Snowed: Oklahoma Senator Mocks Global Warming Theories By Tossing Snowball On The Senate Floor

Despite the fact that the Senate recently voted 98-1 that climate change is real and not a hoax, Sen. Jim Inhofe, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, was back on the floor mocking the notion of climate change this week. Inhofe voted for the earlier resolution but insists that man is not responsible for the changes. Those pushing for measures to combat climate change bring the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world to such debates as well as dozens of studies. Inhofe brought a snowball.

Inhofe tossed a snowball in the Senate chambers to mock the notion of climate change. He also showed pictures of an igloo his daughter’s family built during the snowstorm five years ago and noted that was the same tie that all “the hysteria on global warming” began. Addressing Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, Inhofe said “Do you know what this is? It’s a snowball. It’s just from outside here, so it’s very, very cold out, … very unseasonable.” He then said “Mr. President, Catch this” and threw the snowball. Wisely not trusting the coordination of his colleagues, he threw it to a page who caught the snowball with the skill of Ernie Banks.

As we have discussed, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last month that 2014 was the warmest year on record. However, climate change does not mean that you do not get extremely cold weather. Indeed, you can have wild fluctuations in weather patterns. Many scientists have documents not just colder temperatures over all but such intensifying patterns. It certainly does not mean that you will not get snow in Washington, D.C.

Yet, Inhofe insisted “We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, but now the script has flipped.

Of course, even before the GOP took over the Senate, there was little action on climate change. If history is any measure, any substantive legislation has about the changes of a snowball in . . . the Senate.

264 thoughts on “Snowed: Oklahoma Senator Mocks Global Warming Theories By Tossing Snowball On The Senate Floor”

  1. Ed – “Karen S, I appreciate how you are arguing your positions and trying to affect a change in the way the other side views the issue. If you enjoy that challenge then that is great but I suspect this is otherwise futile.

    I keep coming back to the idea that especially with this issue it not a matter of science but of faith. Just as no scientific argument will shake the faith of a devout Christian/Jew, etc., no scientific argument is going to sway a believer in anthropogenic climate change. I quite intentionally use the word believe. It does not matter how flawed, fraudulent, hypocritical, impractical you may demonstrate things to be, the other side believes what they believe and therefore the ends justify the means.

    In discussions I am often chided (mocked, ridiculed, etc.) because, as they put it, I do not believe in climate change or I’m a climate change denier. I’ll clarify that for them: No, I see no legitimate science demonstrating that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is correct. The next day they refer to me as a climate change denier. At some point you realize the other side has no interest in what you think.”

    Exactly! Arguing with a true believer in global warming is very much like arguing evolution to a creationist. Once the creationist says, “God works in mysterious ways” the debate is over since they can use that to explain away any evidence you can provide. When global warming believers tell us the science is settled and that cold or warm temperatures are caused by man made emissions the debate is over since you can never bring them any data that won’t be explained away. And as Karen has pointed out, the data can never come from a source that they don’t want to believe in.That is why it is better to just write “You are right, I believe global warming is the most important issue we face in the world.” To people like Inga and Max and move on. Even then, they are still not happy.

  2. Dave – “Jim:

    There are no carbon emissions? So what comes out of the millions and millions of cars and power-plants every day has no affect on the global environment? Makes sense.

    Tell me, Jim, would you breathe what comes out of your tailpipe? It’s harmless, right?”

    No power plants that I know of release carbon into the air. The ones I work on, Power Gen Gas Turbines, would emit this CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H2O + CO2 in a perfect world of only O2. But we burn air which has lots of other molecules in it like Nitrogen. Spitting out Carbon would not make economical sense since you would be wasting fuel. Some is true for emitting CO, which we try to eliminate also since you again are wasting fuel there too.

    Ask yourself this, why does everything you read to support what you want to believe refer to a “carbon foot print” Or carbon emission” and not a “CO2 foot print” or “CO2 emission”. Sounds a lot less scary doesn’t it when we give it the true label of CO2, which is not poisonous. Again, it is all about marketing and messaging and you’ve bought into it and will defend it.

  3. Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis:
    One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

  4. So let me see… several years ago, emails were leaked that indicated the scientists made up some numbers and the then ‘global warming’ was a hoax. From that point, the perpetuated lie of global warming was renamed to ‘climate change’ as to distance itself from the phony climate change. Then the Senate votes to claim the climate change isn’t a hoax.

    If it was a hoax as global warming, no matter what you call it, it’s still a phony.

  5. Breitbart merely repeated BBC news. Anyone who questions the source and is not lazy can simply do their own work and look it up. The resignation has been big international news, stemming as it did from sexual harassment.

    Because you won’t find it in Liberal news sources. They’re all in.

    It’s like they say 97% of 79 scientists out of tens of thousands all agree! Woo hoo! I ignore facts that I don’t agree with. Aren’t I super smart!

  6. The myth of the “97%” consensus:

    Again, as seems to be an entrenched problem in climate science, the methodology that arrived at the figure was ludicrously flawed. It was based on a survey of which only 79 scientists responded. And, again in a typical fashion, everyone keeps repeating that erroneous information until it becomes unquestionably part of the vernacular.

    You poor folks. Do you still think skeptics and anyone who questions are stupid? That’s kind of embarrassing.

    Anyone who has the least interest in science should understand that you are supposed to question everything, and defend your work. When a movement starts ridiculing and demonizing those who question, that is a red flag that this has become fanatical and politicized.

    Don’t believe me? Take a look at this thread, where concerning facts are completely ignored or met with personal attacks.

    When climate science makes such mistakes, those involved shouldn’t blame the public for questioning their reliability, they should blame themselves. It is their job to fix these mistakes and glaring ethical errors. But they just keep happening.

Comments are closed.