WASHINGTON – Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) put forth a proposal today that would force any scientific theory to undergo what he called a ‘Financial Smell Test’ to see whether or not the government should accept the findings as fact.
“It’s all well and good to say an object in motion tends to stay in motion,” said Senator Inhofe, referring to Newton’s First Law of Motion. “But how does that effect business? Most of the brakes on our cars and trucks come from overseas, so getting rid of that law of motion and replacing it with something that says an object in motion will come to rest at a stoplight could save this country millions of dollars.”
Inhofe said he came up with the idea for his proposal after contemplating the source of his strong denial of global climate change, claiming that he initially took then Vice-President Al Gore’s warning about human-created climate change seriously, until he learned what dealing with it might cost businesses.
“I thought there might be something to it,” he said. “Until we found out the cost it would be to the United States of America of $300 billion to $400 billion a year.”
He also claimed the prospect of imposing environmental regulations on businesses such as the oil and gas industry cemented his disbelief in climate change. “If climate change were a real threat, we’d be able to solve it by giving oil companies a government subsidy or holding a parade,” he said. “That’s just common sense.”
Other scientific laws Inhofe foresaw struggling to pass his Financial Smell Test include Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, and particularly Galileo’s concept of Heliocentrism which states that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
“I see no good financial reason for that to be the case,” he said adamantly. “It makes much better economic sense if the Sun needs the well-subsidized help of private industry to circle the planet every day.”
The cost of dealing with global warming or “climate change” is very high and will cost everyone a lot of money. The cost of ignoring it is nothing — to us. We can just go merrily along as we have been for years to come at no cost at all. The burden will fall on our grand children and their children. Screw them!
For all you conservatives reading this, that was sarcasm.
How about a smell test of this idiot’s intelligence? If his logic was applied to DDT, we would have no Eagles, Hawks, Owls, and most other birds. Him getting re-elected doesn’t say much for the intelligence for the people that voted for him.
As in Newton sees an apple falling from a tree. Newton can’t show a financial advantage of gravity so we all float off into space ?
This is nothing new, just a slightly skewed benefit/cost analysis, with the benefit being strictly that of the profitability to business. It should horrify the scientific community if anyone takes it seriously. No pure science, just practical science. HE’s just saying scientific discoveries should be shelved unless business can make money on them.
Facts are facts. Decisions as to what the impact will be are not. Plain and simple. The house is on fire. Fact. Whether you want the fire department to be there to help is a different story…
Comments are closed.