Don’t believe Inhofe’s hype

It’s very likely that the four most telling words in the English language are, “Sen. James Inhofe argued….” At that point, the listener can either comfortably stop listening, knowing that any words that follow are complete nonsense, or should keep listening only to learn what nonsense can be rejected out of hand.

Late last week, for example, the Oklahoma Republican — for my money, the single biggest embarrassment in the Senate chamber — issued what he called a “report” about the hundreds of “scientists” who agree with him about global warming (which is to say, they reject reality, just as Inhofe does).

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.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the “scientific consensus” that man-made global warming imperils the planet. […]

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore’s claim that the “debate is over.”

“The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day,” he said.

Far-right blogs pounced, heralding Inhofe’s document as a major contribution to the policy “debate.” After all, if a senator can identify more than 400 independent, credible scientific professionals, and they all reject the evidence of climate change, then the right-wing goal — introduce doubt into the minds of the public — is well on its way to succeeding.

There are, however, a few small problems with Inhofe’s report. OK, more than a few. Oh, all right, they’re not small, either.

It’s hard to know exactly where to start with Inhofe’s piece, but it’s worth noting that Inhofe didn’t exactly “find” these 400 “scientists.” He and his staff compiled a list based on skewed readings of news reports. In other words, if an Inhofe staffer saw some quote from a scientists questioning climate change in some way, he or she made the list.

But it doesn’t take long before the list starts to fall apart. Joe Romm noted:

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable.” 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?

Yes, some of the scientists are economists. Others are scientists and inventors who have “no expertise in climate science whatsoever.” Much of the list is made up of TV weather forecasters, who aren’t scientists. Dozens of those who appear on Inhofe’s 400 are on ExxonMobil’s payroll.

Best of all, in a few instances, Inhofe included scientists who actually disagree with him and accept climate-change reality.

The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man-made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren’t all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem — many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming. Others simply cited phenomena that might be causing warming in addition to that caused by greenhouse gases. And a good deal of them aren’t even climatologists — there are and abundance of geographers, physicists, and “philosophers of science” in the mix.

It’s not too hard to dredge up 400 people in all the world who think the lunar landing was a farce or believe that Elvis is living in Albuquerque, much like it isn’t too hard to dig up 400 people with a vague background in the field of science who find something to dispute in climate science. That doesn’t mean their views should be lauded and held up as scientific proof that global warming isn’t so bad. There haven’t been any peer-reviewed scientific studies validating any claims that the planet is either not warming, or not warming because of humans, and the world’s most-respected climatologists are all in agreement. And other than Inhofe, Morano and a few other stragglers, the Republican party has moved from claiming steadfastly that climate change isn’t real, to claiming it’s real but not caused by humans, to now just saying it would cost too much to deal with it. Even Bush has left the denial behind for mere obstruction. Inhofe and his minions are the last holdouts of a dying minority, and they’re getting increasingly desperate in their attempts to dig up validation.

That so many conservatives quickly embraced Inhofe’s “report” as legitimate and reliable doesn’t speak well to the seriousness with which today’s right takes public policy.

for my money, the single biggest embarrassment in the Senate chamber

Before that old tippler Senator Bond made his infamous analogy between swimming and waterboarding, I would have agreed without hesitation. But now, my faith in Inhoffe as the quintessential Senate buffoon has been shaken.

  • Wow, from Inhofe’s hype, it sounds as if he sent out a specific statement to people, which they signed. It’s good to know you’re getting the truth out, when the truth is so far from the hype.

    I advise all Carpetbagger Report readers to send the link to this post to anyone who may listen.

    Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore’s claim that the “debate is over.”

    No, it can’t be over– that’d be like saying the debate over whether the Civil War South was a noble, freedom-loving enterprise is over.

  • I’ve read that several leading scientists are not completely convinced that global warming is man-made. But they support efforts to clean up carbon dioxide waste and promote greater fuel efficiency. And why wouldn’t you? Who wants to leave a mess for the following generations?

    And yes, the answer is the Republicans and their corporate overlords.

  • Democratic State Senator Andrew Rice is running against Inhofe in the 2008 election. He’s an excellent candidate, but he’s largely unknown, and probably too liberal for the majority Oklahoma voters. Plus Inhofe has sharpened his God, Guns and Gays campaign theme to a fine edge.

    So the embarrassment that is Sen. Inhofe is likely to remain in office until they carry him out feet first.

    We’re sorry, America, but we’ll do our best to get rid of him sooner than that.

  • Jen Flowers wrote:

    I’ve read that several leading scientists are not completely convinced that global warming is man-made.

    You probably read it on the Fox News website. Sorry, but “what Jen Flowers read” is not a credible source. You’ll have to get a link.

  • People need to be educated, not indoctrinated. Then they could use their brain to decide who to vote for instead of emotional reflexes.

    We have the technology… but not the will. Otherwise TV would be floodedwith educational public service announcements about all kinds of things, including global warming and what it means to all of us.

  • I’ve read that several leading scientists are not completely convinced that global warming is man-made

    Who are these scientists? Who funds their work? Are they academics, or do they work for corporations? As far as peer-reviewed work (the only kind that matters) the published papers run about 999:1 in the direction of bolstering the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

  • Jen’s right. There are prominent scientists who dispute man-made climate change models, such as Colorado State University’s William Gray and Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center. These guys do recognize an increase in temperatures that are affecting global weather cycles but feel the warming we are seeing to be part of natural weather cycles. These guys are, however, a very distinct minority and the scientists signed on to the belief that human activity is affecting our ecosystem are both much more numerous and more compelling in their arguments.

  • Impeachable witnesses – common fodder in the early 21st century that passes off as political debate. When I think of Ted Stevens I think of the old rope a dope ploy! -Kevo

  • Swan and Blue Girl,

    My source was Bill Moyers on his journal. Sorry I’m not a wonk. I don’t remember who said it to Bill. (Thanks, Petorado, for mentioning names.) The point I was making was that even the few scientists who have doubts about human impact on the weather agree that reducing carbon dioxide and particulate pollutants is a worthy idea.

    And thank you, Swan, for presuming my source was Fox News. I don’t have cable so I’m spared that entertainment option.

  • I suspect the global warming deniers in general are the same people who hate environmentalism. They feel threatened by what the environmentalists are doing, rather than by what humans are doing to the environment. It’s visceral. You can’t reason with these people. They truly fear their way of life is being stolen from them by the tree huggers.

    I think it’s the same phenomenon as the denial of evolution. There are many religious people who simply feel threatened by evolution. They cling to the fairy tale of creationism in an emotional way. It’s hard to understand it, but it somehow goes to the core of their very being. They just can’t accept it, and won’t, no matter what.

    Kind of like the spouse cheating syndrome, where the spouse won’t admit that his/her spouse is cheating no matter how much evidence there is because the pain it would cause is intolerable.

  • OKLAHOMA CRUDE: Our Civil War was fought because the South would rather have had a divided nation than to give-up slavery…And today, with similar bravado, global-warming skeptics [Sen. Inhofe leading-the-charge!] would risk the World’s ecosystems and civilizations to just keep polluting the atmosphere with billions-of-tons of hot acidic exhaust.

  • 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.

  • You could have someone claim that Ming the Merciless was the cause for climate change, and Inhofe would believe that before he’d believe that it was man-made.

  • Jen Flowers wrote: And thank you, Swan, for presuming my source was Fox News. I don’t have cable so I’m spared that entertainment option.

    Okay, you sounds sarcastic here, so I am going to answer you.

    Jen Flowers, when you rush to write “I’ve read that several leading scientists are not completely convinced that global warming is man-made” as the first sentence in the third comment on the thread about how a Republican blatantly lied about 400 prominent scientists rejecting global warming, there’s something wrong with it. It merits a presumptions of Fox News, I think.

    We are living in a time when there is so much evidence of global warming, when a scientist says he/she doesn’t believe in it, it makes sense to ask the scientist if his or her opposition is just based on the theoretical, hypothetical belief that we can’t really know anything, and something always might come up to disprove the evidence we have and show that what we think is caused by one thing is actually caused by another- or is the stand actually principled, based on actual reasons and evidence, and not on what amounts to a 7-year-old child’s argument that completely rejects the process by which we continually learn about the world and are able to operate successfully in it (that is, it rejects the foundation of science- drawing conclusions based on what we do know).

    The scientists who reject global warming might be just a little too willy-nilly, a little too ‘battered wife syndrome,’ and eager to prove to the berating assholes in a second that they are not accepting the other side’s argument uncritically. But if that is the case, then those willy-nilly scientists are compromising the quality of the scientific opinion they give because of it. Science is not founded on scientist’s psychological worries about whether people will like them or not.

  • Senator Inhofe argues global warming/climate change is bogus while many of his constituents were without power several weeks ago due to ice storms. Meanwhile, a Oklahoma assistant climatologist states that the ice storms are a result of warmer winters, which it-of-itself, is the result of an increasing warming atmosphere and oceans. Time for Oklahoma to elect this man out of office:

    “How’s this for irony? More frequent ice storms during the last two decades can be traced to, of all things, warmer winters, according to the Oklahoma Climatological Survey.

    Assistant State Climatologist Derek Arndt and his colleagues began discussions a couple years ago after noticing a 20-year upswing in events like the one Oklahoma experienced last weekend.

    His office has stayed mum on a conclusion — until now.

    “Now, we can confidently say they’re happening more often, and it relates to the warmer winters we’re having,” Arndt said.

    Arndt was careful to avoid the loaded term “global warming,” but he said a consistently warmer lower atmosphere is the likely cause behind the increase in severe ice storms.”

    http://newsok.com/article/3181302/1197779277

  • I wrote:

    “. . . or is the stand actually principled, based on actual reasons and evidence, and not on what amounts to a 7-year-old child’s argument that completely rejects the process by which we continually learn about the world and are able to operate successfully in it (that is, it rejects the foundation of science- drawing conclusions based on what we do know).”

    I am just going to make this comment pedantically clear, for the pedants and philosophes who like to parse words, who may be reading today.

    Although what I called “what we do know” is open to the same objection (such as it is), as the ultimate conclusion- that is, just like we could say “I don’t know whether global warming is true or not because how do I know something isn’t going to be discovered that disproves global warming tomorrow”- it doesn’t actually shake science, and it isn’t actually a refutation of what I was saying. This is because we base the conclusions on new questions on things we know with more certainty (that’s what I called “what we do know.”) In other words, it makes sense to come to a certain conclusion about global warming based on pertinent information obtained from, say, measurements of atmoshperic temperature or yearly precipitation, because the methods for performing these measurments have been performed so many times and have been proven reliable so frequently. So basing an ultimate conclusion on these kinds of facts is not illogical, irrational or futile. Indeed, if all people thought it was, you would still be living in a cave eating foraged food with your hands, because people wouldn’t have developed any technology.

  • Let’s look at the facts. There is 7 to 10 years to stop putting CO 2 into the atmosphere to keep the levels below what will mean we can’t stop it. If that happens well in ten years maybe twenty it’s not what you want it’s what you need. Oh and there is that little problem of what happens to the way we all think once we know it is to late to stop. Then the reality of the problem droughts, flooding, heat and on and on. Right now Durham, NC has about 40 day’s of water 210,000 people. Atlanta 3 months 5 million. Austrian is already in big trouble drought. The India Ocean to there East a tad bit warm and how much more CO 2 can it take in not much. China I think most of you know the pollution in that country. In some areas the water is polluted down to 300 meters ground water bad sign. So stop buying stuff before it’s to late. As we can all see what needs to be done is not happening so we the people stop buying stuff. Yes some people will lose jobs that’s where the working together part comes in. It’s a tuff one but somehow I think we will all feel better if we could do this. Of course there will be people who still want to drive SUV’s and build those 90,000 Sq foot houses. Ok how about we give them the entire State of Colorado it’s all yours and the rest of us try and turn this thing around.

  • Show me a “peer reviewed” climate computer model that can take known historical data and reproduce know results! This “peer reviewed” crap does not mean anything if the models are not correct, which they aren’t yet. Give them a few more decades and we may be close. The IPCC conclusions and recommendations are made by cherry picking volumes of research. Some of the Senators 400 were contributors and expert reviewers of the IPCC data. If you are really into this matter avoid the reports composed by political hacks and read the research and expert comments and you may well reach completely different conclusions than those financed by George Soros and his IPCC and RealClimate.org. Developing countries will push human produced C02 beyond what is being touted as the point of no return we will find that the models and the IPCC were BS. Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot no matter what happens it is global warming.

  • OkieFromMuskogee,

    Don’t be so quick to give up!

    Recently, a poll (can’t bleeding find it now!) showed John Edwards beating every rethug nominee in OK in the general. That kind of poll, aberration though it may be, speaks to a national craving for change that OK has always been slow to catch up with. I believe most Oklahomans are ready to accept the idea of climate change, if only for the fact that a bunch of them are out in T-shirts on Christmas Eve despite their lack of power due to freakish ice storms.Sure, Oklahoma weather is weird, but most people I’ve talked to agree that this is pretty effed up.

    Inhofe is part of a shrinking screeching majority in OK (HB 1804 notwithstanding) that can be silenced. It becomes a matter of controlling the debate. The profits to be had by greener fuels could drastically help OK’s farmers and I have a lot of faith that they’ll go where the money is. Greenhouse gas reductions are just icing on the cake. The challenge to us Okies is to frame the debate that way (green fuels can make OK Ag. hit boom time, Inhofe doesn’t support OK farmers, he’s an entrenched career politician who doesn’t support a 21st century OK, etc., etc.) and throw every bit of support we can towards electing Andrew Rice. I think I’ve convinced at least three people at work just to go vote for him on this one issue in November and these are people who could ordinarily give two shits.

    Oklahomans are proud, relatively simple, compassionate, and a hell of a lot smarter than one would give them credit for. Inhofe doesn’t represent the future of OK. Climate change, unlikely as it sounds, could be our secret weapon if we can play our cards right (not to mention benefiting Oklahoma in general).

    Rice is a credible (and incredible) candidate: he’s a relative moderate, he’s got the bona fides of a frickin’ saint, he’s religious, he’s a devoted family man, he’s articulate, young, and handsome… he just needs our faith and support.

    (That also goes for any non-Okies who want to help out, btw.)

    Andrew’s ActBlue Page

  • I wish that this issue had not become so political. And for that we deserve some of the blame. That is, some on the left have been only to glad to use the issue as a club with which to beat up industry.

  • Bob B said::
    Show me a “peer reviewed” climate computer model that can take known historical data and reproduce know results! This “peer reviewed” crap does not mean anything if the models are not correct, which they aren’t yet.

    From the American Institute of Physics:

    From 1961 on, Mintz and Arakawa worked away at their problem, constructing a series of increasingly sophisticated [general circulation models]. By 1964 they had produced a climate computed for an entire globe, with only a two-layer atmosphere but including realistic geography — the topography of mountain ranges was there, and a rudimentary treatment of oceans and ice cover. Although the results missed some features of the real world’s climate, the basic wind patterns and other features came out more or less right.

  • In response to Brewski’s long list of alleged supporters of anthropogenic climate change, I say this:

    Ah, your mamma wears army boots.

  • It’s funny to watch the man-made global warming crazies scramble to explain ice core samples showing temperature increases PRECEDING CO2 increases by 800-1200 years (which is exactly what one would expect, due to the reduced solubility of CO2 in water as temperature rises).

    And every mmgw website you come across throws out a DIFFERENT, convoluted excuse for this inconvenient little factoid. Very telling.

    The centerpiece of Gore’s movie (with Al going up and down on an elevated platform in front of the CO2-temperature correlation graph – uhhh, yeah, there’s a correlation alright, Al, but ya got it exactly backwards) has been completely debunked. CO2 lags temperature by 800-1200 years. Whoops!

  • “It’s funny to watch the man-made global warming crazies scramble to explain…” Check out what the experts at RealClimate have to say about such matters:

    The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps — We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

  • Let’s just look at the truth in something that has happened in the last few years. This aministration just with NASA on climate change what did they do. They sent people there people along with scientists when giving talks on global warming to make sure they got it right. Changing reports so as to make it look like don’t worry be happy we still have a hundred years. For me to do something like that would not come into my mind. I would go talk to these scientists talk to as many people as possible to find out the problem. Then you should ask yourself the question why is it so important for these people the truth not be know? It’s not just Exxon but many company’s who fund people who want you to believe climate change is a hoax. Why is that so important? Wait don’t tell me because they just want the truth out there. Before the last IPCC report came out the main man from the US this administration because he wanted the language changed on the report sound familiar brought up this question. “Now if the ice sheets melt doesn’t that mean that sometime in the future they will come back”. I am almost sure when he said that the people at the table with there mouths half open there heads cocked to one side just looked at this man in pure amazement and said to themselves, ” what, did he really say that”. That’s what I am talking about nonsense. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Is there any other nonsense out there these days?

  • Now just on the off chance that putting millions of tons of CO 2 into the atmosphere everyday and burning rainforests and turning are oceans into acid could be a problem what this administration has done with reports from scientists by changing them is not like burning books but the books just never came out or the ones that did is not what the author intended. Those games withe IPCC is kid stuff kid games. Maybe our policy makers just never grew up they are still in high school.

  • “Those games withe IPCC is kid stuff kid games…” Indeed!! To provide a specific example: in August, 2006, I gave a power-point-presentation at the Veterans For Peace National Convention titled, “A World of Hurt or Hope: The National Security Implications of Global warming/ Abrupt Climate Change.

    Check it out. Here is the link:

    http://noboxthinking.com/hurthope/

    Lastly, one possible explanation for those unusual ice storms that had their icy grip on Oklahoma several weeks ago –and the unusual weather being experienced everywhere — are shifting jet streams as a result of the interaction between a warming atmosphere and oceans…

    Earth’s tropics belt expands
    By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
    12/2/07

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/12/02/national/a101129S58.DTL

    WASHINGTON – Earth’s tropical belt seems to have expanded a couple hundred miles over the past quarter century, which could mean more arid weather for some already dry subtropical regions, new climate research shows.

    Geographically, the tropical region is a wide swath around Earth’s middle stretching from the Tropic of Cancer, just south of Miami, to the Tropic of Capricorn, which cuts Australia almost in half. It’s about one-quarter of the globe and generally thought of as hot, steamy and damp, but it also has areas of brutal desert.

    To meteorologists, however, the tropics region is defined by long-term climate and what’s happening in the atmosphere. Recent studies show changes that indicate an expansion of the tropical atmosphere.

    The newest study, published Sunday in the new scientific journal Nature Geoscience, shows that by using the weather definition, the tropics are expanding toward Earth’s poles more than predicted. And that means more dry weather is moving to the edges of the tropics in places like the U.S. Southwest.

    best of luck to all

  • I wonder how dumb these people on the list would be – to stick their necks out, to be exposed as frauds, and ridiculed.

    So what do you think? Overconfident fools?

    Or just plain old confident that they have some meaningful basis to their objections?

    Would you trust anyone with the courage to do that?

    Or just go along with your columnist, and reject them?

  • Comments are closed.