated heroism on battlefields with no front lines. It dovetails with another seismic policy change in the military that has been implemented relatively smoothly: the repeal of the ban on openly gay service members.

Lawmakers and female veterans applauded Wednesday’s news, saying the ban on women in combat roles is obsolete.  “This is monumental,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, which has advocated for the full inclusion of women. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone, and it will help professionalize the force.”

Advocates and experts say women are unlikely to flock to those positions, such as roles in light infantry and tank units and Special Forces — although some may. More substantively, they say, lifting the ban will go a long way toward changing the culture of a male-dominated institution in which women have long complained about discrimination and a high incidence of sexual assault.

“The reality is that so many women have been, in effect, in combat or quasi-combat,” he said. “This is catching up with reality.”

In a statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), the leading Republican on the Armed Services Committee, voiced a measure of concern, saying last year’s study raised “serious practical barriers” that, if ignored, could jeopardize the “safety and privacy” of service members.

James Inhofe - a Christianist who never can separate his bigoted religious views from public policy - not surprisingly raised to bogus issue of  service member "privacy" as a reason to keep women inferior.