The Greatest Hoax, by Jim Inhofe: on Energy & Oil
Al Gore:
OpEd: Declined pledge to cut personal carbon emissions
Gore went around saying things like: the world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." Al Gore, one of the biggest carbon emitters in the world, was chosen to be the face of the campaign to eliminate carbon from our lives. This was a recipe for
failure.At the end of "An Inconvenient Truth," the last message flashed on the screen is a challenge to America and the world: "Are you ready to change the way you live?" So I said, yes, Al Gore, are you ready to change the way you live?
When Gore came to testify at an Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing in March 2007, I asked him if he would be willing to sign a pledge--frankly, of his own making--that as a believer in catastrophic man-made global warming, would
he consume no more energy at his residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008? I even gave him a year to do it!
Of course, during the hearing he wouldn't answer the question.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 80-81
Feb 28, 2012
Barack Obama:
Cap-and-trade will make electricity prices skyrocket
Here's how cap and trade for carbon dioxide emissions works: As the government imposes caps on emissions, it essentially establishes an artificial price for carbon. Each regulated entity may only emit a certain amount of carbon, and if it exceeds that
limit, it can buy credits from other entities that are not exceeding their limits. Of course, higher emitting entities such as coal-fired power plants, would have to purchase a large number of credits to continue business as usual, and as President Obama
said himself, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket" because these costs "would be passed on to consumers" in the form of an energy tax. Ultimately, the real losers in this scenario would have been the American people, who would have had to
shoulder the largest tax increase in American history.The philosophy behind cap and trade is that if we restrict enough supply of fossil fuels, the price will increase, and we can simply shift to less costly alternatives. Yet this is wishful thinking.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 47
Feb 28, 2012
Barack Obama:
2009: Spark a clean energy transformation
On Friday, June 26, 2009, Democrats made history. For the 1st time, a cap and trade bill--sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey--passed in the House of Representatives. Notably absent in Obama's ringing endorsement of the bill was
any mention of global warming or climate change--or cap and trade for that matter:"This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America.
This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.
This energy bill will create a set of initiatives that will spur the development
of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.109
Feb 28, 2012
Barbara Boxer:
Global warming means future devastating effects
President Obama was clearly moving away from the catastrophe rhetoric. Several Democrats still hadn't let go of the idea of preventing bad weather by acts of Congress. Even in the same opening statement where Senator Boxer headlined with green jobs,
she mentioned toward the end of the "devastating effects that will come in the future if we do not take action to cut global warming pollution.
Droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more." Senator Debbie Stabenow also hadn't let go of the catastrophe, saying in
August 2009, "Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.111
Feb 28, 2012
David Vitter:
Get us beyond high-carbon fuels
"11 academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming,"
admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."
An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars."
And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.120
Feb 28, 2012
Debbie Stabenow:
Global warming causes more volatile storms
President Obama was clearly moving away from the catastrophe rhetoric. Several Democrats still hadn't let go of the idea of preventing bad weather by acts of Congress. Even in the same opening statement where Senator Boxer headlined with green jobs,
she mentioned toward the end of the "devastating effects that will come in the future if we do not take action to cut global warming pollution.
Droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more." Senator Debbie Stabenow also hadn't let go of the catastrophe, saying in
August 2009, "Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.111
Feb 28, 2012
Fred Upton:
Introduced Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
In March 2011, I introduced S.482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, along with Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who introduced the same bill in the House. The Energy Tax Prevention Act stops the Obama EPA's
backdoor cap and trade regulations from taking effect: it protects jobs in America's manufacturing sector; protects consumers from higher energy costs; puts Congress in charge of the nation's climate change policies; and ensures that the public health
provisions of the Clean Air Act are preserved.[Opponents said] our bill should be called the "Big Polluter Protection Act." Contrary to the claims, our bill leaves all the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact. It simply prevents the EPA
from regulating greenhouse gases which are not harmful to human health. Imposing energy taxes through EPA's cap & trade regulations and blocking economic development won't make Americans healthier--it will only mean fewer jobs, & a higher cost of living.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.158-159
Feb 28, 2012
George Voinovich:
Climate change needs serious and full attention
"11 academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming,"
admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."
An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars."
And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.120
Feb 28, 2012
Henry Waxman:
Energy Tax Prevention Act? No, "Big Polluter Protection Act"
introduced S.482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which stops the Obama EPA's backdoor cap and trade regulations from taking effect, and puts Congress in charge of the nation's climate change policies.Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) said
that our bill should be called the "Big Polluter Protection Act." He went on to say that it would "repeal the only authority the administration has to protect our health and the environment without providing any alternative." Here we go again.
Contrary to Representative Waxman's claims, our bill leaves all the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact. It simply prevents the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases which are not harmful to human health. Imposing energy taxes through
EPA's cap and trade regulations and blocking economic development won't make Americans healthier--it will only mean fewer jobs, a higher cost of living, and less growth and innovation.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.158-159
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
FactCheck: Bush made change to "climate change," not Obama
Inhofe writes on p. 85, that after a series of blizzards in 2010, Al Gore commented, "Just as it's important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm." Inhofe adds, "The American people were suspicious to
say the least, especially when they noticed a deliberate shift in terms over this period from catastrophic 'global warming' to 'climate change.'" Inhofe implies that the Obama administration made this rhetorical switch around 2009, in the post-Bush era.
Is that true?No, it's not; the switch was made during the Bush presidency. Our staffer, Jesse Gordon, worked as an EPA contractor in 2001-03, preparing content for the epa.gov website. Gordon reports, "During that period, word came down from EPA to
change all instances of the term 'global warming' to 'climate change.'" That timing means that the Bush administration changed the rule from that of the Clinton administration; Obama & Gore had nothing to do with it, so Inhofe's implication is incorrect.
Source: OnTheIssues FactCheck on The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Restricting fossil fuels will not spur shift to other energy
Under cap and trade, each regulated entity may only emit a certain amount of carbon, and if it exceeds that limit, it can buy credits from other entities that are not exceeding their limits. Of course, higher emitting entities such as coal-fired power
plants, would have to purchase a large number of credits to continue business as usual.Of course, the philosophy behind cap and trade is that if we restrict enough supply of fossil fuels, the price will increase, and we can then simply
shift to less costly alternatives. Yet this is wishful thinking. Alternatives are fine, but in most cases, they aren't widely available or commercially viable yet--certainly not in a form that can efficiently, affordably, and reliably meet
our existing energy needs. How are we supposed to run this machine called America without proven and reliable sources such as oil, coal, and natural gas? The answer is we can't.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 47
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
God promised to maintain cold & hot seasons
I take my religion seriously--I always say I'm a Jesus guy--so why wasn't I buying into what evangelists such as Rev. Richard Cizik were saying?
Cizik was being sponsored by many environmentalist groups who were pushing the idea that evangelicals were on board with global warming hysteria.Many times during my global warming fight,
I turned to Day 36 of "Promises" which features one of my favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest,
Cold and heat, winter and summer,
Day and night.
And this is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 68-71
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Fight cap-and-trade on jobs, taxes, and gas prices
The Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill in December 2007 was the 1st time a cap and trade bill ever made it through the Environment and Public Works Committee.A nonpartisan analysis of the bill revealed it would result in $4 trillion to $6 trillion
in welfare costs over 40 years and up to $1 trillion per year by 2050. I carried around a memo with 4 themes based solely on economics. They were taxes, jobs, gas prices, and nuclear power. The themes quickly got the attention of the
American people and my fellow Republican colleagues, setting the stage for the economic debate on the Waxman-Markey bill later in 2009 and 2010.
The news hit them hard: "Government studies confirm this bill will only raise gas prices"; "$6.7 trillion
in the form of higher gasoline and electricity bills"; "1.8 million jobs lost by 2020 and 4 million by 2030 according to the National Association of Manufacturers." The economic impacts of the bill drove the debate.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 99-101
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Stop cap-and-trade from getting in via regulatory back door
Even though global warming hysteria and cap and trade are long dead, the fight is far from over because President Obama is now moving forward with a plan to achieve through regulation what could not be achieved through legislation. In December of 2009,
the Obama EPA issued what it called the "endangerment finding"--a finding that greenhouse gases harm public health and welfare.
Armed with this "finding" the EPA is planning to regulate greenhouse gases instead through the Clean Air Act, which was never meant to regulate carbon. Like cap and trade, this plan will have the same $300-$400 billion pricetag, it will put
the same amount of jobs in jeopardy, and it will cause the same amount of havoc for our economy. My fight today is to stop them from achieving this cap and trade agenda through the back door.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. ix
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever
Since 2003, when I stood alone on the Senate floor and declared that man-made catastrophic global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, the credibility of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which
claimed to have a "consensus" on global warming--has eroded; cap & trade is dead and never to be resurrected, and, the belief that anthropogenic global warming is leading to catastrophe is all but forgotten. One might feel a bit sorry for Al Gore. Almost
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. v
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Yes, we can produce our way to energy security
On October 23, 2009, just weeks after cap and trade--a bill that would force Americans into policies of energy austerity--came to the Senate a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) revealed for the 1st time that America's
combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.I requested the report along with Senator Lisa Murkowski because we had grown tired of the Democrats' refrain that America only has 3% of global oil reserves--which,
according to this view, meant more drilling and production at home would be futile. The 3% mantra is their bread and butter talking point.
But the non-partisan CRS shows the full, complete, accurate picture of America's resources--and shows that, yes,
we can produce our way to energy security.
Knowing what vast resources literally lay at our feet, it seemed all the more outrageous that we were even considering such drastic measures to limit access to these resources.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.115-116
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
China & India oppose binding carbon emission cuts
Let's go back to 2003. In my speech, I told the conference that the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. Here's what I said: "The Senate, by a vote of 95 to 0, approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which warned the President against signing a treaty that
would either economically harm the US or exempt developing countries from participating."Is that still true today? Of course it is.
And yet here we go again: China, India, and other developing countries want nothing to do with absolute, binding emissions cuts. China and India have pledged to reduce the rate of growth,
or intensity, of their emissions. But that's not acceptable to the US Senate. Moreover, China is opposed to a mandatory verification regime to prove it is actually honoring its commitments.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.143-144
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Introduced Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
In March 2011, I introduced S.482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, along with Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who introduced the same bill in the House. The Energy Tax Prevention Act stops the Obama EPA's
backdoor cap and trade regulations from taking effect: it protects jobs in America's manufacturing sector; protects consumers from higher energy costs; puts Congress in charge of the nation's climate change policies; and ensures that the public health
provisions of the Clean Air Act are preserved.[Opponents said] our bill should be called the "Big Polluter Protection Act." Contrary to the claims, our bill leaves all the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact. It simply prevents the EPA
from regulating greenhouse gases which are not harmful to human health. Imposing energy taxes through EPA's cap & trade regulations and blocking economic development won't make Americans healthier--it will only mean fewer jobs, & a higher cost of living.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.158-159
Feb 28, 2012
James Inhofe:
Solyndra symbolizes Obama's war on American fossil fuel jobs
President Obama announced that as part of his clean energy push, "You show us the best ideas to change your game on the ground; we'll show you the money. We will show you the money."The solar company Solyndra was one of those companies that was shown
the money at the beginning of Obama's presidency, as it was a recipient of the stimulus under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At the time, Solyndra was touted as the model to follow by the Administration for its green energy economy.
Now as the country struggles with unemployment and Solyndra has completely collapsed and gone bankrupt, it is clear that the President's policies of "showing the money" has meant throwing the money away.
In the end, Solyndra is more than just a bankrupt company: it is a metaphor for the failure of Obama's war on affordable energy and American fossil fuel jobs.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.162-163
Feb 28, 2012
Joe Biden:
Unprecedented investment in renewable energy
Obama announced that as part of his clean energy push, "You show us the best ideas to change your game on the ground; we'll show you the money. We will show you the money."The solar company Solyndra was one of those companies that was shown the money
at the beginning of Obama's presidency, as it was a recipient of the stimulus under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At the time, Solyndra was touted as the model to follow by the Administration for its green energy economy.
Joe Biden said that the loan guarantee to Solyndra was an "unprecedented investment this Administration is making in renewable energy and exactly what the Recovery Act is all about."
Now Solyndra has completely collapsed and gone bankrupt; it is
clear that the President's policies of "showing the money" has meant throwing the money away. In the end, Solyndra is more than just a bankrupt company: it is a metaphor for the failure of Obama's war on affordable energy and American fossil fuel jobs.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.162-163
Feb 28, 2012
John McCain:
The snows of Kilimanjaro may soon exist only in literature
In one lively floor debate, on October 30, 2003, Senator McCain, after quoting Ernest Hemingway, made his case that global warming was a serious threat and because of it "the snows of Kilimanjaro may soon exist only in literature."
He went on to say, "These are facts. These are facts that cannot be refuted by any scientist or any union or any special interest that is weighing in more heavily on this issue than any issue since we got into campaign finance reform."
I then quoted an article from the front page of that morning's "USA Today." Those changes in the Arctic Circle "are not related to (global) climate change." So it turned out that Senator McCain's incontrovertible facts about man-made catastrophic warming
were refuted that very day.
In the end, even though few other senators would come out publicly to oppose Senators McCain and Lieberman's bill, it was soundly defeated on the Senate floor by a vote of 55-43.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 48
Feb 28, 2012
Joseph Lieberman:
Conceded that his cap-and-trade bill would cost $100B
The Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill in December 2007 was the 1st time a cap and trade bill ever made it through the Environment and Public Works Committee.A nonpartisan analysis of the bill revealed it would result in $4 trillion to $6 trillion
in welfare costs over 40 years and up to $1 trillion per year by 2050. Even the co-author of the bill, Senator Lieberman, conceded that his bill would cost "hundreds of billions of dollars."
I carried around a memo with 4 themes based solely on
economics. They were taxes, jobs, gas prices, and nuclear power. The themes quickly got the attention of the American people and my fellow Republican colleagues, setting the stage for the economic debate.
The news hit them hard: "Government studies
confirm this bill will only raise gas prices"; "$6.7 trillion in the form of higher gas and electricity bills"; "4 million jobs lost by 2030 according to the National Association of Manufacturers." The economic impacts of the bill drove the debate.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 99-101
Feb 28, 2012
Lamar Alexander:
We need insurance against climate change
"11 academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming,"
admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."
An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars."
And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.120
Feb 28, 2012
Lindsey Graham:
Greenhouse gas is a problem; but EPA shouldn't regulate it
In June of 2010, Senator Murkowski introduced a resolution that would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The resolution would allow Congress to overturn regulations from the executive branch by
gaining a majority in both the House and Senate.At a press conference to discuss the resolution, several Republicans came together in opposition to EPA's greenhouse gas regime, even Senator Graham who still believed in his heart that
man-made greenhouse gases were leading to catastrophe. I was on the other end of the spectrum as the one who said that man-made catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Everyone else who was standing
up there with me and Senator Graham were somewhere in between. But we all agreed on one thing: EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would be a huge disaster. It would hand the agency the greatest regulatory power in industry.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.155
Feb 28, 2012
Lisa Murkowski:
America has world's largest combined energy endowment
On October 23, 2009, just weeks after cap and trade--a bill that would force Americans into policies of energy austerity--came to the Senate a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) revealed for the 1st time that America's
combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.I requested the report along with Senator Lisa Murkowski because we had grown tired of the Democrats' refrain that America only has 3% of global oil reserves--which,
according to this view, meant more drilling and production at home would be futile. The 3% mantra is their bread and butter talking point.
But the non-partisan CRS shows the full, complete, accurate picture of America's resources--and shows that, yes,
we can produce our way to energy security.
Knowing what vast resources literally lay at our feet, it seemed all the more outrageous that we were even considering such drastic measures to limit access to these resources.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.115-116
Feb 28, 2012
Lisa Murkowski:
Prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gases
In June of 2010, Senator Murkowski introduced a resolution that would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The resolution would allow Congress to overturn regulations from the executive branch by
gaining a majority in both the House and Senate.At a press conference to discuss the resolution, several Republicans came together in opposition to EPA's greenhouse gas regime, even Senator Graham who still believed in his heart that
man-made greenhouse gases were leading to catastrophe. I was on the other end of the spectrum as the one who said that man-made catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Everyone else who was standing
up there with me and Senator Graham were somewhere in between. But we all agreed on one thing: EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would be a huge disaster. It would hand the agency the greatest regulatory power in industry.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.155
Feb 28, 2012
Nancy Pelosi:
2008: Teamed up with newt Gingrich to address climate change
In 2008, Newt Gingrich sat on a couch in front of the Capitol holding hands with Nancy Pelosi, saying while he and Pelosi rarely agreed, "We do agree our country must take action to address climate change," and "If enough of us demand action from
our leaders, we can spark the innovation that we need." Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection sponsored the ad. I applaud Newt for saying 3 years after the couch episode, "That is probably the dumbest single thing I've done in recent years."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 72
Feb 28, 2012
Newt Gingrich:
2008: Our country must take action to address climate change
In 2008, Newt Gingrich sat on a couch in front of the Capitol holding hands with Nancy Pelosi, saying while he and Pelosi rarely agreed, "We do agree our country must take action to address climate change," and "If enough of us demand action from
our leaders, we can spark the innovation that we need." Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection sponsored the ad. I applaud Newt for saying 3 years after the couch episode, "That is probably the dumbest single thing I've done in recent years."
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 72
Feb 28, 2012
Old Testament:
God maintains cold & hot seasons, not climate change
I take my religion seriously--I always say I'm a Jesus guy--so why wasn't I buying into what evangelists such as Rev. Richard Cizik were saying?
Cizik was being sponsored by many environmentalist groups who were pushing the idea that evangelicals were on board with global warming hysteria.Many times during my global warming fight,
I turned to Day 36 of "Promises" which features one of my favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest,
Cold and heat, winter and summer,
Day and night.
And this is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 68-71
Feb 28, 2012
Steven Chu:
Broad effort to spark a new green industrial revolution
Obama announced that as part of his clean energy push, "You show us the best ideas to change your game on the ground; we'll show you the money. We will show you the money."The solar company Solyndra was one of those companies that was shown the money
at the beginning of Obama's presidency, as it was a recipient of the stimulus under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At the time, Solyndra was touted as the model to follow by the Administration for its green energy economy.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that the loan guarantee to Solyndra was part of "a broad, aggressive effort to spark a new industrial revolution that will put Americans to work.'
Now Solyndra has completely collapsed and gone bankrupt; it is clear
that the President's policies of "showing the money" has meant throwing the money away. In the end, Solyndra is more than just a bankrupt company: it is a metaphor for the failure of Obama's war on affordable energy and American fossil fuel jobs.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.162-163
Feb 28, 2012
Page last updated: Jul 26, 2015