Don't believe Inhofe's hype
By Steve Benen Sunday Dec 23, 2007 7:23amLate last week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) released a so-called "report," pointing to hundreds of alleged independent scientists who agree with him about climate change -- which is to say, they deny the reality of global warming.
More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
Far-right blogs pounced, heralding Inhofe's "expose."
There is, however, one small problem: Inhofe's report plays fast and loose with the facts.
“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?
There's been a lot of great coverage of this, highlighting Inhofe's many errors of fact and judgment, including items here, here, and here.
Economists have physics envy. Economics is "the dismal science." Economists use a lot of complex math. They must know something about climate change, right?
Economists = full of hot air.
*edit*
Correcting myself:
*REPUBLICAN* Economists
Why does Inhofe hate the Earth?
Give Oklahoma back to the Indians, er a indigious peoples.
there are some area in this country that dont realy need to be with the real states. every dipshit they have sent to wasington has been bonkers or a Jesus freak or both!
Inhofe just can't help it. He knows it's his job to prove to everybody how ignorant he is. In the Buffoon and Moron contest of the year, he has to be one of the top canidates. I would bet he still has his beanie cap with the propeller on top.
Inhofe spelled backwards , e foh ni
Does anyone really expect Republicans like Inhofe to tell the truth instead of lying and spinning?
Oklahoma must be really proud of this idiot.
I see the climate denial people are embracing tactics the evolution deniers use. But then again that isn't too surprising since they are often the same group. Besides economists and people who aren't in the apporiate science branches I suspect we will find people who had no idea they are on the list and would demand to be removed. Also some diploma mill graduates are likely on it as well.
I wrote a post over on my blog, www.willbrehm.com. In it I reveal a few misquotes and, surprisingly, a political theorist from Columbia identified as one of the 400 prominent scientists. Check it out.
C'mon Oklahoma, put a leash on this guy.....and a muzzle.
On second thought talk away Inhofe, you Cretaceous Curmudgeon.
tootiredoftheright @ 9:
Yeah, who gives a rats ass if the polar ice melts, we're gonna have eternal life in heaven anyway, right?
Sure!
You don't have to be a climate scientist to see the crap being pumped into the atmosphere. There is no way that it can't affect the earth
These blind ass fucks need to be burned at the stake. Oops to much smoke Don't worry we'll find a way.
He's the guy who had an insurance business in OK. When he went bankrupt (doesn't that happen to all the republican ones) he was investigated for fraud and almost went to jail. A big wig politician in that state went to bat for him and he escaped by the skin of his teeth. Then went on to be elected to congress.
Guess that's what you have to do in OK. be a crook to get elected. Then you can spread the stupid lies you manufacture. I guess the lakes going dry, the glacier ice melting, the oceans rising, weather patterns changing are all coincidence.
Exxon Mobil scientists will say anything to keep that paycheck coming in.
Who was it who said "A man cannot see the truth when his financial position requires him to see otherwise"?
deniers get the bozack. They will do anything to get the money from big oil's dresser.
"Global warming threatens our health, our economy, our natural resources, and our children's future. It is clear we must act."-Eliot Spitzer
Ruthless People @ 15:
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?
Obviously unless that economist might happen to be Paul Krugman, then his opinion on global warming would be nothing short of gospel.
Excuse me, but you folks aren't giving Inhofe enough credit. He knows something about Global Warming that only one other person on earth knows, and that is going to surprise a lot of people.
Inhofe knows that as Global Warming increases, the sea level is going to go down, not up, so there's really nothing to worry about, in fact, since there will be more land, it will help us with the world-wide problems of overcrowding and not enough arable land to grow food to match the rising population.
One of Inhofe's Top Scientist friends told him, but swore him to secrecy, that under the arctic sea, and under the antarctic sea, there are massive ice plugs in the drain holes that let the oceans drain down to the center of the earth. As Global Warming continues, these ice plugs will diminish, the oceans will begin to drain, and sea levels will drop.
The trick, of course, is going to be to stop these drain plugs from melting at just the right time, otherwise, it's gonna cost us a fortune to build highways back and forth from Hawaii to the US, not to mention China and Europe.
How bout we bury the ignorant moron just above the high tide line on one of the islands that are going to become submerged as the sea rises? Then we could ask him just before the retard drowns if he still "believes" his scientist/economists or the rest of the world?
Dennis @ 18:
An economist who agrees with scientists about science has more credibility than an economist who agrees with oil companie about the need to keep profits rolling in. Really, Dennis, is that so hard for you to understand? Everyone else seems to get it.
Mikeinmd @ 21:
No, Mikey, actually anyone who agrees with liberals, be they actors, movie critics, economists, comedians, whatever, have credibility in the liberal's eyes. If liberals disagree with anyone, not matter what his qualifications, that person will be deemed to have no credibility.
Is that so hard for you to understand? Everyone else seems to get it.
Following your logic, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. Why should we care what he thinks about climate science? How is he more qualified than an economist?
Dennis @ 18:
Nice try, but Krugman doesn't try to misrepresent himself as a relevant scientific authority. Inhof's efforts are, how do we say, a tad misleading in this respect. His dishonest and politically-motivated manipulation and misrepresentation of what should be an honest debate is an insult to his constituents, his colleagues, his congressional institution, and the citizens of the US and the world.
Dennis @ 22:
Hmmmm...interesting...and here I was thinkin that it was the conservative, "my way or the highway" types who were close minded and believe any anyones bullshit as long as there's a big pile of cash involved and somethin about Jebus thrown in...who knew it was us filthy liberals the whole time.
liberalNmoderation @ 24:
Correction....I should have said "go along with anyones bullshit" not believe....ah well, it's early, and I haven't had enough coffee yet...sue me. ;)
Then what does Al Gore know about climate change??
How can economist not know but Senator, VP, Lawyer Gore know??
Hmmmm....who profits from global warming "conspiracy"?? Not saying I don't believe our climate IS changing, but...............
Dennis @ 22:
Actors, movie critics, economists, comedians, and former Vice Presidents don't try to pass themselves off as the relevant experts - and they certainly shouldn't be viewed as such - but instead use their high-profile positions to highlight issues. This is fair and a method used by liberal and conservative alike. Whining about it is just a further attempt to muddy the actual issue.
When scientists are used to bolster any side of any position the key is to see if their experience and expertise are relevant to the issue. A geologist/biologist (fill in the blank) with some understanding of physics is hardly an expert on black holes or string theory. A meteorologist with understanding of short-duration weather patterns and mechanisms is not necessarily an expert on climate, climate change, anthropogenic effects on climate change. Climate is not the same thing as weather.
When professionals in engineering and meteorology or computer science profess to being scientists they often mean that they have some familiarity with science and the scientific method but they often haven't practiced science except maybe in their grad school days. When I balance my checkbook I'm not a mathematician.
When "scientists" and/or scientists represent themselves, or allow others to represent them, outside of their areas of training, experience, and expertise without at least a disclaimer then they are simply being fraudulent.
ConcernedCanuck @ 27:
Since "the global warming conspiracy" is a fabrication, the ones profiting are status quo energy producing industries and greedy, ignorant and dishonest politicians.
jimmiraybob @ 29:
I was thinking of starting up my own Kyoto Corporation. I could buy and sell Carbon Credits on ......say.....Wall Street.....kind of like a bookie........
Crow @ 4:
Because he can't deny abortions at will and force women to have babies they're not prepared for, or don't want.
Anyone that has been paying attention knows that Inhofe is as dumb as a rock! I can only assume that the people who sent him to Washington share the same trait!
If a well-trained, certified and honest auto mechanic with a good reputation tells you that you've got trouble brewing with your transmission and that maintenance now will save replacement later, do you drive down to the local barbershop for differing opinions? You'd surely get some passionate debate but how stupid would that be? How about relying on your sister's boyfriend's buddy's nephew that's done a few tune-ups and break jobs on the side?
Skepticism is healthy but abject denialism and contrarianism for the sake of sport is not smart.
Please, please, warming skeptics must come up with a credible alternative to the well documented increase in CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) that cycles perfectly with the observed and undeniable average global temperature increases. If it's not CO2, then what? It must be a very overwhelming cause that no one has yet identified. If it's a "natural cycle" it has to have a CAUSE!
Inhofe, the Congressional "bag lady" in disguise, is a disgrace as he pretends to understand science. He has no more business making these claims then the man in the moon. He's a charlatan and is certifiably senile. It's time for this old geyser to hit the road.
Besides, Inhofe is a "partisan clown" who opposes anything a Democrat comes up with - even to the detriment of our planet! If this isn't the epitome of precisely what's "wrong" with this country right now, I don't know what it. Inhofe is the "poster boy" for partisan politics above sanity, above science, and above all else.
The question everyone needs to pose to this quack is: "Why not?". If conserving and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil is all that occurs, why the hell not? If being good stewards of the environment and planet is the gift which we pass on to our ancestors, why not?
This nonsense Inhofe is spewing is the rantings of a very sick maniac who cares nothing but for himself: The GOP "Greed syndrome".
We all need to send Inhofe a Christmas card saying: "Merry Christmas, Scrooge!".
Which state does Jack Inhofe represent? I believe it's this one:
http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf
"Overwhelming observational evidence indicates that the earth is warming, and that the cause of that warming is mostly anthropogenic (caused by humans) in nature. Further, the vast majority of scientists that actually study climate change believe that warming will continue for the foreseeable future.
Of course, climate change has become a highly contentious topic in public discourse, with the waters being muddied by extreme viewpoints and concerns. So where does the truth lie, and what are the implications for Oklahoma? The Oklahoma Climatological Survey (OCS) has been mandated by the Oklahoma legislature to provide climate information and expertise which could be of value to the public, as well as to state policy- and decision-makers. In that regard, OCS has conducted a review of current assessments of climate change research in order to craft a definitive statement on global climate change and the implications for Oklahoma - detrimental and beneficial alike. The statement is based purely on the findings of the vast majority of scientists that study climate change."
My guess is the only economists in the report are "true believer" i.e., right winger neoclassical economists. I am the first one to say neoclassical economists are not scientists since they focus on appearances only and for this reason are "vulgar." However, the proper study of capitalism, i.e., political economy is a science.
Unless they have scientific credentials in a climate field no one should take a neoclassical economist's or any ohter economists' pronouncements on climate science seriously.
I would love to comment on this but i have an appointment with a dermatologist for a root canal.
It starts at the source, and the source (Inhofe) has the LEAST amount of scientific experience and somehow its COMPLETELY fitting that he be the point man for the Bushies.
Nice to know the French have their contribution to climate change denial
Can't wait 'til the trolls show up citing Inhofe's "work" as proof that global warming is hoax.
Paul @ 41:
Already happened last week. I wish i had known about this at the time.
I would like to point you to a great seminar by a local economics professor about the economics of globalization.
A RADICAL BLACKFOOT TEACHES THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBALIZATION
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-345721242223597335&q=radical+bl...
I highly recommend watching the entire video and checking out Jim's website www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com
Gary @ 32:
No, I don't think you can accuse the big oil boys of being dumb. They're very careful about maintaining the illusion of controversy surrounding global warming.
xoites defends Constitution @ 42:
Saw this last week on the epw.senate.gov site. It was posted by Marc Morano.
Who is Marc Morano?
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
I think it would be really great if Inhofe would become highly visible with his Global Warming denial. Then the American people and the rest of the world would get a really good look at the kind of nutsacks the Global Warming deniers are. As a matter of fact, I think we should make Inhofe the face of Global Warming denial. Everyone will laugh in his face the moment they take a look at him. He makes that girl from the Teen beauty pagent look like a genius. "I think US Americans , such as Inhofe, such as Iraq, such as".
Thing Fish @ 45:
He needs a "swift kick," if ask me.
Mr. Benen, when you say 'errors of fact and judgment', do you mean 'intentionally misleading mountain of bullshit'?
Anti global warming retards like Inhofe are easy to recognize. Every time there's a snowstorm they say "So much for global warming!"
I think Inhofe might be the dumbest guy in the Senate. And that's saying something.
Mikeinmd @ 21:
Dennis is not too bright.
The Political Junkie @ 31:
I'm sure Exxon and BP would buy in. You know, from their commercials, they say they really care about the planet. It would be good PR for them and you would make a few bucks.
And, if you deny climate change is man made, you can probably parlay that into greater investments in your new company.
Capitalism and climate change go together like, well, like something!
ConcernedCanuck @ 30:
Oops, wrong quote above. Should have been with the above comments. Sorry.
But anyway, whats all this nonsense about climate change?
The climate is cyclical, Sen. Inhofe SAID so, dammit!!!
ConcernedCanuck @ 27:
Think the question should be who is profiting while declaring a global warming "conspiracy".
one more gop with his head in the
reichwing shitsand, Sen. James Inhofe hoping for more of that wide stance of larry craig's behind him.Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companies agree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
Tough to discredit the deniers when 40% of Democrats reportedly don't believe in evolution.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolu...
Not real big on science, this country of ours.
A minor but significant reduction in Global Warming could be achieved by preventing Inhofe from exhaling.
These lists are always made up of Junior College Earth Science Instructors and Wacked Out Engineering Professors along with a couple Geology Ph.D.'s who get grants from the Oil Industry.
As someone who is making a living studying how Earth systems work, there are a couple of elephants in the room:
1. Global Warming is real. It's been happening since the end of the last ice Age, and its accelerating due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.
2. There is no way that humanity is going to stop the accelerated global warming we've put in place. Today, gov'ts are discussing locking in carbon emissions at 1990 levels. Well, folks, i got some bad news: that's not gonna help. If we dropped our emissions to ZERO today, we'd still get a warming climate over the next 100 years. The reality is that the human race's dependence on carbon fuels is doing nothing but increase.
What we need to be talking about are how we're going to move all of our major cities so that they are at least 5 meters above current sea level.
If we're serious about trying to mitigate humanity's impact, we need to discuss population control, invest heavily in alternative energies (solar is the only one that could possibly save us) and get realistic about what's in store for us.
So, 40% of self identified Dems doubt evolution. Well, that's sure as Jeebus hung from a stick with nails through hands and feet beats a MAJORITY not accepting evolution as a reality. And THAT is todays repugnantklan. Stupider then a box of hammers and DAMN proud of it!!! And willin to spend MILLIONS of taxepayer dollars(fiscal consEEEEErvatives donchaknow!) in impossible to win court cases about tryin ta get creAtionism taught in them thar GAWDLESS science class rooms!!! Maybe they're NOT the repugnantklan, MAYBE they're repugnant/tards?
"“Global warming threatens our health, our economy, our natural resources, and our children’s future. It is clear we must act.”-Eliot Spitzer"
How can I believe him, he is just a lawyer.
Not a surprise. Reminds me of all of the scientists who showed support for Intelligent Design creationism -- engineers, some physicists, etc but very few biologists.
I wonder what economists would think if climatologists told them how to do their job? The irony is the two groups should be working together, but it appears many businessmen and economists are luddites.
So we taxpayers paid for this piece of stinkin' dog excrement that Inhofe put out? My hard-earned money went into this?
Dennis @ 18:
Because, as we, economists know much about climatology, just by being good at economics.
Too bad I can't take my child to Einstein if he ever gets cancer, since h is so awesome is knowledge of physics was so awesome.
Dennis @ 18:
Because, as we all know, economists know much about climatology, just by being good at economics.
Too bad I can't take my child to Einstein if he ever gets cancer; since his knowledge of physics was so awesome, he must have been an awesome doctor. /sarcasm
xoites defends Constitution @ 39:
You are having way too much fun with this Senator from Oklahomophobia! LOL
Do you realize what 'Inhofe' spelled backwards is?
EFOHNI, pronounced 'a-Phon-Y'
Imhofe's citing 400 scientists, as compared to the thousands upon thousands of scientists around the world, sounds exactly like the numbers involved in the Swift Boat Liars smear campaign of Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War record.
Of the over 15,000 members of the Swift Boat Association, of which Sen. John Kerry is a member, the Swift Boat Liars could only get about 250 members of the association to sign onto their right-wing smear campaign against Kerry before the November 2004 presidential election. In fact, the Swift Boat Liars padded their 250 number with some association members who told the Rocky Mountain Times that they'd contacted the Swift Boat Liars and told them to take their names off their Kerry hit list.
Plus, most people don't know that the U.S. Navy Department issued a formal statement three weeks before the election in which the Navy Department stated that it stood behind its issuance of medals for valor to Lt. John Kerry back during the Vietnam War, as the Navy Department stood behind its issuance of medals to all U S. naval personnel, including any medals awarded to any of the Swift Boat Liars. Kerry's campaign should have jumped on this, but they didn't.
Anyway, Imhofe and his "400 scientists" are no different than the Swift Boat Liars, and the 250 or so guys who participated in the smear campaign of Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In the latter case, only another presidential election was stolen, but in the former case, the very fate of the human race hangs in the balance, especially if any of the most dire predictions involving global warming come to pass. Imhofe and these "400 scientists" are literally playing Russian Roulette with themselves, the rest of the world and with the future of their own children...hoping, I guess, that they will somehow themselves dodge the global warming bullet.
I find it interesting that whenever I read these disclaimers about the validity of the negative Global Warming case, they always leave out reference to the actual data, as if we can't understand any of it. Yet, the more I search for it and find it, the more I become convinced that Global Warming is NOT a fact.
For example, this author laughs at the inclusion of computer programmers and economists. Yet, the ISPA, which is the leading proponent of climate change and the original source for much of the hubaloo, includes the work of many Economists. Why? Because the models predicting future scenarios involve the careful work of economists and computer programmers. In fact, much of the Global Warming case is based upon these models.
Our ability to predict the weather is difficult, at best. Thus, while I don't know the validity of the following claim, I find it may be plausible that if it is true that none of these models can recreate the El Nino effect accurately, which is something we know occurs, but when given the establishing data these same kind of models have not been able to accurately model it, then I find myself at least skeptical.
Instead of believing these constant pooh-pooings, take a look at the counter arguments yourself. And keep in mind when they say things like Global Warming is occuring that there is simply NO argument. The contrarians AND the alarmists already agree on this, to one extent or another. The BIG argument is over what the cause is and what the fallout will be. So, when someone refers you to data proving Global Warming, then be impressed. It is. But when they say, this proves the world is coming apart at the seams, keep reading.
Most references to science conforming to the case of the alarmists is simply to evidence of Global Warming. Wow. Really? Yet, they keep painting the "deniers" as being fools and all kinds of other demeaning things without facing up to their logic with counter logic. Some of this stuff doesn't take a degree. Such as when the claim is made that the Arctic ice cap melting will raise sea levels, which it simply can't do, since it isn't on land and is already IN the sea. ?? Oh, and hey, how about that Anarctice cap that's having problems. Yeah, when you heat up the world 1 or 2 degrees and add that to -20 or more it doesn't really come close to 32 degrees, does it. In fact, a temperature rise would help accumulate that ice by increasing moisture in the air which then accrues to the accumulation of freezing on the ice , raising its level. Thus, we are left with Greenland, which has already faced a very large amount of reduction in its ice coverage. Given this, then we should be able to measure a consistent sea rise around the globe. But, problem is, we haven't. And, for what levels have risen, it's consistent with past rising rates and anomalies of rises and lowerings around the world.
Add to this the assumption of the ISPA model that Co2 levels will double and then we will have rising sea effects from that as the warmed water mass swells when it becomes heated. Yet, we've already seen 3/4's of that rise in Co2 levels SINCE the first models made these predictions, and have we seen a 3/4 rise in the sea levels they predicted? Nope.
The list goes ON, and on, and on and on. Go check it out for yourself and see if you can make heads or tails of it. And when you do, really examine what the hardcore scientists are actually saying and see if you can separate it from the screaming loonies. Objectivity is the way to go. Not just a bunch of yea sayers.
Personally, I don't know which way to conclude, but that's because it really does appear to me that both sides may be slinging some shit, and every scientific report I see doesn't make overall claims. Hell, the lead scientist of the ISPA's 7th chapter is a naysayer. Who needs a list of many when a few of the very experts that wrote the report disagree, entirely.
I should add that the Royal Meteorlogical Society is in the extensive list, given above, yet when you go read it after looking at many of the counter arguments, it's erroneous. In many of their claims they go on to prove the opponents case. In the end they conclude anthropogenic warming, but they do not conclude they agree with everything, because they are honest. A careful reading shows that it has been edited to conform with the most negative findings simply because you can see how the wording is meant to oppose the claim, but then gives evidence as if it is in opposition by wording and format, but their objections often verify the claim they supposedly dispute. As well, some of the supposed claims set up straw men that do not represent what the naysayers are stating. For example, global warming is NOT occurring. Well, it is and here's the society's evidence. Well, no shit. Really? Yeah. Well, the problem is that only the farthest right scientists are making that kind of absurd claim. Those being objective don't, and that isn't just some scientists. Its any of them that continue to objectively state their case before a politician or another censor makes the conclusions or format conform to the alarm and not toe merely what the evidence says. Go read the findings. An alarmist will present data that a scientist meant only to constrict to a certain point, but it will be implemented by someone else as being evidence, yet they're often out of context. Just spend 30 or 40 hours yourself over a month or two and you'll see what I mean. Don't trust me, I'm an evil naysayer for asking you to really research the issues yourself.
This global warming hysteria is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the world since the missing link Evolution theory of Darwin.
It's bogus and is going to cost the poor and middle income consumers $$$billions in unnecessary regulations.
The Clinton-Gore team is back in the public arena, but they really belong in a 2nd rate lounge act at Circus-Circus.
george @ 72:
You dont even rate as a 2nd rate lounge act, but, the good news is you are particularly well suited to work for FOX Noise, or even bea Republican page. Just make sure you are careful around Larry Craig, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you accept an IM from Mark Foley!
Ian Hesse @ 71:
You are so full of shit that it boggles the mind as to why you are a useless shill for corporate polluters.
If you are getting some kind of residual payment for this whoring then you have a financial stake in spreading disinformation, however, its more likely you are getting jack shit in return, which makes me wonder how someone could be so ignorant in the first place.
Global climate change will affect ALL of us, it does not matter if you are rich or poor. If you are rich you likely can be spared of some of its ruinous effects, and insulate yourself from the resulting migrations and shortages resulting from global warming. Yet weather patterns, be they floods or droughts or more violent storms, will likely affect you no matter how well off you are.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1118_051118_disaster_ref...
Ian Hesse @ 70:
Well, you certainly are slinging some shit.
ALWAYS be suspicious of the guy who tries to baffle with bullshit. All your psuedo science remains unconvincing to me. When models are predicting that it is quite possible that summer sea ice would disappear in the Arctic I dont need to try and be baffled with counter global warming propaganda, it dont work
Oh, and thats disappear by 2013, Ian, in case you didnt know. 2013, no Arctic summer sea ice. Global warming not happening? How much more fucking evidence will you need before you make up your mind?
The information war now rages when you deniers show up, as the planet heats up from the likes of corporatists trying to consolidate control of its finite resources before killing us all, one way or the other.
While I agree that there should be disclosure if the list has a substantial number of economists, I think it is bizarre that folks would criticize an economist having an opinion on the matter and then embrace Vice President Gore's role a spokesperson. Not only is he entirely unqualified to be a spokesperson on the matter (as an environmentalist, I actually read his writing on the subject which decidedly unscientific), but he has singlehandedly managed to politicize the issue and create a scenario where politics is getting in the way of hard science.
Gore has tried to pass himself off as an expert, sadly.
And, in doing so, he's made it much more difficult to address this issue in a dispassionate, effective way.
He's really turned it into the WMD of environmentalism, causing people to completely lose focus on the fact that we are destroying our planet even without global warming. Now, with the focus on global warming and man's influence on it -- something for which there may be consensus, but there will never be rock hard proof or testability -- we get a large sector of the politicized public to not give a damn about what we're doing to the Earth.
jimmiraybob @ 28:
Gore's taking the matter as his mantle and making movies on it is fine, but winning the Nobel prize for it is what makes the topic political. However, how can one divorce the politics from it if that is whats going to have to be its driving force in the future? Should hatred of Al Gore some change ones mind that global warming is not happening?
Of course not. And the detractors of Gore are the same ones who have actually BEEN politicized, the ones who ARE making the argument political are the climate change skeptics.
Gore happens to be their target.
In a discussion like this, it is valuable to remind people of the Inhofe Scale.
The insanity of arguing whether or not there is Global Warming is so atrocious. The discussion (and action) should be about what to do about it.
Scientific consensus is not always a good thing. There have been plenty of examples when the consensus was wrong. There was a consensus that the Earth was at the center of the universe once upon a time.
You should listen to the many economists that doubt the current consensus for global warming. Economists forecast events in the future. Economists have been involved with many scientific discoveries. My father is an economist and worked on predicting the sunspot cycle early in his career.
I personally don't know if we are in a long term global warming trend leading to disastrous consequences for the environment or a short term trend that is currently reversing itself. I do know that we should be skeptical of those that claim with certainty that they know what the global temperature will be like in 50 or 100 years from now. We should be even more skeptical to the point of scorn those that claim they can actually control the global temperature while they jet around from place to place collecting large fees for talking about it.
The law of unintended consequences will always change the outcome. For example, if you slow the US economy by passing draconian green laws you will create opportunity elsewhere in the world. You will end up producing far more greenhouse gas when third world countries start burning even more of their coal reserves as their economies grow.
Maybe I should have called my article "10 reasons why Inhofe needs the geoid" instead of the current 10 reasons why Al Gore needs the geoid? :-)
Mark Granger @ 81:
Yes, and also listen to economists with a crystal ball who can look into it and predict the future, as they may be able to warn us all of any impending weather related peril (likme a warning in advance of something like another Katrina, where we can hurry and build hurricane shelters)
Good idea.
Interesting....the Global Warming Hysteria crowd boos a scientist if he's an economist or a researcher, but they seem to overlook that readily enough when praising the IPCC report (most of the scientists involved there have nothing whatsoever to do with climate or weather; one is an oceanologist).
Methinks a smell a whiff of hypocrisy here....
How about we let the facts speak for themselves? And the FACT that temps in the Northern Hemisphere have stayed the same since about 1998 while the Southern Hemisphere temps have fallen 1/2 degree are pretty telling......
if people do hear something that is emotionally difficult for them to they have a few fases they go pass before accepting the reality:
1. deny the facts ("we did not crash into the other car")
2. get angry ("it is their fault")
3. negotiate ("well ok, we crashed into the other car, but maybe we can get a deal to fix the insurance, if you take the blame, then we pay you 500$"
4. depression (finally acceptance)
5. start working on a solution, facing the facts.
It seems some people are still in fase 1, some in fase 2.....
Ferretman @ 84:
this is simply not true. Please see my earlier reply. You are still in fase 1 and 2. Please study the material and get depressed!
This makes U.S policy look like a complete joke... even more.
How arrogant we all are thinking we have such a profound impact on this earth. Ohh, the earth is warming, like it was cooling 50 years ago... ohhh, there is too much C02.... How many of you on this site are actually scientists who have performed your own field research? Or built your own computer model predicting 10, 20 or 100 years in the future? We are all just ridiculous little ants with a heightened sense of importance and constant need to ACT to solve the problems we conjure in our head.
What I see on these comments are just a lot of name calling. When someone asked everyone to be objective and look at the data yourself, more name calling. Too bad I can't bury most of your comments, because almost all of them are stupid.
At least a few people here have common sense. I'm a degreed engineer, plenty of physics. Al Gore is a freakin' moron. If any had any 'common sense' they'd look at the original list of 'scientists' which included gynecologists, for god's sake. This is a scam on a global scale. Only idiots believe it, because they love the 'fear factor'. "My time on Earth is IMPORTANT!" No, it isn't. You're a speck. Get over it. How much you want to bet nothing of this doom and gloom scenario comes true? The greatest trait of the human being is hubris....you're not changing the climate, you dork....the sun is.
When Kailee Krider, one of Al Gore's attack dogs, played the Exxon card, her bluff was called and she had nothing further to say.
When communism took a back seat in the attack on liberty, environmentalism jumped to the fore. Their first major target?--tobacco. Why? Because of the beachhead it would establish for attacking the culprits of climate change.
Considering the IPCC has 2 hairstylists, and untold number of other NON Climate Change scientist on their list, I would be inclined to take the Economics side. At least they know how detrimental the Climate change accords would have on those hairstylists....
PS: there is a list of over 18,000 scientists (you have to qualify to submit your name) that are against the whole global warming nonsense. So forget the 400.
george @ 72:
Translation: Who needs science? It makes George's head hurt.
A Siegel @ 80:
That and economists should pull their damned luddite heads out of their asses and work with climatologists for a future plan of action.
Mark Granger:
:lol:
Where did all of the Inhofe Retardo-trolls come from?
Otay @ 96:
Dont know, but they flooded this thread. I cant help but think these guys are on someones payroll in the govt. (An "education and technology dept.")
That would explain their devotion to the disinformation they peddle
odanny @ 97:
they are still in fase 1, some in fase 2 of acceptance....see my comment earlier.
Cantor de Mambo @ 1:
AHAHAHHA .... Yea Sure.. Who knows more about climate change? Economists or scientists who study the climate for a living??
10$ says that algore knows more about climate change then all the economist put together >_>
Again, more name calling. Are there more than a handful of intelligent people who visit this site? I'm beginning to think not.
It takes only one scientist to disprove a claim.
You can't dismiss something because there are supporters who have irrelevant credibility. Find a problem with the theory, not the people.
Question: Are the IPCC the best qualified scientists or are they just charlatans in it for the money?
Who would be able to tell?
Answer: National Scientific Academies would seem to be good judges of real scientific credentials.
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 (2001)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 (2005)
For the comments of other scientific bodies http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on_Climate_Change
The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.
No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 or http://www.5min.com/Video/The-Truth-About-Global-Warming-11796
UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Retard @ 100:
No, not more than a handful who visit this site, if you only count the denziens of the wingnut reality-denier brigade.
Sure would be nice if we could get the real facts from both sides with out getting tainted information given to us by those who have some thing to gain. I am all for reducing pollution and for being good caretaker of the planet. However it seems both sides are giving us fluff. It matters little if for example Europe has zero pollution but in China they pump out more then Europe ever did. The simple fact of the matter that we all must do better. Remember making money is only good if you can spend it and if you poison yourself and others what have you really accomplished?
I like the Earth just as much as any other person. I live there, you know. Great place...except for the annoying d-bags that haggle me on the streets of Portland trying to make me believe that humans are the cause of global warming. I mean, being a hippy too busy to get a job because I've got my thumb up my butt believing my species is the cause of global warming sounds so...enticing, but it just isn't for me.
Just talk to the found of the weather channel.....do it.
Daniel @ 101:
The people are the problem.
Oh, and I'm most definately on some payroll just because I oppose the majority of retards out there. yes, that explains it. In place of the theory of global warming I submit to you Daniel's Law (named after me). It postulates this: "Ninety-five percent of Americans are gullable and narrow-minded."
Daniel Sampson @ 108:
Shut the fuck up you moron
IPCC supporter @ 102:
Excellent, thanks for posting that!
Greg @ 104:
Actually, there are three sides: scientists with their analytical techniques, computer programs, knowledge in the field, and experimental discipline.
Another side that thinks that the bible is all the science you need.
And the final side those who lose profit if you reduce hydrocarbon usage.
Which side do you trust to give you the expertise in this field? That's the only question you have to ask.
Daniel Sampson @ 105:
Yes, scientists are just a bunch of friggin' hippies too busy to get jobs because they have their thumbs up their butts. Amazing the scientific process has been so successful giving us the car, transistor, cell phone, electricity, etc. considering they are just friggin' hippies.
And no, it's not for you. Go back to Okie hick-ville and pray for the likes of your god-of-inbred-unibrows Inhofe.
Daniel Sampson @ 108:
All right. Enough of your jealousy towards everybody educated above grade school level.
Unfortunately we have 'Positive Feed-Backs' developing/encroaching within our Environment now, and its quite possible these cannot be stopped(they can also without warning, manifest exponentially).
Being that Earth's 'Negative Feed-Back Loops' are degrading, we can also expect to see stronger Sun-Spot activity occur; and as our Solar System and Galaxy are all inter-connected Organisms, our Endo-Genetic/Endo-Symbiant status(within this greater 'Negative Feed-Back Loop') will provoke the equivalent of an Immune Attack upon Earth at some point.
Short and Simple: 'CO2' levels reflect Man's Flawed System, and Nature is about to Reject us in a very harsh way.
Earth has a major 'pH' dis-equilibrium(Oceans are near 30% Acidic, and Coral Reef's dying off).
You know, this may sound weird, but Mayan calandars stop on the same year as Arctic summer ice (on some models) could be gone (2013).
I cannot believe that, in this day and age, with sall the cientific analysis available and reputable sciences voice being a consensus, we are seeing such conviction on the part of these science deniers, these people ALWAYS vote Republican, confirming my suspicions about Republicans in general.
These people are diseased in their minds and spirits. Their motivations baffle me, as most dont profit from this. They just want to hoard and consume as many of the finite resources as exist on the planet.
Pitiful creatures, these climate change deniers
The Messenger @ 114:
Brilliant post. I'm not sure of the specifics but the positive and negative feedback loops are like a snowball rolling down an endless mountainside I believe. Once going, it cannot be stopped. It will continue to gain velocity and once some atmospheric level has been reached and/or exceeded, then its reached the tipping point, and its game on.
Otay @ 113:
He gets an allowance and brags hes on the payroll!!
It really doesn't matter if Inhofe included non-scientists in his list. It doesn't matter whether there is 100% agreement on either side of the issue by scientists or non-scientists. The climate has been warming since the time of Shakespeare. Whether the warming has been accelerated as a result of human activity is the real question and, for the record, I believe it's almost exclusively a function of solar output variations. Regardless, the answer certainly doesn't lie with Gore and friends. The greatest disaster that could befall mankind would be the rise of the political monsters such as Gore and the UN.
Rod Weston @ 118:
The "greatest disaster" is doing nothing to stop climate change, which we know we are contributing to, that "solar output variations" nonsense is another way of blaming the problem on something you cannot control, and therefore, cannot accept responsibilty.
You climate change deniers will approach your prey from a variety of different angles, the end result is a deep contempt for an extraordinary spokesman (Al Gore) while your handpicked candidate (George W. Bush, polluter in chief) is a stammering idiot with the intellectual reasoning ability of an 8th grader.
Sucks being you
Inhofe is one politician fighting against so many politicians around the world. "Global Warming" is a political issue, not a scientific issue. As a scientist, I prefer to believe the scientific evidence rather than political "consensus" that varies from news story to news story.
A great read to compare the politics to the scientific evidence: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming
Also:
- Are we really warming? What happened to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period?
- Various political and media interpretations of sea level rise.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzE2OTRlMDYxYTRkNTI2ZDBjMjF...
Rod Weston @ 118:
You should have put the emphasis on "I believe". No wonder our great country is f*ed up -- because people think their personal beliefs trump all else.
John in Globally Cooled Kansas City @ 120:
Inhofe is a politician raving against science itself. Inhofe is also a young-earth creationists, thus showing he rants against geologists, nuclear physicists, biologists, geophysicists. A political hack who believes he knows more than all of these scientific disciplines concerning their own disciplines.
He's a loon. If I were you, I would be running away from Inhofe.
This post made me laugh.
I have dug a little deeper into the "economist" myth.
Although an economist I have no particular sympathy for economists but do believe that a few facts can go a long way.
http://globalisation-and-the-environment.blogspot.com/2007/12/400-econom...
Opinions most welcome.
Opinions welcome?
Okay, here ya go:
Most of the "400" (econs. or not) stand in stark contrast to the previously mentioned scientific academies tht encompass our planet. They are working hard to save our planet, and us, from ourselves. Or, more accurately, they are working to save themselves and the majority of those who make up the earth's habitat, be they penguins, polar bears, or human beings.
UInfortunately, in the race for ever greater profits, industry has run amok, all over the world. But the BIGGEST polluter is the U.S., and its stance, and opposition to fighting climate change, is about as honorable and noble a mission as its claims Saddam posed a dire threat.
However, I have no explanation for those who stand up and promote the idea that climate change is false.
These people have mental issues that I wouldnt dare speculate on
Couple of years ago while debating GW on some forum, went digging and found a partial US IPCC scientist list,
you would not believe what some of the people are on that list, not the white coated climate types that AGW people crow about.
check out this website and read the page then go check out the list.
Theres big money to be made by both sides, and a lot of careers, salarys and money at stake in the debate.
Be skeptical of all of the players in the GW media circus.,