Inhofe's Pre-Christmas List

Former real estate developer and failed insurance company president James Inhofe (R-OK) passionately believes that the overwhelming majority of published climate scientists and scientific organizations have simply got it all wrong when they say that global warming is mostly due to anthropogenic emissions. In the past, he has called the Environmental Protection Agency a "Gestapo bureaucracy" and said that "Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Oh yeah, and he has received $972,973 from the Oil & Gas industries, $337,313 from Electric Utilities, $211,350 from the Automotive industry, and $133,300 from the Mining industry.

This past week, Inhofe (along with conservative journalist Marc Morano) released an insanely padded list of "400 Prominent Scientists [Who] Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007."

Apparently it's not a strict requirement that any of these "prominent scientists" actually be "scientists" at all. Included in the list is Christopher Monckton, who Inhofe simply calls a "climate researcher." Monckton has a degree in journalism, but has neither any training nor any experience in climate science. Inhofe would have been more accurate to describe Monckton as an "amateur," since it is blatantly misleading to call him a "climate researcher." Oh, and Monckton also seems to believe that he is a member of the House of Lords, despite the fact that "The House of Lords Act 1999 disqualified all hereditary peers for membership of the House, but excepted from this general exclusion 90 hereditary peers" (note: Monckton was not among the 90).

Apparently, you didn't need to actually deny the idea that anthropogenic emissions drive global warming in order to make the list, either. Among those listed as "prominent scientists" is Ray Kurzweil (who isn't really a scientist per se, but is rather a brilliant inventor who created "the first true electric piano"). He made the list simply for saying this:

None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution

Basically, despite the fact that Kurzweil has said "I think global warming is real," and is not in any way a climate scientist, he made this list simply for believing that nano-technology will fix the problem in the future. I wish him luck, and hope he can make good use of his skills in this arena, but I also want to highlight how horribly dishonest Inhofe is being by using such examples to pad his list and make his case that "prominent scientists" reject the "consensus." This is really just so much sleight of hand.

As another example, Inhofe included John Maunder (an actual climate scientist) simply for saying that climate science will never be "fully understood." Seriously. The bar is set pretty low here.

Nonetheless, I'm sure that plenty of the people on this list genuinely believe, as Inhofe does, that this is all just some made-up bad science, and the scientific community at large (particularly all those peer-reviewed journals and scientific organizations) has simply engaged in some sort of mass-hysteria. But who are these people, and do their opinions on climate science really matter?

Although this point should be obvious, it's worth pointing out that being a "scientist" does not make one a "climate scientist," or mean that you have any relevant qualifications. As atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler puts it:

To understand why Inhofe's claims are fundamentally bogus, consider the following scenario: imagine a child is diagnosed with cancer. Who are his parents going to take him to in order to determine the best course of treatment?

Most people would take the child to a specialist. Not just someone with a PhD in a technical subject, but an actual medical doctor. And not just any medical doctor, but someone who was a specialist in cancer. And not just any specialist in cancer, but someone who was a specialist in pediatric cancer. And, if possible, not just any pediatric oncologist, but someone who specialized in that particular type of cancer.

Expertise matters. Not everyone's opinion is equally valid.

The list of skeptics on the EPW blog contains few bona fide climate specialists. In fact, the only criteria to get on the list, as far as I can tell, is having a PhD and some credential that makes you an academic. So Freeman Dyson makes lists. While I'm certain he's a smart guy, I would not take a sick child to him

Also, for those who do have the relevant qualifications, have they been publishing their research in peer-reviewed journals? If so, has anyone responded to their claims? I don't really have the time or patience to go through the entire list, but I would tend not to trust Inhofe's evaluation. Especially given the fact that I could already see so many sneaky tricks from just a cursory glance at this list.

UPDATE: More on Inhofe's touted peer reviewed publications here.

UPDATE II: Included in the list of 400 is "CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville." Joseph Romm looked into this TV weatherman and found that “Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University.” Yeah, these guys don't seem like the most "prominent scientists" in the world.

UPDATE III: This list mentions three geomagnetism scientists. (h/t Climate Progress)

UPDATE IV: Agnes Genevey:

Agnes Genevey — whose “research” on global warming is brutally picked apart by RealClimate here and especially here (and again here by other scientists), who together “expose a pattern of suspicious errors and omissions that pervades” their work.

UPDATE V: You can always count on FOX News journalists like Brit Hume to pass these memes along.
FOX News Alert: "More than 400 scientists are challenging claims by Al gore and the United Nations about the threat from man-made global warming."

UPDATE VI: Mark Steyn, filling in on Hannity & Colmes, says this: "A new Senate report reveals that more than 400 scientists disputed the global warming is man made. Will Al Gore now stop saying that the climate crisis is not up for debate?" Despite the fact that the list did not require you to be a scientist or to dispute that claim.

Oh, and here is the graphic they chose to show:


UPDATE VII: Inhofe describes John McLean as a "climate data analyst" and "prominent scientist." Despite the fact that McLean is described elsewhere as merely having an "amateur interest in global warming," and he apparently has no relevant qualifications or publications. This is really pretty silly.

UPDATE VIII: Inhofe says this:

Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny.

Yet he fails to explain that his "52" number only encompasses the brief Summary For Policymakers issued with the report.

Furthermore, Inhofe fails to explain that his "400" number was not a group of scientists who banded together and issued a joint statement. Instead, it's a collection of quotes Inhofe and his staffers probably found through Google searches. It was not a requirement that any of these people actually be scientists, and it was not a requirement that any of them actually dispute the idea that anthropogenic emissions contribute the most to our recent warming.

UPDATE IX: Just to remind everyone, Inhofe has a long history of passing along false, misleading, and discredited memes to make his case that our recent warming trend is not caused by anthropogenic emissions.

For example, he has touted the 1998 Oregon Petition this past year, claiming that "17,800 scientists" dispute the idea that anthropogenic emissions drive global warming. Despite the fact that the petition was available online for anyone to sign, it did not require that you have any relevant background (or any scientific training whatsoever), and pranksters were able to include Star Wars characters and Spice Girls on the list. There were other problems with this petition as well, but I highly recommend just reading this story in Scientific American.

Also this past year, Inhofe has been pushing a meme that "only 7%" of published scientists believe that anthropogenic emissions drive global warming, based on a study that couldn't even get published in a contrarian-friendly (non-ISI listed) journal.

UPDATE X: Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner are also listed by Inhofe, despite the fact that both believe anthropogenic global warming to be very real. From the executive summary of one of their papers:

We face a problem of anthropogenic climate change, but the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 has failed to tackle it.

It's a very interesting paper, by the way. But I just wanted to highlight again how dishonest it is for Inhofe to conflate "Disput[ing] Man-Made Warming Claims" with a policy difference on how to best handle anthropogenic warming.
(h/t Grist)

James Inhofe on Anderson Cooper

Inhofe Continues to Tout Never-Published Survey

Sen James Inhofe (R-OK) continues to push a meme that should have died a long time ago. According to his blog:

*A survey of 538 peer-reviewed studies reveals that less than half of published scientists endorse man-made global warming theory and only 7% believe that man-made gases are a major cause of global warming.

*But despite all of these developments, the American people are soon going to be asked to pay thousands per family for so called "solutions" to warming.

The "survey" Inhofe mentions here was never even published anywhere. In reality, the vast, overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed publications say the exact opposite. It's really not even funny. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes surveyed the peer-reviewed literature on climate change and found that 0% took Inhofe's position. She updated this study in 2007 and found more of the same.

Here's what happened. A couple of months ago, some guy thought that he could update the study himself. Before his findings were even published, the contrarian-friendly DailyTech reported on its alleged findings:

Of 528 total papers on climate change [since 2003], only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The study was immediately picked up by James Inhofe, DaveScot, Brent Bozell, Matt Drudge, FOX News, Free Republic, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh as a sign that there was no scientific agreement on the issue of global warming. All of the careless hacks who can't bother themselves with fact-checking a story. Not only did they report on the supposed findings of this not-yet-published "study," they even misrepresented what it purported to show. One retard wrote that "A recent survey of climate change articles in science journals finds fewer than half of the authors endorse anthropogenic global warming theories. The so-called consensus has now collapsed to a minority position." Never mind the fact that this "study" showed nothing of the sort.

Anyway, Tim Lambert (who shot down Benny Peiser when he tried to do the same thing) looked into the "study's" claims regarding peer-reviewed articles that "reject the consensus outright." It turns out, these much touted articles did nothing of the sort. Energy & Environment eventually decided that not even they would publish the "study."

By the way, Energy & Environment is a poorly regarded social science journal. It is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals, and it has been roundly criticized for publishing substandard papers in the past. Additionally, it's run by global warming contrarians for the sole purpose of giving other contrarians something resembling a scientific platform. Basically, it's the equivalent to an unaccredited or online college.

Not to be deterred, Inhofe still references this "study" and claims that there is some sort of "huge change." He repeated it to convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy a couple weeks ago. Not only that, he even continues to misrepresent what the survey itself purported to show. This time, he even added 10 papers out of thin air!

This is precisely how rumors and misinformation spread.

Oregon Petition - Round 2

About 10 years ago, a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine circulated a non-peer reviewed article, dressed up to look like an article from the well-respected National Academy of Sciences (they actually had to issue a press release clarifying that they had nothing to do with the bogus article), with the usual global-warming-is-a-hoax stuff. They sent it out to pretty much every scientist whose address they could find, along with the Oregon Petition, and allowed anyone to fill it out online with little-to-no oversight. Some even added the names of Spice Girls, the cast of M*A*S*H and (my favorite) "Redwine, PhD." To this day, James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe (R-OK) cites this petition to make his case that there are thousands of scientists who think just like him.

Well, they're doing it again. RealClimate has the story here.

Inhofe Lies to Criminal About Global Warming

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), famous for calling global warming "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state," and saying that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is a "Gestapo bureaucracy," recently appeared on G. Gordon Liddy's talk-radio program. This is the same Liddy who went to prison for masterminding Richard Nixon's Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Near the end of the interview, Inhofe finally brought out his usual global warming crazy-talk. It was basically the same exact speech he gave Michelle Malkin a few weeks back, complete with the same narrative and the same examples. He talked about his dislike of taxes and Al Gore. He said that "Everything that's bad that happens in this country comes from the United Nations" (slightly more extreme than what he told Malkin: "like most bad things that come to America, it all came from the United Nations"). It was exactly what you'd expect.

Then Inhofe started to resurrect some of his favorite memes:

"The IPCC. They came out and they only had one scientist who's - uh - who had this hockey stick theory that's been completely debunked"

I guess that nobody told Inhofe that the National Academy of Sciences affirmed the hockey stick graph (see Nature, Academy Affirms Hockey Stick Graph), and that its results have been replicated by several independent sources and methodologies.


Moving on, Inhofe tried to portray the scientific tide as turning more and more towards his horribly misinformed views. In the process, Inhofe trotted out a "study" that couldn't even get published in a global warming contrarian magazine.

"The most recent thing that happened... is that peer-reviewed scientists are - 538 of them - that have reviewed all the peer stuff since '04, have now said only 7% of those say that man is making up a real, uh, uh, uh, dramatic change through, uh, CO2 and methane and anthropogenic gases. But, now, that's a huge change."

Inhofe is pushing this meme pretty hard. In reality, the vast, overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed publications say the exact opposite. It's really not even funny. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes surveyed the peer-reviewed literature on climate change and found that 0% took Inhofe's position. She updated this study in 2007 and found more of the same.

Nonetheless, some guy thought that he could update the study himself. Before his findings were even published, the contrarian-friendly DailyTech reported on its alleged findings:

Of 528 total papers on climate change [since 2003], only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The study was immediately picked up by James Inhofe, DaveScot, Brent Bozell, Matt Drudge, FOX News, Free Republic, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh as a sign that there was no scientific agreement on the issue of global warming. All of the careless hacks who can't bother themselves with fact-checking a story. Not only did they report on the supposed findings of this not-yet-published "study," they even misrepresented what it purported to show. One retard wrote that "A recent survey of climate change articles in science journals finds fewer than half of the authors endorse anthropogenic global warming theories. The so-called consensus has now collapsed to a minority position." Never mind the fact that this "study" showed nothing of the sort.

Anyway, Tim Lambert (who shot down Benny Peiser when he tried to do the same thing) looked into the "study's" claims regarding peer-reviewed articles that "reject the consensus outright." It turns out, these much touted articles did nothing of the sort. Energy & Environment eventually decided that not even they would publish the "study."

By the way, Energy & Environment is a poorly regarded social science journal. It is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals, and it has been roundly criticized for publishing substandard papers in the past. Additionally, it's run by global warming contrarians for the sole purpose of giving other contrarians something resembling a scientific platform. Basically, it's the equivalent to an unaccredited or online college.

Not to be deterred, Inhofe still references this "study" and claims that there is some sort of "huge change." Nice try, guy.

Schulte Paper: Cancelled

Remember that paper that purported to show that "Less Than Half of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory"? The one that was held up by James Inhofe (R-OK), DaveScot, Brent Bozell, Matt Drudge, FOX News, Free Republic, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh as a sign that there was no scientific agreement on the issue of global warming? Well, it turns out that it's not even going to be published.

Malkin and Inhofe on Global Warming

Michelle Malkin recently sat down with Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) to discuss global warming. It was really exactly what you would expect.



Step 1: Portray global warming as a religion.

This religion called global warming.

There are a lot of monied interests, um, that have a huge stake in silencing your voice, in silencing the voices of heretical, um, scientists and economists.

Unfortunately, there are some Republicans who are members of the global warming cult.

[Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific organizations and peer-reviewed literature support it.]

Step 2: Turn it into an issue about Al Gore.

Al Gore put his whole career on the line, thinkin' this is his ticket to the White House.. to be able to say that, you know, that he's the leader of this thing, and so he came out with this science fiction movie and, y'know, the rest of the story..

I had kinda a three-hour confrontation with Al Gore...

the largest tax increase in the recent history, which was the 1993 Clinton-Gore tax increase

[I don't know if Malkin and Inhofe have ever been able to discuss this issue without mentioning Al Gore personally.]

Step 3: Mention an anecdote about the few vocal and active contrarians, then claim that not only are there are plenty of scientists on your side, but that you're winning the debate.

"I showed the scientists, and what they really said about this... and it wasn't until I started naming names of scientists that were his [Al Gore's] leaders - for example, I talked about Claude Allegre in France, well all of a sudden he th- well he was on my side, now he's on Inhofe's side on this thing, and uh, David Bellamy from U.K., and uh, Nir Shaviv from Israel, and that's when I saw little beads of sweat coming down, because he realized that those people who had been on the other side of the issue ten years ago, and even more recent than that, are now are realizing the science just flat isn't there"

"You know, the best thing was the 60 scientists that advised the Prime Minister of Canada. They're the ones that advised the Prime Minister of Canada to get on Kyoto, sign on, ratify it way back in, '97, late '90s sometime. Those same 60 now say, if we had known then what we know now about the science, they would not have ratified it, it wouldn't be necessary. And they're admonishing now, Prime Minister Harper not to get on the new, um, Kyoto treaty. So, we're, um, winning that thing clearly."

[Inhofe's statements do nothing to show that he is "winning that thing clearly." It's just a handful of anecdotes about people's opinions (as opposed to their published scientific findings). On the other hand, pretty much all of the scientific organizations and peer-reviewed journals say the exact opposite. That has certainly not changed over the years, and has only gotten stronger.]

Step 4: If the scientists on your side aren't publishing in the peer-reviewed journals, claim persecution by the Weather Channel.

"You remember when Heidi Cullen, who has that weekly show on the Weather Channel? She came out and she said that - that - and this is a statement that she made - any meteorologist who doesn't agree with, essentially, Heidi Cullen in global warming should, uh, be de-certified by the American Society of Meteorology- uh, Meteorologists"

[First off, that's not what Heidi Cullen said. What she said was this: "If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming... If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval." This is nothing near persecution. It's simply a suggestion that meteorologists be knowledgeable about climate science as part of the certification process. Nowhere does Cullen suggest retroactively stripping a person of their certification due to their beliefs. Yet this meme continues to pop up. Particularly from Senator Inhofe, who has continued to characterize this as some sort of organized persecution:

• "The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming." (source)
  
• "The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe." (source)
• "This latest call to silence skeptics" (source)
• "Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment" (source)
• "Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent" (source)
• "Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now." (source)]
  

Step 5: Ignore the many scientific organizations and peer-reviewed journals that explain anthropogenic global warming, and instead act as if it's just coming from the United Nations and Hollywood.

"like most bad things that come to America, it all came from the United Nations"

"the IPCC - they're the ones that came out with the idea that man-made gases were causing climate change"

"it started with the United Nations, but then it was picked up by the Hollywood elitists"

[Neither Malkin nor Inhofe acknowledge the overwhelming scientific agreement on this issue throughout their entire interview. They just replace that part with mentions of the U.N. and Hollywood. I don't see how you could call that anything other than "misleading."]

Step 6: Take a statistically insignificant data adjustment, and act like it turns decades of research on its head:

"Most recently, there were a number of bloggers who were involved in climate change - "climate change" [Malkin actually uses verbal scare quotes here] and meteorology - and they discovered that NASA had had a glitch in some of its statistics, that there, that there was a year 2000 bug, and when they re-did, re-did the analysis with the right statistics, it- it pushed most of the highest, um, temperature years to World War II levels. So, clearly, the whole anthropomorphic rationale, or, uh, blaming, for uh, uh, global warming has been undermined - undermined every day"

[Anthropomorphic? Anyway, Malkin is misleading in how she explains this event. First of all, the data adjustment was confined to the continental United States. Not the entire world, as Malkin appears to be saying. Second, this data adjustment wasn't near as earth-shattering as Malkin implies. Here is a picture of the new data overlaid on top of the old data:
]

Step 7: Call the kettle black.

INHOFE: The guy that I run into in these debates more than anybody else is James Hansen. James Hansen was paid $250,000 in cash [was it really in cash?] by the Heinz Foundation. And I think he'd say almost anything he wanted them to, want to, uh, say anyway. So there's lots of money in this thing
MALKIN: Follow the money.
INHOFE: Yeah, follow the money.

[I followed the money, and this is what I've found. Inhofe has received $847,073 from Oil & Gas industries throughout his career. $286,063 from Electric Utilities. $188,050 from Automotive industries.]

Step 8: Claim that those who do not have the science on their side have to resort to name-calling... then resort to name-calling, yourself.

"if you don't have the truth on your side, you don't have logic on your side, you don't have the science on your side, you resort to name-calling, you resort to - to - to threats and intimidation, like Heidi Cullen did, the meteorologist, and consequently, not many people in public office in the United State Senate or House are willing to stand up against that."

[Here are a few examples of James Inhofe comparing those on the other side to Nazis:

• "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy" (source)
• The E.P.A. is a "gestapo bureaucracy" (source)]
  

Step 9: Sweeping conclusion. Claim victory.

"Now, clearly, we are winning. People know the truth is out there."

Quote Of The Day

"I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."
-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla)

Dick Cheney

Jonathan Karl recently interviewed Dick Cheney on the topic of global warming.

JONATHAN KARL: But what's your sense, where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.

True, there is no unanimous consensus as to the exact amount of anthropogenic warming. But there is a scientific consensus that the anthropogenic causes are very significant, and most likely the largest contributor to the warming of the past 50 years.

IPCC 2001:

"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Joint Statement on the Science of Climate Change 2001 (signed by the National Academies of 17 nations, including Britain's Royal Academy of Sciences):

The work of the IPCC represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the 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 on global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mtigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

The National Academy of Sciences 2001:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise... The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities

American Meteorological Society 2003:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

American Geophysical Union 2003:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

IPCC 2007:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [>90% certainty] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Cheney goes on:

We've set targets for ourselves in terms of increasing energy efficiency, that is reducing the amount of energy per unit of output. And we're doing better at meeting those targets than I think virtually anybody who signed up with Kyoto. Most of the folks who signed up with Kyoto are not going to meet the targets.

I believe that Cheney is talking about the president's Clear Skies Initiative, but this is comparing apples to oranges. The Clear Skies Act, sponsored by James Inhofe, set only very modest goals for reductions in SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions. It really did nothing with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

But going forward, if we are going to have a policy, we've got to find ways to do that are not inconsistent with economic growth. You can't shut down the world economy in the name of trying to eliminate greenhouse gases. But there are some answers out there — nuclear power, for example, is one of them. And getting the United States back into the nuclear power game I think would be a significant benefit — both in terms of producing the energy we need, but at the same time not contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm not aware of anyone proposing that we shut down the world economy in the name of eliminating greenhouse gases. That's just so much hyperbole. Nicholas Stern, chief economist at the World Bank in England, released a 700-page report assessing the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas reductions. I haven't read the report myself, so I can't speak for its accuracy, but he came to the conclusion that it would ultimately cost less to start reducing emissions than it would to continue business as usual.

James Inhofe

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), famous for referring to global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and calling the EPA a "gestapo bureaucracy", recently had some crazy things to say about global warming and the IPCC AR4.

On CNN:

I was on a program yesterday with Art Robinson. He was one of the scientists in the Oregon petition, 17,800 scientists, that said that, yes, we understand that we are going through a warming period, but it's not due to manmade gases. And this is ten years after they came out with their report, and nobody ever talks about that.

Wrong. The Oregon Petition, circulated in 1998 to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, was not signed by "17,800 scientists." The petition was available online for anybody to sign. You could indicate an advanced degree, if you chose to do so, or none at all. There was extremely lax oversight as far as verifying the credentials of those who signed the petition, too. Some of the signatories included Star Wars characters, Dr. Gerri Halliwell (the Spice Girl, who did not personally sign the petition and is not really a doctor), and Redwine, PhD (see pdf at p. 152). Scientific American investigated the Oregon Petition in 2005 and concluded that the number of climate scientists was approximately 200, most of whom either didn't know what they were signing or no longer support the contents of the petition 10 years later. That is a far lower number than the 17,800 James Inhofe cited. (Note: This isn't all that was wrong with the Oregon Petition. It was also sent out to scientists all over the country accompanied by a paper made to look like an official report from the National Academy of Sciences, leading the NAS to publicly disclaim any involvement with the petition)

Inhofe went on:

M. O'BRIEN: That's James Hansen, one of the leading climate scientists. He says it's crystal clear. What do you say?
INHOFE: I'd say that that's James Hansen, who is paid $250,000 by the Heinz Foundation. I think he'd say almost anything you ask him to say.

my favorite quote of all the people who were on the side of saying manmade gas caused global warming was a socialist in France. He's a geophysicist named Claude Allegre (ph). He's a member of both the French and American Academy of Sciences. He says, "The cause of global warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by" -- and listen to this, Miles -- "money."

Given that Inhofe has reveived more than $1 million from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office, it seems odd that he would insinuate that the world's scientists are being motivated by money.

Plus, that is a pretty sweeping accusation to make. It's unclear whether Inhofe thinks that scientists are consciously misrepresenting the science in order to make a profit, or if he thinks that they are just subconsciously interpreting the results in a way that benefits their research programs. The implications, given his specific mention of James Hansen, is that this is a conscious plot by an international cabal of greedy climate scientists. Regardless, the accusation that the idea is motivated by money seems pretty careless. Here is a list of some highly respected scientific organizations that have acknowledged significant anthropogenic global warming:

• The National Academy of Sciences (America's most respected scientific organization)
  
• The Royal Society (Britain's most respected scientific organization)
• The National Academies of Canada, Japan, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Brazil, China, and India
  
• NASA
• The IPCC
• The American Geophysical Union
• The NOAA
• The American Meteorological Society
• The Geological Society of London
  

I find it hard to believe that all of the scientific organizations whose expertise bears on this subject are motivated, consciously or subconsciously, simply by making money.

It didn't stop there. Inhofe went on with what I anticipate will be a popular talking point in the coming weeks:

Now, you won't get the report from scientists probably until May or June. But this summary is all you're going to look at. You're never going to talk about anything else.

And that's -- and let me just read to you to show you that I'm right on this thing. On page four, it says, "Changes in scientific work to ensure consistency with the summary for policymakers will ensure."

These are politicians, these aren't scientists.

Wrong again. The Summary For Policymakers was written by scientists. The drafting process is summarized here and here. Basically, it was written and edited by hundreds of scientists. The lead author of each of the 11 upcoming chapters was well represented during the drafting process. If the author of a section was unhappy with how the SPM treated their area, they would raise their objections and the changes would be made. It was a very thorough process with scientists all over the place. To suggest otherwise just makes Senator Inhofe look bad. But I'm sure that this ridiculous meme will be picked up and repeated ad nauseum.

As far as the quote Senator Inhofe mangles from the Appendix of the report (near the bottom of p. 4), that simply says that the changes in the clarity of the language agreed upon at the SPM panel will be used in the forthcoming individual chapters (it takes a long time to proofread 1,600 pages). The science will not change or be altered to fit the SPM. James Inhofe inserted the word "science" into that quote even though it never appears in the original. The real quote says: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the panel shall be those to ensure consistency with the Summary For Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

All in all, I am very happy that this guy isn't the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works anymore.

One more. In 2006, Inhofe gave a speech on the Senate floor where he pointed to a picture of his family and stated:

"... my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind ofhomosexual relationship."

Congratulations, Senator Inhofe!