Marsha Blackburn Takes Over for Inhofe on the Climate Issue

By Chris Mooney | December 17, 2009 1:06 pm

It is clear that the GOP now has a new denial spokesperson–Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. I already blogged her misleading radio address on “ClimateGate” and Copenhagen; now, watch her in this CNN debate with Ed Markey:

It’s all here, folks: We’ve got the massive over-interpretation of “ClimateGate”, global cooling claims (both about the 1970s and about the present), the assertion that “climate change is cyclical,” that it is “unsettled science” and “it depends on whose science you’re looking at,” and so forth. It’s bad, bad news.

Blackburn is quickly becoming the new James Inhofe….

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Energy, Environment, Global Warming

Comments (11)

  1. BartonCreekBett

    Oh no, another voice of dissent. If they are spreading complete lies and falsehoods let them destroy themselves right?

    Like Al Gore falsley predicting 75% of the polar ice cap disappearing citing a study by a scientist who immidiately called his claims false and publicy criticized how he could come to such a conclusion citing his own research. Al Gore’s office publicly apoligized and said there had been a “misunderstanding”, i guess “trick” and “hide the decline” had already been used. They noted a private discussion several years ago with the scientist even though the report was recently released. So Al is blabbing specifics about a report he didn’t bother to read quoting the creator of the report from several years ago in a private conversation? Next some one will tell me that a few miles down the Earth is millions of degrees, oh wait Al already did that.

    Oh wait maybe there are half truths everywhere, and what politicians is take facts and twist and contort them to their own advantage. Dam that Al Gore.

    But hey let’s not look at that, let’s ruthlessly attack any denier with reckless abandon making the argument become crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s not about anything with substance.

  2. emerson cardoso

    Thanks God that we still have someone with senses to disupute the global warming religion!!!

    Why don’t you put here some of the leaked code used to create the models that make up the current global warming trend?

  3. badnicolez

    Cap and trade is going to get us off foreign oil? How? By making gasoline $20/gallon and tripling the cost of electricity? No thanks. Exxon Mobil and Saudi Arabia are responsible for $4/gal gas? Really? Markey doesn’t know his a** from a hole in the ozone.

  4. badnicolez

    Forgot to add…according to this guy, cap and trade will end the importation of the oil that we need to get to our jobs every day so we can make a living and feed our children, and we know how those currently in power feel about drilling here. Does anyone else find that scary?

  5. Rmoen

    Are you asserting that climate change is NOT cyclical? Please be less biased in your reporting.

    — Robert Moen,

  6. Jochen

    Only the fools and the dead don’t change their opinions. I changed my mind after 6 years of believing in AGW, and in my current opinion AGW is bunk science at best. The change came after reading a dozen or so books and countless online articles on both sides of the issue. If they should ever present solid evidence based on uncorrupted science, I will change my mind again. Until then, I will do my duty to society as an educated and rational human being and remain a Skeptic!

  7. John Kwok

    @BartonCreekBett –

    You haven’t answered my question: Do you accept evolution as fact and the science strongly supporting it as valid? It’s been a few days and haven’t heard from you yet.

    You should also study this website, since it will answer your objections:

  8. freelunch


    There are natural processes that affect the climate, some of which are cyclical. Currently human activity is changing the climate more than all of the natural processes are. The evidence has been gathered and has persuaded all of the scientists involved in the study of it.

  9. Jon

    I could site every study that contradicts every “point” that is being made by these contrarians and it would make no difference.

    Chris, you should check to see if different names are coming from the same IP address. If they are, they are sockpuppeting and the commenter should be banned.

    By the way, interesting piece on the modern conservative movement on climate change:

    Question: when are we dealing with real “skepticism” and reasonable curiosity, and when are we dealing with *ressentiment*?

  10. Thomas L


    Why must they be contrary? Many are resentful because they actually understand economics and socialpolitical realities. They understand very clearly what this means to the U.S. – maybe the insightful speech by Chavez the other day will fill you in. They sure do hate capitalism, but darn it if they don’t want all our money… Though one must ask once it’s all taken, then what? So yes, there is assuredly resentment – not at the science, but at the so called “solutions”.

    Perhaps you should read this one to realize it is not remotely so simple (thanks to Oliver from a previous post): Personally what I found interesting was in a later post, where he got into some comparisons between supporters and skeptics. Seems most of the supporters who responded where quite a bit younger and few felt any need to focus on economic issues. Hope that all works out for them as anyone who understands finance knows this country is in for one heck of a rough ride before any new spending or government programs are created such as “cap and trade”medical coveragehow many billions more a year to developing countries??? As in where, exactly, do you think the money is going to come from? Keep in mind the boomers are going to be retiring over the next several years and we still need to figure out where the 60~!ish TRILLION we promised them is going to actually come from (and no, I am slightly too young to be a boomer, but I understand the economics of coming up with that much)… and that’s before you get into state and municipal pension problems and budget issues.

    Skepticism and resentment may be found together, and they may be found apart. Engaging in conversation is the only way you will ever know – running everyone away by calling them names and accusing them of being “anti-science” and putting them on the same level as holocaust deniers is not exactly a productive form of persuasion. At this point if anything is going to get done persuasion is what is needed.

    Then you might actually start pointing out things that are accessible to people (peer review is not – it costs $’s, and $’s just happens to be something a lot of people don’t exactly have a much of right now…) instead of calling them names and saying everything else they find is bunk (because they are going to find the opposing views). If you missed the “where are the Skeptics coming from” post earlier you might of noticed that yes, you all have certainly caught the eyes of other scientists, and few are amused. You might well want to go read it if you have not already (I see no posts from you in the threads, and there are several worth reading).

    Then you also might notice that there have been a few recent releases from Nature and NASA that imply AGW is not the primary cause of many effects that have been constantly pointed towards as being “proof” of AGW… There seems to be a very large problem in understanding cause and effect and what is required for two observed actions to became such. One such issue is the knowledge that Co2 was substantially higher in previous periods of earth history and somehow it failed to cause a “tipping point”. So why is it now suddenly different? Yes I understand there are differences such as plate tectonics and how they affect heating and cooling feedback loops. Still, if the planet managed to survive such before(and indications are it actually thrived) – and in fact proceeded to fall into ice ages afterwardsduring such episodes, why do the scientists (from but one discipline) think that is somehow not relevant? Yes, I also understand that rising Co2 levels have tended to occur after warming and we are assuredly adding levels that otherwise would not be there – but we have been in a warming period for quite awhile, and are still recovering from the LIA.

    I’ve yet to meet anyone who doubts “climate change”, and few who doubt there has been some warming over the past century, but that is not the disagreement. The argument is over just how solid the proof is, and not just from a bunch of other climate scientists, but agreement with related areas of study (something that apparently doesn’t matter much to the anointed ones). How much is AGW (and there are huge “if’s” and “maybe’s” and bands of probabilities involved in that answer). The second part of the argument is over presented “solutions”. The second part of the disagreements may well be insolvable in any politically feasible way, and may actually require some serious rethinking.

    Personally I have never dealt with any area of study where the idea of being a “skeptic” is taken as somehow always being a negative, at it is within Client Science. Many of us are having a very hard time understanding how such came to be.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs.For a longer bio and contact information, see here.


See More

Collapse bottom bar