Profiles in Republican Courage #1: Bob Inglis’ Swan Song

Lame duck congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) speaks on the record about climate change:

65 Responses to “Profiles in Republican Courage #1: Bob Inglis’ Swan Song”

  1. NorthernLite Says:

    I didn’t even know rational conservatives/republicans existed when it comes to CC. Thanks for sharing. More people need to hear from leaders like him.

  2. Smith Says:

    Did he speak out on this subject before he lost the Republican primary? If not, I’d say the more appropriate title would be “Profiles in Bitter Grapes”. Is courage necessary when an act entails no risk?

  3. enkidu Says:

    Finally had time to look this guy up.
    OK, so…
    defeated by radical teabagger – check
    teabagger wins – check
    Mr Inglis – finally speaks out on science and policy after it can’t hurt his chances of winning the R vote – check

    pffft – cowardice

  4. shcb Says:

    So because a Republican spouts the same nonsense as a Democrat it is supposed to make sense? You know he is full of it when he starts with the 98% BS, 98% aren’t on board with this scam. So if 98 doctors tell you one thing and 2 tell you the other which are you going to believe? Answer, the group that is right, same as if the disparity were 50-50.

  5. jbc Says:

    I didn’t follow Inglis before, but I did come across the following video, which appears to date to the primary campaign, and which includes him making a rational, if not as strong, statement in favor of listening to the scientists on climate change:

    He also has another campaign video, though, where he talks about his objections to cap-and-trade:

    So it sounds like he’s a relatively moderate Republican (which I guess by current standards means “non-delusional”) and that was enough for him to get taken out in the primary.

  6. Smith Says:

    “which are you going to believe? ”

    I’d go with the group that is actually backed by research. You’d obviously go with whatever group an unqualified nutbag on the radio says is right. Some people like research and facts being presented by individuals with experience in that field, other people like made up gibberish being spewed by loud voices on the TV and radio.

    “So if 98 doctors tell you one thing about your health, and 2 used car salesmen tell you the other”

    That is much more accurate.

    “Answer, the group that is right”

    Apparently you are omniscient and somehow already know all the answers. Or maybe you are just an idiot who cannot come up with a counter example that does not require godlike powers.

  7. shcb Says:

    You lost me, I’m not sure who said what you are alluding to, wasn’t me. Here is an example, Mann, who believes in global warming is caused by man, a noted climatologist, says hurricanes have gotten worst. Grey- who believes global warming is caused by nature with a little help from man, a noted expert on hurricanes says Mann is full of shit, they haven’t gotten worse. Two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong. Shcb, an expert on neither the climate nor hurricanes spends an hour, finds a chart of the worst hurricanes in the last century to hit the United States not totally representative I will admit but over more than a hundred years, close enough to see who is telling the truth, Grey.

    98% of climate scientists bla bla bla, well that isn’t true, I don’t care who says it. If you were to say 98% of scientists believe the earth has warmed in the last 100 or 30 years you would be correct, but that isn’t the argument. The argument and question is why and what can and/or should be done.

    As far as him saying China intends on being the world leader in this area, you betcha, but they will pollute and exploit all the way to the bank and nothing will change except a transfer of power and money.

    I don’t know all the answers but I know a flim flam man when I see one, Mann and AlGore are grifters in the greatest traditions of the trade.

  8. shcb Says:

    oh, both groups are backed by research, the same research in most cases, it is the conclusion that changes.

  9. shcb Says:

    One of the criticisms against Mann is that the statistical functions of his theory is wrong, M&M brought this point up a few tears after his theory came out, and yet the peer review process didn’t use statisticians to check that part of his theory, even when it was brought to their attention. So you see I am basing my opinion on experts in the fields in question. A climatologist can’t be an expert on everything anymore than a doctor can be an expert on every facet of health care, that is why you have teams of people working on a project. Doesn’t seem that happened in this case.

    In the 98% group this gentleman is referring to (it was closer to 50%) they limited the sample to a very narrow cross section of science, and then narrowed it more and more and more until they got the answer they wanted, omitting people that could shed light on the debate. Inglis probably hasn’t read the report, he is just regurgitating a report on the report. Which is fine, you guys bought it, and that is really all a snake oil salesman is looking for, the sell.

  10. enkidu Says:

    Amazing mendacity, mixed with ignorance, stupidity, partisan bullshit and a sprinkling of homey anecdotes.

    When the science just doesn’t say what you want, pull some goofy stats out of rush Limpdick’s ass, polish that turd to a high shine, then regurgitate on fox and hate radio until the angry partisans take anti-science to a new level of teh stupid. Rinse and repeat (meanwhile fleecing the rubes for every penny).

    The party of Buckley has become the birther bircher bimbo party of nothing (except tax cuts for the wealthy! that worked so well during the bush years). Reagan couldn’t win a Rethug primary: the party has lurched so far to the right, I’m surprised they aren’t all wearing armbands and goosestepping everywhere.

  11. shcb Says:

    when did I mention Limbaugh? I’m using JBC’s linked article by Mann, I don’t know where fox comes in here, certainly nothing I have said of late, the only thing you got even partially right in that useless tirade was I did hear Dr Grey on Rosen, the rest is just babering bs. At least you spelled the words right, good job, you are “growing”.

  12. Smith Says:

    “I know a flim flam man when I see one”

    Takes one to know one, eh?

  13. shcb Says:

    No, I’m a pretty straight shooter.

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    So how many T.V.’s do you go through in a year?

  15. shcb Says:


  16. shcb Says:

    I get such a kick out of discussions on this site, here I based my opinions at least 90% on my reading of things JBC has posted, or looking up articles written with no bias in mind, mainly a list of the top 35 hurricanes in the last hundred or so years, and yet I get charged with just spouting something Limbaugh says. I haven’t listened to a full Limbaugh show in probably 3 years I don’t think I’ve listened to a full Rosen show in the last six months, just haven’t had time. I wonder when the last time Enky or Smith checked one of his sources? Of course no one has the time to fact check every aspect of every article, but you owe it to yourself to check your side every now and then. This Mann character is just a crook and liar, no two ways about it, that doesn’t mean global warming is a farce but it sure does make it a question mark.

  17. Smith Says:

    “No, I’m a pretty straight shooter.”

    Especially when you are targeting mud-hut Mexicans.

  18. shcb Says:

    Mexicans??? You’re too smart to be this dumb. I say plenty of stupid things, you don’t have to make them up!

  19. shcb Says:

    This is where you have something to learn Smith, you took something I said and redefined it to mean something I didn’t, then you effectively sold it to your target audience. Good job, good salesmanship and politics. You not only villainized your opponent you also changed whatever subject we were talking about at the time and many times since. You then continued the propaganda until the lie became the truth, well done. You need to stop there, bring it up on rare occasion just to keep it out there, but always remember the truth is just below the surface. Your audience knows I’m not a racist, but you have convinced them I am, it’s a fine balance to keep them believing what they know isn’t true. But now you have added a qualifier, a specific race and nationality, you screwed up, before this they all knew conservatives are racists, everyone knows that. When the term Mud Hut Countries (changed to people) is used it is generic enough that the audience believes you based on their biases, but when you make it specific they can go back and see that was never said, now you have lost everything you gained.

    This is true with the Mann statement when he said hurricanes have gotten worse instead of will get worse, he blew it, he lost all they had gained in one slip of the tongue. You see people remember things that just happened, they remember the 2004- 2006 period where hurricanes were bad and they think there may be some validity in that statement, but when he says they have gotten worse, well that is easy enough to verify, oops, he lost all they had gained.

  20. NorthernLite Says:

    Whew, I’m so glad you’ve cleared that up. Can you please do something about the polar ice caps melting when you have a moment. Thanks.

    Also, it’s 60 degrees here today and we haven’t had any snow yet this year, which is very strange. Everything is still really green and Christmas is coming, just doesn’t feel right. Can you play with some data to fix that too? Thanks again.

  21. shcb Says:

    Sorry, I can’t predict the weather and can’t change it either, I’ve mowed my lawn some years on Thanksgiving and shoveled 2 feet of snow others.

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    It’s snowing like crazy here, OMG we’ve got almost two INCHES since 9 am this morning, that’s more than all of last winter! Looks to me like the ice age has arrived…

  23. NorthernLite Says:

    hey knarly, you’re getting OUR weather, wtf?! It’s almost as if the climate is changing or something…

    If you’re looking to buy a snow mobile let me know, I’m not getting much use out of mine these past few years.

  24. NorthernLite Says:

    Remember that cartoon jbc posted about the tea party? i just had one sent to my email about how The Fed works – equally hilarious and I actually learned something.

    Quantitative Easing Explained!

  25. knarlyknight Says:


  26. shcb Says:

    I’m sorry but I think people who say things like this are just alarmists

    The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole – ed.] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that these ice conditions will continue for some time.

    Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.

    it’s just weather people.

  27. knarlyknight Says:

    Nope, that’s a climatic shift. Weather is day to day, maybe year to year, when you start talking about vast glaciers receding you can be certain you are dealing with climate changes.

  28. shcb Says:

    That was written in 1922

  29. enkidu Says:

    Your quote is from 1922 – as meaningless as the rest of your comments.

    You were the one who coined mud hut countries, and since countries are a human invention, I think it also clear that you were referring to the people who live in said mud huts (they don’t build themselves). Now you’ll give us some homey bullshit about how you hardly listen to an entire Rush Dimbulb hate radio show, or most of a Macho Mike Rosen anymore, and you only surf an hour or two a day at fox, drudge or malkin for your ‘data’.

    NL you can make your own rants using the free web site tools. I made a hilarious one the other day asking my wife for more sex. It was decidedly raunchy and when I showed it to her, we laughed until tears flowed. Sadly, no additional sex. I’m working on a follow up dialog now. It’s fun, but can eat up hours if you aren’t careful! =)

  30. shcb Says:

    Now AlGore is saying one of the reasons he supported ethanol is to get votes, he is saying it isn’t efficient, surprise, surprise, where have we heard that? I have a cousin that owns an ethanol plant, he has never owned anything but Mercedes, his brothers grow a lot of corn, hmm. AlGore made how many millions from the now defunct carbon trade company? It’s all about the earth. No scams here.

    Enky, it’s really pretty meaningful. But you do have to think a little.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    Ah, the old “1922 article” trick! Good one, Mr. hurf durf!

    But sadly, you are still wrong as much of the items described – e.g. receding glaciers – are symptoms of climate change, not weather.

  32. Smith Says:

    Gee, shcb, I figured you were smart enough to recognize that I was referring to two separate instances in a single sentence. Your ineptitude never ceases to amaze. Try to keep up, Grand Wizard.

  33. enkidu Says:

    nope – wwnj is definitely not smart enough to recognize anything other than what the foxnewts and the right wing hate machine tells him is today’s gospel (tax cuts for millionaires and benefit cuts for everyone else – huzzah! also, man-made climate change is bunk, despite what 98% of climate scientists say)

  34. shcb Says:

    Gotcha!! and you all know it, 96% of AGW is hype and a scam.

  35. shcb Says:

    Knarly, there are tree stumps in the bottoms of the receding glaciers, they have receded this far before and stayed that way long enough to grow forests, way before the industrial revolution, this is mostly natural

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    Damn it’s cold here.

    shcb, yea, but that’s not weather… google some definitions / wiki got some decent articles, seems the AGW deniers have got a pretty good hold on wiki now but it is still enlightening…

    This I found most interesting

    In July and August, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania. Rapid, dramatic temperature swings were common, with temperatures sometimes reverting from normal or above-normal summer temperatures as high as 35 °C (95 °F) to near-freezing within hours. Even though farmers south of New England did succeed in bringing some crops to maturity, maize and other grain prices rose dramatically.

    That was a description of summer in 1816, Europe suffered just as much…

  37. knarlyknight Says:

    i.e. from bad weather…

  38. shcb Says:

    Yes, the climate is a series of weather events, usually cyclical with some anomalies tossed in for good measure. Hurricanes were particularly bad in the 1930s and in 2004-2005, we had a particularly bad El Nino in ’98 I believe was the year. The AWG true believers will say this or that event is just an anomaly and then ignore another if it makes their point. It takes many years to make a forest, those glaciers were receded for some time for trees to grow, not one or two years.

    A while back JBC put a link on here and said it would be like catnip to me. The researches were puzzled that plant growth had gone down even though they knew temps had went up, because people like Mann had told them temps had gone up even though temps have stabilized in the last decade. They had theories that we had reached some point of no return where even nature was acting contrary to its own patterns. When I looked at the chart he had made from these researchers data it looked very similar to my chart of temps over the last 10 or 15 years I made from UAH data if you ignore the weather event of El Nino. Plants grow less when it is cooler, nothing more nothing less, but they just couldn’t understand that because they have been programmed to believe the last decade has been getting hotter at the same rate as the last few.

    I do know this, anyone that believes that 98% of scientists believe in this hoax after reading the study that myth came from is just looking for something to believe.

  39. NorthernLite Says:

    “there are tree stumps in the bottoms of the receding glaciers, they have receded this far before and stayed that way long enough to grow forests, way before the industrial revolution, this is mostly natural”

    America is doomed.

  40. NorthernLite Says:

  41. shcb Says:

    Pretty simplistic, missed the third column, do what we can without overburdening the ecconomy. He also missed a key feature, if we go down the wrong path we may (are in my opinion) use resources unwisely.

  42. NorthernLite Says:

    I refuse to accept the whole ‘destroy our economy’ thing that comes from the same crowd who, um, just destroyed the entire worlds’ economy.

  43. enkidu Says:

    gotcha? lol

    nice video NL, seen it before and it lays out the situation plainly in real simple terms (expect wwnj to distort this to some ridiculous outcome) Sociamalism! Fascism! Hurf! Durf! duh

    I bet the likely outcome is a point somewhere near the middle of that video’s chart: moderate economic costs, but we avoid a complete eco-catastrophe (which will lead the hurfdurf brigade to declare the right thing to do was nothing, because it wasn’t so bad after all! see? stupid libs!) Why do I claim this? Well just look at history: even if we just keep it to purely eco concerns, CFCs and SO2 both were real threats that were dealt with using a pretty minimal cost/effort, and the threats are generally ameliorated as of 2010. Disaster averted, so avoiding the disaster was a mistake seems to be the wwnj viewpoint. Why? Because it actually cut into profits! Which by the way were at an all-time high last quarter – ever…

    The costs of doing nothing keep going up
    we can either lead and sell the new clean green hyper-efficient future
    or we can just hand it to the Chinese
    I’m busy fighting for our future, even yours dumbass racist cracker asshole: we’ll save your walmart bacon and all you will do is complain and spout bullshit. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever will be.

  44. enkidu Says:

    Haven’t you heard NL? The US House has swung back into Rethug control, so more tax cuts for millionaires and cutbacks and layoffs for the little people. What could possibly go wrong? It worked so well during the bush years (who by the by, doubled the national debt – I should also point out that Obama’s first budget actually cut the deficit compared to dumbya’s last budget – but why let facts get in the way of wwnj ‘thinking’ eh?)

  45. shcb Says:

    I actually agree with both of you, just a little more to the right, the ecconomy isn’t going to be destroyed if we do something, not everything any more that the earth will be destroyed if we do nothing. I agree with Enky, except I don’t think CFC’s were as big a deal as people made them to be, I don’t think we knew enough about the ozone layer to make that call, but he is right it took less to remove what we did than the folks on the right said it would as well, I think cooler heads are prevailing and we will make reasonable decision that fall somewhere in the middle.

    Clinton not signing Kyoto. and Bush after for instance were good moves, Kyoto just went too far.

  46. knarlyknight Says:

    Here shcb, have some more popcorn…

  47. NorthernLite Says:

    As I said to a buddy at work… so what if our bills double by 2030 – i’m sure a lot of things are going to be double then. At least our kids will have clean air and Ontario has done it’s share to fight climate change. Not to mention the benefit of having a safe and sustainable power supply. I think it’s worth a three percent increase a year.

    But ya know me, flaming liberal :)

  48. knarlyknight Says:

    Exactly. A doubling of hydro bills might be a bargain compared to the cost of alternatives for new power (nuclear, oilsands, shale oil, LNG imports); also, cost estimates of energy inputs over 20 years are notoriously unreliable, there may be some hope that the alternative energy costs fall more dramatically now that there is so much more investment & production of them.
    Did you hear that last week our provincial cabinet cancelled our lame duck premiers announcement of a 15% tax cut that was made the week prior? Sheesh. Both announcements irresponsible. The sooner our rite wing retards are recalled the better.

  49. NorthernLite Says:

    No I didn’t hear about that. Don’t you guys have a Liberal government out there?

  50. NorthernLite Says:

    No I didn’t hear about that. Don’t you guys have a Liberal government out there, too?

  51. NorthernLite Says:

    double rainbow! :)

  52. knarlyknight Says:

    In name only, (the BC Liberal Party) in truth the BC libs are Rite wing, anti-environment and their economic philosophy is staunchly pro-big business & anti-labour.

  53. NorthernLite Says:


  54. knarlyknight Says:

    Most people feel that way, but they’ve been elected 3 times. After the first election they cut income taxes 20% (yea!) but then increased user fees and did a nasty attack on support for the poor, so a lot of people started to distrust them, after their second election there was more nefarious deeds e.g. they ripped up public sector contracts and rolled back wages for hospital workers 30%…yet still they were elected again last May but then fully revealed their dishonesty and support plummeted with support for the leader dropping and hovering at a pathetic 9 % (yes 9%) . So he’s gonzo, and their cabinet is fighting tooth and nail in the back rooms to salvage their reputations, they are in crazy territory now.

    Actually, you said it better. (Ew.)

  55. shcb Says:

    Back to the Hydro power, why would the price double? Inflation, more generation needed etc? It would seem Hydro would be one of the more stable commodities. If you have a stable supply of water it is probably the best generation method available.

  56. shcb Says:

    I am wondering though what did people think would happen when they cut tax rates by 20%? people are somewhat naive when they think government will cut taxes that much, leave services as they are and not increase taxes somewhere else, unless they are way too high to begin with, then you may see more money come in if lowering the tax rate is lowered. But there at least has to be a spending freeze in most cases.

  57. knarlyknight Says:

    good question shcb. The answer is interesting. Many people did not actually believe they’d keep their promise of cutting taxes 20% after they looked at the government books. Yet they did, on their first day after taking office. Also, they promised they wouldn’t need to cut anythign but waste, and the tax decrease would grow the economy so much that everyone would be better off. People were dubious about that, but those who stood to gain by the tax cuts were willing to ignore their doubts to get the gain. Finally, they weren’t elected initially on the strenth of that tax cut promise, they were elected due to a monumental anger at the former government’s perceived screw-ups. Those perceived screw-ups now pale in comparison to the BC Libs screw-ups so we seem poised for a 100% reversal of political fortunes in BC at the next election or earlier if re-call petitions are successful (and odds are that they will be!)

  58. knarlyknight Says:

    Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Truther. Comments supporting conspiracy theorists and stating that the government’s version of events are not credible start at the 3 minute 45 second mark.

  59. shcb Says:

    Interesting, I think that is what got Obama elected and he did the same bait and switch on his health care. And then this last election was son by Republicans on the same basis, they didn’t so much will as the Dems lost. I also think that is why Republicans are so understandably nervious now, they see the same thing happening to them in 2 years. Politics isn’t that different from real life, people will give you the benefit of the doubt to a point, but when you lose trust they turn with a vengence.

  60. shcb Says:

    son, won sho knows, bloody mary morning

  61. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, “Back to the Hydro power, why would the price double?”

    Depends on who you ask. If you ask conservatives it’s because of the investments in wind and solar. If you ask the tree huggers (like me) they’ll tell you it’s because of the enormous costs associated with nuclear production. It’s probably a bit of both.
    In reality our electricity nightmare all started in the late 90s when the conservative government of the day sold off some of our public hydro assets. That’s when prices started going through the roof and they haven’t really stopped since. Go figure – introduce a profit into something and the price goes up…

    Anyways, I know we’re going to have to pay for clean air and a sustainable energy supply. We’ll find out if I’m in the minority next October when we have our Provincial election.

  62. shcb Says:

    If you introduce profit, at least competitive profit, price usually goes down. I would imagine your private section of power is similar to ours, it is highly regulated since it is a monopoly, more semi private than private. I know the prices of our utilities have gone up because of the wind power, it just isn’t very cost effective, whether it turns out to be an investment or boondoggle is yet to be seen.

    The problem we have here is laws have been passed that mandate a certain percentage of wind power by a certain time regardless of the cost or the impact on the economy. So poor people can’t afford the increase so programs are put in place to pay part of their bill and the rest of us pay for that raising the cost even higher… so the solution this summer was “just turn off your air conditioner” people didn’t like that idea so they came up with a unit that allows Public Service to do it for you at their will, at some point I’m sure that will be mandatory and that week you decide to stay home will be the week they turn off your AC three or four times a day. All this nonsense will either cost us more or provide less service, good ole liberalism.

  63. NorthernLite Says:

    Do you guys have Peak and Off-Peak rates? Our electricity is significantly cheaper from 7pm-9am, which I though was a good idea. Of course I don’t have kids and I’m pretty much gone all day so it works nice for me right now.

    “If you introduce profit, at least competitive profit, price usually goes down.” – If that was true then your healthcare costs would be lower than ours instead of double and my electricity bill would be lower than it was a decade ago.

  64. shcb Says:

    I guess cost is a better term than price, cost includes what you are getting for those dollars, price is more pure dollars. In the case of your electric bill you are getting the same service now as then, doesn’t quite work comparing our health care to yours.

    I know we have those structures in some areas and industrial rates are usually billed on a sliding scale, not sure if it is on and off peak or just based on a your bill based on a peak use. I know years ago when Samsonite was here they built a power plant just to produce enough to cover the spikes of the injection mold equipment, but their bill was a quarter million a month so it makes sense to produce your own power.

    As empty nesters we’re in the same boat as you, the higher rates really didn’t bother us this year, we aren’t home during the day so we just didn’t run the AC, it really hurt the elderly though.

  65. shcb Says:

    Before Smith jumps on me, cost isn’t the word I’m looking for, value? That doesn’t really work either.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.