Inhofes 'scientific' attacks on global warming »
Posted by: Aidenag 7 months ago135 CommentsReflectReport this Story
So Sen. Inhofe issued a report in which he claims over 400 "prominent scientists" voiced objections on man-made warming. "Padded" would be an extremely generous description of this list of "prominent scientists." For instance, since when have economists, become scientists?
Read Full Story at gristmill.grist.org
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 135
-
Aidenag
Dec. 22, 2007, 12:32 p.m.Here are a couple more links to sites that have been looking into the "400 prominent scientists" backrounds. If anyone knows of others, please do post them in the comments. I think we all know that a large portion of these 400 have no credibility or were quoted out of context by this report.
http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scienti...
-
SpazMat
Dec. 22, 2007, 5:36 p.m.http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/20/s...
Here is the story that is with the program - with 500 comments.
-
-
grandpawh
Dec. 23, 2007, 8:31 a.m.If you take the time to go over Al Gore's list, I think that you will find the same kind of "padding". This, of course doesn't include all the "so called experts from the entertainment world"--most of whom are real "no-nothings" when it comes to science.
-
Aidenag
Dec. 23, 2007, 12:47 p.m.So after not being able to find anyone else looking into the scientists. I decided to do so myself. Up to #50 so far. And just in that, ive found one guy who has 52 of his fellow profs at his university trying to get him removed for distoring facts.
http://ia340934.us.archive.org/1/items/UofOWatc...
Another who is literally just an instuctor at a community college. One who is a Amateur Astronomer(aka never went to college). 3 out of the first 50 have taken money from Big Oil. One guy Inhofe lists as a "climate expert" in his own words says he is no such thing! and best of all, one is a creationist who is affiliated with "Reasons to Believe" which is a science/faith based think tank that and i quote was "established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God"
-
svensun
Dec. 23, 2007, 12:58 p.m.If anyone thinks this story, or Aidenaq's other posts 'refute' the objections of the 400 antropocentric global warming (AGW) skeptics listed in the Inhofe report, then they are obviously not objective.
It is apparent that not every single one of the 400 listed absolutely rejects AGW theory, but they all raise objections to the popular notions of imminent catastrophe being promoted not by the IPCC report, but by AGW theory promoters like Al Gore and the politicians who interpret the IPCC experts' work.
Aidenaq is flatly wrong when he states that 'we know that a large portion of these 400 have no credibility or quoted out of context'.
The author of the original story, Joseph Romm, mentions by name only TEN of the 400 by name, and of those, SEVEN he attacks for being scientists, but NOT climate scientists. But as someone who posted on that blog pointed out, JOSEPH ROMM, the author of this story IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!
-
svensun
Dec. 23, 2007, 1:08 p.m.Joseph Romm, the author of the original story, commits LOGICAL SUICIDE, by attacking some of the 400 in the Inhofe Report for not being climate scientists, when he is NOT a climate scientist. He argues that HE has studied and read the literature, but he presents NO EVIDENCE that the SEVEN scientists he assails have not also read the literature and understood it, perhaps more perceptively than himself.
As for Aidenaq's two other links, the Desmo blog only questions the credentials of SEVEN names on the list, while A Siegal's blog list only FIVE names from the report.
These are NOT impressive challenges to the credibility of the Inhofe Report. Impassioned, yes, but impressive? No.
-
-
tehranchik
Dec. 22, 2007, 12:47 p.m.This is what's called 'fuzzy science' come on guys---get with the program!
-
searchbeam
Dec. 22, 2007, 5:50 p.m.tc,
Very fuzzy, indeed!
Just like hairy caterpillars! Devouring everything in their reach to satisfy their insatiable appetite!
Inhofe is the hungriest of all those worms!
-
SpazMat
Dec. 22, 2007, 5:51 p.m.See, there is the real issue I have with all this -
"Get with the program" If you don't believe, 100% that GW is real and is man's fault, you are not "with the program".
I remember when it was "Be different, be a Pepper".
Than it was "I'm a pepper, he's a pepper, she's a pepper, we're all peppers, wouldn't you like to be a peeper too?"
Now it's "If you ain't a pepper, you are wrong"
-
Spinward
Dec. 25, 2007, 2:10 p.m.Why are the global warming alarmists ignoring this data:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
I know that it's an inconvenient truth that proves that we cannot do much to change anything and it's immediately attacked with, "So, you want to pollute the planet?" type responses in an effort to muddy the water (so to speak).
What's your take on this info?
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 22, 2007, 12:56 p.m.Inhofe is a crackpot.
He is also in the pockets of the big corporations who don't want to do anything about the raping and polluting they commit against the planet, as that would eat into their huge profits and bonuses.
-
Aidenag
Dec. 22, 2007, 1:38 p.m.He is in just about every environmentally unfriendly corporations pocket. Just take a look at the top contributing industries to his campaigns:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.as...
Oil & Gas, Utilities, Lobbyists, Mining, Automotive, Trucking, Air Transport, Chemical & Related Manufacturing. The list reads like he was Mr Burns from the Simpsons.
-
Bacalao
Dec. 22, 2007, 1:47 p.m.What besides a movie, Indians and the dust bowl is Oklahoma famous for? Their large reserves of oil and natural gas! Of course a senator from Oklahoma would be in their pockets. AOG is still raping us in Arkansas over the ice storm of '01. wouldn't want to mess with those profits would we.
-
-
Bkumm
Dec. 22, 2007, 12:56 p.m.The credibility of these scientists is somewhat in question as is the relevance of several hundred "dissenters" when compared to the whole number of climatologists and others working on this issue.
The following is a link to what changed my mind about global warming and climate change.
-
-
Spinward
Dec. 25, 2007, 2:22 p.m.Thanks for the link, I read it. It's missing an important piece of data:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
I used to buy the "consensus" line, but when I discovered that mad-made greenhouse gas emissions totaled .28% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that solar wind was the BIGGEST problem of all... I had to reconsider if I wanted to be honest.
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 22, 2007, 12:59 p.m.The flat-earthers are on the march. Many years after Magellan sailed around the world, there were still those people who refused to believe the world was round.
Those people are still here among us. Today they are the dupes of the corporations that care about the bottom line --not the planet we live on.
-
svensun
Dec. 23, 2007, 12:34 p.m.Spadecaller,
Calling anthropocentric global warming theory skeptics 'flat-earthers', and 'dupes' does not prove, or even offer any credible evidence for your assertions.
If you have facts, and want to debate them, but all the ad hominen on this thread impresses me not in the least, but instead makes me suspicious of the strength of the arguments for AGW theory.
If you have to convince yourself, and others, that those who diagree with you are nothing but 'flat-earthers' and 'dupes', or even worse, then perhaps you have doubts about your own position.
-
-
jordan11
Dec. 22, 2007, 2:02 p.m.Faux news reported Inhofe's BS as "breaking news." Propaganda at its best. A neocon's web site, filled with erroneous 'expert' opinions, is now "breaking news."
-
Aidenag
Dec. 22, 2007, 2:14 p.m.Fox called it breaking news?? That is priceless considering that all this 'senate report' is, was Marc Morano(swiftboater and former Rush employee) googling for anyone he could find from skeptics. Hence why some of the source links in the 'report' go to things like free blogspot domains lol.
-
-
AtheismIsReality
Dec. 22, 2007, 2:47 p.m.For the love of whatever you hold holy, Cons, can you please stop grasping at straws?
Besides what difference does it make? Should America not be working to develop the technology to move off of fossil fuels, as we're going to have to eventually when they run out? Is it so much to ask that we focus on the US being a leader on the issue instead of worrying about Exxon's CEO sustaining his multi-million dollar bonuses? Is is too much to ask you, Cons, to put your obstinance aside because you think supporting America's move to lead on climate change makes Liberals "right", and you just can't stand that?
I mean really, is it too much to ask that we move away from technologies that create things like SMOG?!? Or let me guess, we don't have scientific evidence that smog is man made?
-
slate
Dec. 22, 2007, 3:53 p.m.'America not be working to develop the technology to move off of fossil fuels, as we're going to have to eventually when they run out?'
YES YES YES, even if we weren't running out,,, clean is always better, that we can agree on. Using hydrocabons for energy should go the way of the buggy whip,,, though I'm sure the buggy whip industry was trying as best as they could to keep their profits.
Is the planet getting warmer ,,,, errr yes it is,,, does that make me a flat lander because I know this fact?
Smog is partly made byman yes, tress also produce smog from what I've learned.
What I want is energy that is clean and afordable to cool, heat and illuminate our homes and power our vehicles. I'm strongly for that technology.
-
-
-
Obaku
Dec. 22, 2007, 3:41 p.m.Be grateful all these 'scientists' have gone on record - it makes it so much easier to hold them up to public ridicule and disrepute when the billions spent to protect London and Venice from flooding is proven fruitless, when the subway in New York is closed permanently, when Miami is abandoned and Key West disappears forever beneath the sea.
-
SpazMat
Dec. 22, 2007, 5:38 p.m."These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC"
Given how many of them worked on the IPCC, I guess you trust a word they say, right?
-
-
-
cloud15
Dec. 22, 2007, 4:38 p.m.Funny how people who have no idea what they're talking about will attack the scientists rather than the science.
But I do agree, it's much easier to bring down a person that a theory.
-
Goppy
Dec. 22, 2007, 5:29 p.m.You is preachin to the chior there cloudy!
Thats all we Christian Conservatives do! We done demonized that Al Gore fella - which enables us to Christians to throw off our Christianity bout bein God-Fearin. We caint possibly be God-Fearin while simultaneously make excuses fer polluters- and the legislaters that protect em!
Personally, Im thankful fer Golbal Warmin! As a Christian Conservative - it has enabled me to understand that we Christian Conservatives dont really have a RELIGION! Its more liek a squishy kinda POLITICAL ideeologie.
And fer that - I thank Jerry Falwell, and all the other Televangelists that turned Christianity into a Cash Cow - with flatulence.
-
-
-
Cityslicker
Dec. 22, 2007, 4:51 p.m.And Gore's data is 100% valid and can't be disputed by anyone ?
Climate models that are not accurate to with in a few days , predict 10 year trend .
May 2008 be the demise of Gullible Warning propaganda forever .
Protect the OZONE , oh wait , that is old propaganda .
Global Cooling , oh wait , another scam perpetuated by a single body of people to get what they want .
You do realize that the Gullible Warning advocates are inviting Big Oil to raise prices based on their beliefs , neck as far as that goes the whole Economy . The Rich will get richer from Gullible Warning , just as they have on all other ventures sought for by Green Peace and other Environmental groups .
Environmental rescue invites raising of the basic economic structure , watch and see .
-
bluetexasvalley
Dec. 22, 2007, 9:20 p.m.Again, it is NOT Gore's data. He is merely a high-profile spokesman for the IPCC scientists who put the data together.
-
luv2backpack
Dec. 23, 2007, 11:16 a.m.Your exactly right. Even if global warming is real the only solutions would have worse consequences for humans than global warming does. We would have to ban carbon emitting cheap energy which will destroy both the middle and lower class but would have very little impact on the rich. Plus we could do everything to stop GW in the U.S but if China/India not doing same thing it will have almost no positive effect.
-
-
cloud15
Dec. 22, 2007, 4:42 p.m.But as long as were playing the shoot the messenger game, why is a physicist who considers himself an expert in climatology attacking other scientists who are in the same situation?
-
abntv
Dec. 22, 2007, 5:53 p.m.All this uproar is based on some computer modeling. Hardly an accurate base when the data going in is questionable..garbage in garbage out.
-
-
Spinward
Dec. 25, 2007, 8:54 p.m.The problem with computer modeling is HUGE. The models can't give accurate forcasts of today's climate when tested with 20-year-old data.
The complexities of the climate are enormous and are not modelable using t
-
