曾擔任參議員英赫夫塔爾薩市市長，是來自俄克拉何馬州的資深參議員。 他一直大力倡導了許多他的選民，他一直強烈批評一些國會程序缺乏公開性。 他是在得到聯邦政府的超級資金清理在俄克拉何馬州東北部的投手鉛礦。 東北俄克拉何馬州的一個大面積的影響，並已花費數百萬美元，以盡量減輕對環境的破壞。 當時沒有人知道，鉛是有毒的，投手是一個完美的例子如何你不知道什麼可以傷害你的，是昂貴的。
參議員英赫夫常說：“全球變暖是一個騙局”，但證明這可能是困難的。 每一個在世界上主要的科研機構已經通過了類似的美國化學學會的語句：“ 認真和全面的科學評估，已經清楚地表明，地球的氣候系統是不斷變化的響應日益增長的溫室氣體排放的大氣負擔和吸收氣溶膠粒子迅速。 有懷疑的餘地很小，觀測到的氣候變化趨勢是由於人類活動。 嚴重的威脅，迫切需要採取行動，以減輕氣候變化的風險 。“2010年美國斯坦福大學的調查發現97-98％的氣候研究人員最活躍的氣候科學出版1372氣候科學家都同意，全球變暖正在發生人類活動的主要因素。 最大的騙局試圖說服我們，否則引述媒體來源，政治家，遊說，自稱是懷疑論者的科學家的2-3％，雖然有些懷疑收到大量的獎勵。 合法的科學根據的證據和理由，但在這本書中提出的許多想法都沒有。
政治：參議員 英赫夫說：“ 我不是一個科學家。 我不懂政治。“他說，他進入政治，因為塔爾薩市的工程師不會批准他的請求，將他的建築火災逃生。 英赫夫先生告訴他，他打算競選市長和解僱他時，他贏得了。 他做到了。 這是可能的工程師後，城市的民選官員通過建築代碼，並有可能已經離開走火地方，如它是很容易在發生火災時課稅，一個很好的理由。 然而，這一事件解釋參議員英赫夫的態度走向法規，監管機構，科學家的研究顯示需要的法規。 這也解釋了參議員接近規定。 他認為業務的障礙，但他沒有看到，大多數法規，以保護公眾。 他最喜歡的目標之一是環保局，這是由壓力。 尼克松以保護環境。 參議員英赫夫選擇參議院環境和公共工程（EPW）委員會的工作，這樣他就可以保護他認為不必要的環保法規的企業。
騙局：參議員 英赫夫顯然 是相信“ 全球變暖是一個騙局 ”在最近的國會歷史更糟的騙局之一。 它開始時威利博士很快設法得到了一份文件，在氣候評價與同情他的看法的一個編輯的幫助下通過同行評審過程。 本文綜述了對氣候科學的文獻，並得出結論，在20世紀的全球變暖是不尋常和自然的力量，而不是人的活動，是事業。 他的證據的一個重要部分是中世紀暖期，他聲稱比後者20世紀的溫暖。 但有一些錯誤的紙張。 有沒有準確的溫度記錄在中世紀時代，美洲尚未被發現，南半球大部分是未知的。 博士不久的文件相抵觸的證據從數以百計的其他同行評審的論文。 截至3名成員辭職抗議和新聘請的總編輯，說明紙張有嚴重錯誤，不應該已公佈的編委會在氣候評價，這引起相當轟動。 環保局不願意包括在氣候變化科學評估的文件，所以參議員英赫夫預定的的EPW委員會會議，以審議的文件。
會議前不久，美國地球物理聯盟（AGU）發布了其工作不久的博士論文的科學家13日的新聞稿中，說紙歪曲他們的研究。 在聽證會上，邁克爾·曼為代表的科學觀點，提出從中世紀暖期是不是全世界只有在溫度記錄在小駝峰導致多個來源的證據。 很快就站在後面，他的工作，並作證說，他沒有收到任何可能偏向他的客觀性資金。 然而，作為主要來源的資金和從史密森學會自收到回應FOIA要求的文件，文件列出了美國石油學會透露，博士自2001年以來，很快已收到來自石油和煤炭的利益超過100萬元的資助。 參議員英赫夫的變故感到不滿，並試圖讓他開槍 - 邁克爾·曼是。 參議員英赫夫的堅持，貴格會大學，賓夕法尼亞大學，已進行2到曼恩博士的研究調查，沒有發現任何不當行為。 2010年的科學文章回顧調查，宣布“ 邁克爾·曼被清除，再次。”與執政黨不滿，參議員英赫夫試圖得到律政司控告邁克爾·曼欺詐。 可悲的是，在歷史上第一次，科學家們正在收集法律辯護基金，以捍衛科學家對政治攻擊。 更糟糕的是，我們的環境和公共工程委員會的資深成員的科學觀點顯然是基於一份文件，將無法通過大一英文。
代言：最大的騙局被馬幣卡特博士，來自澳大利亞的古生物學家，誰是參議員英赫夫的明星證人同意2006年的參議院聽證會上，氣候變化和媒體。 媒體沒有可靠的成員作證，人們可能會問，為什麼參議員英赫夫將在澳大利亞媒體的偏見。 卡特博士可能是因為他可以算的上作證，從歷史上看，在全球氣溫上升之前一直不斷上升的二氧化碳濃度，因此，一些自然的原因，必須釋放的二氧化碳是導致溫度上升。 他是正確的二氧化碳增加地球的溫度的作用，但他而忽略二氧化碳濃度上升，因為燃燒化石燃料釋放30億噸二氧化碳，每年的可能性。
聽證會後，卡特博士是由氣候學家的挑戰，顯示他聲稱的自然變異產生的研究，但姍姍來遲生產的紙，他很快就被駁斥重大錯誤時，被發現在他的推理。 雖然在聽證會上作證的四個科學家懷疑，所有四個同意在上個世紀，地球升溫約1℃。 參議員英赫夫自己的聽證會上曾明確駁斥他的說法：“ 全球變暖是一個騙局 。”這是很少關注的參議員英赫夫，作為聽證會的主要目的是為了恐嚇記者-如果需要。
科學 ：在書中幾乎沒有科學，雖然書中有很多是專門哈特蘭德研究所，媒體人士，和其他政界人士引述他的朋友，詆毀科學和科學家。 他甚至還設置了戈爾作為一個科學家稻草人。 在這本書的介紹，他的戈爾赤裸而無味的圖片顯示，相當大的空間是專門醜化他。 這是一個恥辱，作為一個受尊敬的參議員，副總統戈爾曾擔任，作為總統候選人在幾百票當選。 戈爾獲得了諾貝爾和平獎，他的環保工作和他的電影“難以忽視的真相”獲得了奧斯卡獎。 影片在法庭上也有它的天，贏得了。 有趣的是，同卡特博士，誰批准書，是在為原告證人Dimmock至 五國務卿教育 ，西裝，試圖阻止一個難以忽視的真相“在英國的教育用途。 法院顯然不同意卡特博士和裁定，雖然影片有一些錯誤，大幅建立在科學研究和事實可以顯示。 參議員英赫夫聲稱自己是自由市場資本主義，但他顯然沒有意識到，這些利潤大部分一直致力於推動保守的原因，如保護，似乎採取巨大的樹蔭，戈爾從他在綠色能源的投資獲利，地球。
雖然他可能是一個熟練的政治家，在黨派意義上說，參議員英赫夫是正確時，他說：“我不是一個科學家。”他不明白如何從許多領域的科學知識結合在一起的自然形成一致的看法。 For instance, the book tells that after a large snowfall in Washington DC, his grandchildren built an igloo and put up a sign: “ Al Gore's New Home ”. Sen. Inhofe used the picture to denounce global warming alarmism, though he should know that a single weather event proves nothing. And, if he were a scientist, he might understand how the warming oceans increase the probability of a record snowfall in Washington DC , making the igloo possible – and how carbon dioxide has made more probable the record heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma, making droughts and wildfires possible.
Sen. Inhofe shows he does not understand how science works when he brings up the “Coming Ice Age” story to discredit the scientific evidence. The argument goes, “ How can you trust science, when in the 1970s the scientists were predicting the coming of a new Ice Age, but now scientists claim that the Earth is warming ?” In the 70's, scientists found that increased industrialization was causing not only an increase in particulates, which would cause global cooling, but also an increase in CO2, which would increase global warming. There was no consensus among scientists about which effect would predominate. A count of scientific papers in that decade showed that only 7 journal articles predicted that the global average temperature would continue to cool, while 44 papers indicated that the average temperature would rise. The research on global cooling was valuable as it showed a nuclear war was unwinnable as particulates from a nuclear exchange might create a nuclear winter, ending life on Earth as we know it.
Scientific controversies are usually settled by the evidence, but this one was settled by the intervention of man. Particulates are visible and have serious health consequences. By 1980, regulations were in place to limit particulate emissions and, as that happened, the temperature of the Earth began increasing again. The fossil fuel companies became alarmed, as it was becoming apparent that we should also limit carbon emissions to keep the Earth's temperature at equilibrium, so they began a propaganda campaign to convince us that carbon dioxide was harmless. If you believe that, remember the lesson of Pitcher, Oklahoma. What you don't know can hurt you and be very costly.
Cap and Trade: Sen. Inhofe claims that cap and trade is the “crown jewel” of a global conspiracy of scientists, Hollywood stars, and media personalities who want to take away your freedom and create a world government. However, cap and trade was devised by free-market conservatives for President Reagan, who used it successfully to stop the acid rain drifting into Canada from our Northeastern power plants. It was part the Clean Air Act signed into law by President Bush I and many prominent Republicans , including John McCain, have supported it. Cap and trade is considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. It is described by the EPA as “ an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.” Does that sound like it “Threatens Your Future ” , as the subtitle of the book claims? And, it cannot be making Al Gore rich – or be the cause of rising energy prices – as it has not yet been enacted for carbon emissions.
Costs: Sen. Inhofe main objection to environmental regulations is their tremendous cost; but an accurate analysis of costs and benefits are not in the book. He just claims that it would cost each US household $3,100 a year, a cost that has great sticker shock, but is totally inaccurate. Dr. John Reilly, the MIT economist whose work was used to arrive at that number, has publicly criticized a Republican lobbyist for distorting his work to arrive at that inflated value. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the cap-and-trade program by 2020 would average about $175 annually per household, and that associated savings would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details other high economic costs of inadequate environmental legislation, such as reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields. Yet Congress has refused to act on the matter.
Also, Sen. Inhofe seems to have left some important items out of his balance sheet, such as the true cost of using fossil fuels. The true cost of a resource should include repairing damage caused by its use and disposing of the waste. We are in effect subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by allowing them to freely discharge their wastes into the environment. Some of the “true costs” of fossil fuel use, such as health and environmental costs can be estimated. Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and one of the world's top economists, has used the results from formal economic models to examine the potential cost of failure to limit our carbon emissions. He estimates that the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the cost of mitigation and damages could rise to 20% of GDP or more in the future – and we would run the additional risk of an environmental catastrophe.
Taking 5% of the US GDP for 2010, would give an environmental cost of $727 billion. As to health costs, the American Lung Association estimates that the EPA's proposed guidelines for particulates could prevent 38,000 heart attacks and premature deaths, 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school. They estimate the economic benefits of reduced exposure to particulates alone could reach as much as $281 billion annually. Those two add up to about $1.08 trillion. The calculations do not include all the environmental and health costs, but they do show about how much we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industries by ignoring the damage to people's health and the environment.
Sen. Inhofe, in his Rachel Maddow interview, stated that the cost of cap and trade would be $30-$40 billion annually. That is about 1/30 of what the environmental and health costs might eventually be. Then, it is rather hard to put a value on those premature deaths or the added risk of environmental catastrophes. The number of billion-dollar weather disasters has increased fivefold over the last 30 years, and insurance giants such as Suisse Re now consider man-made global warming real, and a risk factor in setting insurance rates. Increased insurance rates will be an additional out of pocket cost, which could easily offset the $175 the CBO estimated that cap and trade would cost.
Scientists: To get around the strong consensus of scientists, the book claims there is a global conspiracy of liberal scientists bent on creating a world government, that climate science is a religion, that climate scientists are in it for the money, and that Climategate proves climate scientists are dishonest. None of those claims are supported by verifiable evidence. Most scientists are good citizens, conservative in their statements and actions. Most are religious, with stewardship and concern for their fellow man being part of their religion. The Presbyterian church, where Senator Inhofe claims membership, stated in 1989 and reaffirmed in 2008, its “serious concern that the global atmospheric warming trend (the greenhouse effect) represents one of the most serious global environmental challenges to the health, security, and stability of human life and natural ecosystems.”
The book calls climate scientists “alarmists” in a derogatory sense, but many are becoming alarmed. Research shows that the Earth's climate is changing because of our emissions of CO2, yet Congress has not acted to solve the problem. Scientists were criticized for considering the problem catastrophic, but they realize our carbon emissions will have an affect for 100 years or more into the future and inaction will threaten our food and water supply,increase the risk of severe weather events, and a possibly lead to an environmental catastrophe. Remember what happened at Pitcher, Oklahoma because lead mining was considered harmless.
Sen. Inhofe often calls those who disagree with him “liberals”, but the meaning of liberal and conservative seem to be flexible. During the American Revolution, it was the liberals who wanted to create a democracy and conservatives who thought that King George had a divine right to rule. Sen. Inhofe uses “liberals” to describe environmentalists and others who want to preserve the earth – and uses “conservatives” for those who want to conserve power and profits.
He describes Rachel Maddow as one of his favorite liberals, but that may change. In his book he said “ Rachel's segment was one of the last major efforts to go after me just days before I landed in Copenhagen and declared vindication .” However in his recent interview on Rachel's show, she showed the clip. Nowhere in the clip does it mention Copenhagen or climate change. Rather than apologize, he said he couldn't remember everything he said in the 350 pages of fine print in the book, raising questions about how much of the book he actually wrote. Apparently liberal can also mean “pesky”.
石油巨頭：參議員 英赫夫告訴在俄克拉何馬州油田昔日的一些好故事，但當時塔爾薩世界石油資本和我們國內的石油生產不同品種從今天的跨國石油公司。 他們很少有忠誠於美國，並為我們的公民或環境很少關注。 他們創造了一些人為的最大的環境災難和抵制相當補償他們的受害者。 在深水地平線石油洩漏的憤怒後，BP公司首席執行官評論：“ 我希望我的生活 ”，但他無法歸還11失去生命，因為他的決定。 雖然他答應賠償漏油損壞美國人的，BP任命了一名律師，分散的資金，“要么接受，要么離開它”提供的許多受害者。 埃克森美孚埃克森公司瓦爾迪茲石油洩漏後，去了所有的方式向最高法院以避免支付$ 5億美元的賠償所欠的本土阿拉斯加。 科赫油被指控欺騙了5億美元的石油特許權使用費的印第安人和政府俄克拉何馬州。 他們庭外解決的情況下為50億美元，10日，不承認不法行為。 誰說犯罪劃不來？
去年，世界最大的石油公司獲得40億美元的減稅補貼。 然而，他們的報告利潤171億美元，與部分燃油價格的急劇上升引起的經濟損失，而大多數美國企業和公民的掙扎。 參議員英赫夫說，他的目標是“ 能源自給自足 ”的美國，但去年領先的美國出口的燃料，這麼大的石油公司出售美國石油國外，創造了在美國的短缺，哄抬價格。 增加他們的利潤是他們的主要目標，即使碳排放量可能會造成一種人為的環境災難多比漏油更大。 為了捍衛自己的利潤，這些公司目前參議員英赫夫守在他的書中，科學拒絕機的主要貢獻者。
哈特蘭德基金會：參議員 英赫夫能夠拿自己的樂趣時，他說：“大自然的反擊”，指的是一種嚴重的疾病，他聯繫了一個湖泊污染與有毒藍綠藻，其增長是由水體污染和熱浪和俄克拉何馬州的刺激，而游泳。 這種疾病導致他錯過哈特蘭德研究所的會議，在那裡他是主講。 他哈特蘭德研究所的關係困擾。 哈特蘭德研究所，一次旨在證明宣傳的主要來源有吸煙，癌症和肺病之間沒有聯繫，現在已經變成了爭論的碳排放和全球變暖之間的聯繫生產宣傳其相當的經驗和資源。 石油巨頭提供哈特蘭德研究所的經費，以及其他類似的“保守”的智囊團，美元的通道百萬否定科學。 哈特蘭德研究所是一家為石油巨頭的遊說者，忠誠的政治家和有償懷疑論者聚集的地方。 其中許多是參議員英赫夫的書的信息來源。 可能是信息的準確度如何？
懷疑論者 ：科學價值的懷疑，因為他們強大的科學領域，需要更多的調查指出，他們有時會作出寶貴的貢獻，科學。 當理查德·穆勒質疑美國宇航局的溫度記錄，他評價氣象站數據的所有6億件，和溫度記錄是準確的結論來。 當奧唐奈Steig顯示南極洲是氣候變暖的工作表示懷疑，他重新分析數據，發現確實是地球上最冷的地方，南極洲，逐漸回暖。
Skeptics are expected to follow the methodologies and the ethics of science, to subject their work to review by their peers, and to divulge conflicts of interest. Many of those Sen. Inhofe praises as “climate skeptics” do not meet those criteria. They profit from being skeptical and, when research shows them wrong, they continue to repeat their skeptical arguments anyway. An example is Anthony Watts, who started the Surface Station Project to examine the data from weather stations, which he claimed had errors. The AGU took his skepticism seriously and did a thorough study on the weather stations, finding the data was reliable. They had offered Watts a chance to participate in the research, but he missed his chance to be a scientist when he refused. And though the question has been answered, Mr. Watts is still repeating the same criticisms – and collecting substantial donations to continue his Surface Station Project. There are many skeptics like Mr. Watts, who receives generous grants from think tanks, not for fundamental research, but to come up with ideas to cast doubt on the IPCC, climate research, and the work of legitimate scientists. Many of the paid skeptics appear in Sen. Inhofe's book as his sources for information, quotes, and references.
Vindication: In this chapter of the book, Sen. Inhofe claims vindication, but it is hard to imagine sufficient vindication for displaying a picture of Al Gore naked. Sen. Inhofe does claim he is vindicated by the Climategate e-mails. Hackers broke into the computers of England's Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and stole 10 years of e-mails exchanged between the scientists. Quotes from the stolen e-mails were taken out of context, distorted, and released to media sources with claims the CRU scientists engaged in illegal and unethical acts. As of today, eight independent formal investigations have been completed and none have found any scientific misconduct by the scientists involved. The incident was dubbed “Climategate” , but it was in no way like Watergate. In Wategate, the thieves were caught and punished and those who masterminded the plot were publicly disgraced. In Climategate, the thieves have been hailed by some skeptics as heroes – and the victims of the theft have been vilified. It seems strange that Scotland Yard is searching for the hackers, while Sen. Inhofe is gleefully helping spread the misinformation. So, rather than being like Watergate, the e-mail scandal was actually more like Stargate, fictional fantasy. The accusations of wrongdoing by some of the skeptical scientists, made before the matter could be investigated, were particularly egregious as scientist's ethical codes say that:” Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and precision, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.”
勝出：參議員 英赫夫聲稱他贏了，但他不能被科學辯論說。 All the world's major scientific organizations think he is losing, as do 97 – 98% of the climate scientists, and 83% of American voters. A 2011 Stanford poll found that 83% of Americans say that global warming is happening with 88% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans saying it is the result of human action. Attacking scientists may prove to be contrary to the Republican party's best interest. While polls find scientist's trustworthiness is highly rated , with 84% having a favorable view of scientists, Congress' approval has now dropped to around 9%. This may be indicative of the public's dissatisfaction with the partisanship and gridlock in Congress, occurring for reasons well on display in this book.
Although some members of Congress and some of the public may listen to Sen. Inhofe, nature doesn't. No matter how much he claims “hoax”, research shows the climate is changing in response to man's activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the temperature of the Earth is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, the probability of severe weather events is increasing, and weather-related natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly. It's time we examine more closely who is actually winning by ignoring science.
（三）2012年賽馬摩爾
