CA Sen. Boxer’s Classless Questioning during Climate Change Hearing
Heart-warming moment: Catholic priest chides Boxer on hypocrisy.
The Environment and Public Works Committee has been gathering testimony from a wide range of witnesses (industry experts, military official, and faith leaders) to discuss the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan.
Because the Senators obviously wanted listed to many different perspectives, those invited to offer input included Alex Epstein, author of A Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and President of Center for Industrial Progress, as well as Father Robert Sirico (a Catholic priest and President of the free-market supporting Acton Institute).
When, during the hearing, Epstein noted that the lack of affordable fuel-based electricity contributes to infant deaths in the third-world country of Gambia, California’s Senator Boxer slammed him for not having the proper scientific credentials:
“Are you a scientist?” Epstein responds, “No. Philosopher… To teach you how to think more clearly.” Boxer: “Well, you don’t have to teach me how to think more clearly… I’m telling you that all you have to know is you’re a philosopher and not a scientist, and I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a philosopher about science.”
I invite Senator Boxer to talk to any number of scientists who oppose the climate change theories promoted by this administration: Will Happer, Martin Fricke, Roger Cohen, Lorraine Yapps Cohen, who I have interviewed over the years in an effort to actually offer a counter to the “consensus” inanity promulgated by progressives. There are also many others who would be able to argue that the models that form the basis of climate change theories are flawed, and that policies significantly impacting the global economic climate shouldn’t be based on quack theories.
After covering herself in shame with her nasty questioning of Epstein, she proceeded to lecture Sirico on Catholicism:
….“When the pope says things that have to do with science, he does not speak from the magisterial authority of the church. When he speaks on moral issues, such as abortion and contraception and the like, then he speaks on magisterial authority,” Sirico responded before again being interrupted.
“So who’s cherry-picking?” Boxer said. “You’re saying that when the planet is facing all these problems, it’s not a moral issue.”
“I never said that,” Sirico said. “Where did I say that? Could you give me that quotation, senator?”
“You just said it, sir,” she said. “Sir, you receive money form the Koch brothers, from Exxon, you disagree with the pope… I think you ought to have a talk with Reverend Nelson.”
The good Father then succinctly pointed out her hypocrisy on suggesting a chat with the Reverand: “Who is by the way, not a scientist,” Sirico responded.
I am so looking forward to the day when Boxer is NOT a Senator…the one good result in the November election that I can count on.
For those of you who are interested, the highlight from the day’s testimony is below:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“I am so looking forward to the day when Boxer is NOT a Senator…the one good result in the November election that I can count on.”
Replacement by Kamala Harris is not a move in the right direction.
No more Barbara Boxer and no more Barack Obama. Hope the door does not hit them in the ass on the way out.
Boxer becomes Camilla Harris; Obama becomes Hillary, Bernie, or Mr. Your Fired. Yay…
“So who’s cherry-picking?” Boxer said. “You’re saying that when the planet is facing all these problems, it’s not a moral issue.”
Let’s make ourselves larger than what we really are by invoking big words like Planets.
What Boxer said is nothing different from what I hear all the time. If you are not a scientist, then you are damned for not being a scientist. As a research chemist (and global warming does have a lot of chemistry involved), I am frequently derided by those with no scientific degree or background (or even a college education for that matter) as being the “wrong kind of scientist”. I have even had, along with many colleagues, incoming freshmen tell me, their chemistry professor, that I know nothing about chemistry or science because I do not support the global warming hysteria. (No I do not automatically fail them even though the temptation is enormous.)
>
It would seem that what Boxer and many others like her are really saying is that you are disqualified not by your education, degree, or experience, but by your beliefs. Should you not believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), then then there is little question that there is some flaw in your CV that renders you unqualified. If, however, you do supporter AGW, then you are qualified no matter how thin your CV or accomplishments might be. In other words, she will only listen to those who are qualified and only those who tell her what she wants to hear are qualified. So much for having an open mind.
The Ruling Class will front science as their reason god as opposed to accepting the God of revelation and reason.
The Ruling Class will use “science” to shut down conversation. The word is not used by the RC to further truth-seeking. They abhor truth and love preferential treatment, power and the perks of power.
The Ruling Class has no knowledge of science. They use “science” as the wedge between them and us kulaks. They will use “science” to keep us in our “place”.
I am a great admirer of Fr. Robert Sirico (and the Acton Inst.). Fr. Sirico is a Christian intellectual who seeks to embrace all that is good. His background is very interesting.
…and I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a philosopher about science.
To which I would have said: “And I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a politician about science.”
“And I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a politician about science.”
An arrogant and ignorant politician at that!
Or am I being redundant?
“And I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a politician about science.”
SLIGHT change in that: “”And I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a politician about science.”
(3 second pause)
“Ma’am.”
…or a moron about anything.
People like Boxer who hold up science as a trump card have no idea that there is a discipline of philosophy of science that looks at the methodologies of science
She worked SO HARD for the title. Call her Senator! (Or to respect her “gender”, call her Senatrix.)
Your comment must have been the first thing we all thought when reading her arrogant words. It just shows what an ignorant person she is to be so stupid as to castigate him for doing what she herself was doing! The depth of boxer’s ignorance and arrogance is unfathomable!
The Ruling Class aren’t really talking about science or the environment. They are talking about “doing something” .. something that reallocates billions of dollars to their direct or indirect use.
The Paris (non-binding) Agreement calls to $500 billion per year ($100 billion from the US) to go to the “Third World” as “compensation.”
The short history of foreign aid tells us that the intended (by the written word) targets will never get even half of this money. Most will end up in the Swiss bank accounts of dictators, NGOs, consultants, and other quasi-governmental organizations for the transformation of society.
I think our contribution should be in comp-ed rounds of golf played at T-rump resorts around the world.
Heh…!!!
Panama here we come!
She’s a canary in a big coal mine; a signal that toxic levels of hot gas are being released.
If Boxer has anything to do with anything the Senate does, it’s a clear signal to the whole world that it’s not serious; it’s a show, and a sideshow at that; TV-camera fodder, and nothing more.
This is because of her well-earned reputation as the stupidest person on either side of the aisle. Who puts their worst foot forward when tackling a project? Not even the Senate leadership is that obtuse. So rather than waste a talent like that, the Senate arranges its affairs so it can use her as a flag. Nothing important to see here, the real business is happening down the hall …
Before we accept GW theory as fact it must be proven it using the scientific method.
1) develop a reliable way to measure climate that doesn’t require the data be “fixed” to conform to the theory.
2) record model predications for the next 1000 years. The science is “settled” so the predictions should be identical.
3) compare the predictions with the measurements and if they match for a thousand years the theory can be considered proven.
They already did that, except they used the past. The models have about a 2% chance of being right, but a coin toss has a 50% chance. Another group of scientists (2 phases of the sun theory) have a model that is 97% accurate. That model said that world hit the top of heat at around 2000 and will continue to cool (getting pretty cold) by 2033.
Not only the consensus is a hoax, there’s also the fact, as somebody said, that science is not a democracy.
In fact, most of the greatest discoveries and advances in science were made by those who dared to question, doubt and defy what was considered the “consensus” during different periods of our history.
From Euclid to Einstein, including Copernicus, Gilbert, Kepler, Newton, Lavoisier, Lobachevsky, Darwin, Pasteur, and many, many others, History is full of examples to prove that “consensus” is usually the worst enemy of scientific development.
When you hear a statement of such sheer ignorance, and you look at the person uttering such idiocy, and you realize that said person has been vested with the power to make decisions for US, that’s when you know that you have been royally screwed.
Somebody please, please, please, send this moronic douche bag to school, and teach her that most of our scientific knowledge comes from people who were, and proudly called themselves, philosophers.
That particular post turtle is absolutely convinced of her own infallibility in all matters, much like the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…
I’m rather amazed at the lack of comment about how this was a government official acting in her official capacity interrogating a priest about his religious bona fides.
To me, global warming is an issue of trust in government rather than trust in science and I believe it should be framed that way. The real issue is the government should not be funding science primarily to support policy. Denying global warming is actually the riskier strategy because government-funded “proof” isn’t all that difficult to come up with, and even if this battle is won, next year it’ll just be something else.
A good riposte by Epstein might have been, “Yes, senator, I am not a scientist, but a philosopher who guides people how to think critically. It is clear that my efforts with you have been in vain.”
Every political argument is about morality, including about science.
The “moral issues” point in this exchange was not about the relationship between morality and politics. It was about the relationship between science and religion, and about the boundaries on papal authority to speak for the church as a matter of religious teaching.
“Madame Senator” is such a useless sack o’ sh*t. I don’t usually go ad hominem, but she’s worthy.
That’s “Mah-DAMN Senator”.
It’s her pro-choice religion, right?
They routinely conflate the logical domains and liberally exceed the limits of the scientific domain.
Selective morality, principles, and science, too.
I don’t enjoy getting a lecture from a DC moron about anything. The sooner Babs and her ilk gets packed and gone, the better.
Infant deaths in Gambia caused by pollution? Non sequitur, what about the 50 million baby deaths caused by her favorite cause-abortion. Mixing up science and morality in her feeble mind.
I invite Senator Boxer to talk to any number of scientists who oppose the climate change theories promoted by this administration: Will Happer, Martin Fricke, Roger Cohen, Lorraine Yapps Cohen, who I have interviewed over the years in an effort to actually offer a counter to the “consensus” inanity promulgated by progressives. There are also many others who would be able to argue that the models that form the basis of climate change theories are flawed, and that policies significantly impacting the global economic climate shouldn’t be based on quack theories.
She isn’t interested in “those” people Leslie.
Unless she can get enough votes to make their views illegal and punished with up to 20 years in prison.
From all of the science I have come across in my lifetime the word “Consensus” has never come up. Throughout history science and discoveries have always been controversial and opposed when they first were made public. But after the PROOF was made clear and the method of obtaining that proof shown, then the science was accepted. But consensus never came first nor was needed after the proof was offered. Of course there is global climate change! It has always changed and there is proof everywhere. We don’t need no stinkin consenus!
When the US Senators from California are brought to my attention, I think of Sen. Boxer as the stupid one. Her comments to the priest reinforce my perception.