Expect no surprises with Inhofe (Editorial)

(May 26, 2015) U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair-man of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, will open the 10th annual International Conference on Climate Change with a breakfast keynote speech at theWashington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, June 11, at 8 a.m. With Inhofe at the helm, it should be a dandy conference, since we know where it’s headed.
Hosted by The Heartland Institute, it will explore the questions like these:
• Is climate science sufficiently advanced to allow accurate forecasts of future temperatures and weather?
• Are temperatures more likely to cool than warm in the next century?
• Should policies adopted at the height of the global warming scare be repealed and replaced with pro-environment, pro-energy, and pro-jobs policies?
• Given the new science and economics of climate change, isn’t it time for a fresh start to the debate over what, if anything, to do about “global warming”?
During his tenure in Congress, Inhofe has forged a legislative record on a diverse range of issues.
He may be best known for his work to stop Congress from imposing an economy-wrecking climate tax on the American people through his position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
What’s on the agenda?
Conference speakers will discuss:
• Satellite data that shows the global atmospheric temperature has not risen since the late 1990s — 18 years and four months, to be exact — while human carbon dioxide emissions over that period represent 25 percent of all emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, which began 150 years ago.
• Sea-level rise has not accelerated beyond the trend that began at the end of the previous Ice Age.
• The total amount of polar ice at the two poles is almost unchanged since satellites first measured it in the early 1970s.
Some of the policy questions the conference will explore and discuss:
• Is the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere a net positive or net negative for plant life, animals, and human prosperity?
• What is the cost of restrictions on energy generation and consumption imposed by the Obama administration and the United Nations?
• Is it moral to withhold affordable and reliable energy from the impoverished living in the United States and those in developing countries?
Al Gore’s original global warming hypothesis succumbed to science but was promptly replaced by a more encompassing and less fragile theory, that of climate change.
Climate change has an army of devotees, but science has yet to afford it an unencumbered blessing.
Warnings of such events as rising sea levels and carbon dioxide suffocation cause us to pause, but we applaud the Heartland Institute and Sen. Inhofe for keeping an opposing view in the conversation, even though it seems to run against the current.