See?! Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!!
Posted on 01/12/2005 9:30:10 AM PST by presidio9
The U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science has struck again. Not content with calling the notion of human-caused global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (as he did in a July 2003 Senate floor speech), last week James Inhofe returned with an "update" on climate-change science. In his latest speech, timed to coincide with the final steps toward implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States won't be joining), Inhofe asserted that "put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith." Clearly, he hasn't changed his tune.
What separates Inhofe’s fixation from similar conservative crusades is just how brazenly it ignores what scientists know with confidence about global warming. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all broadly agree on this basic point: Temperatures are rising, at least in part as a result of human greenhouse-gas emissions. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2004 was the fourth-hottest year since 1861, while the past 10 years (excepting 1996) were "among the warmest 10 years on record."
That's not all. Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project -- not predict -- how much temperatures may rise by, say, 2100 if we carry on with business as usual. Although scenarios vary, some get pretty severe. So do the projected impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, species extinctions, glacial melting, and so forth. One might argue, perhaps, that humanity should simply adapt to climatic changes rather than restricting fossil-fuel use. But that's not Inhofe's approach. No matter how strong the evidence of ongoing climate change gets, he simply rejects it. But backed into a corner, Inhofe's arguments have necessarily grown more and more desperate.
For example, in his latest speech, Inhofe continued his curious crusade against a single University of Virginia climate expert, Michael Mann. Mann initially became a target for global warming "skeptics" in 2001 after the IPCC prominently cited his work to show that recent temperatures represent an anomaly in the context of the past 1,000 years. The IPCC reproduced a graph published by Mann and his colleagues that's often referred to as a "hockey stick" because of its shape: After a long, relatively straight line, temperatures spike up in the 20th century.
Ever since then, global warming deniers (and especially Inhofe) have been trying to break the "hockey stick," but their attacks on Mann represent a grand diversion. Although in his latest speech Inhofe refers only to "the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues," multiple other scientists have produced similar analyses. And even if all of these were to be overturned, that would hardly upend the conclusion that humans are currently heating the planet -- a robust scientific finding based on several different lines of evidence. Rather, shattering the "hockey stick" would merely leave us uncertain as to whether the current temperature spike has any precedent over the past millennium.
In fact, Inhofe's latest foray against Mann throws into question the competence of the senator's scientific-research apparatus. Inhofe charged that recent critics, arguing in the scientific literature, have called Mann's hockey-stick work "just bad science." But the critics in question weren't attacking the "hockey stick" at all. Rather, they were challenging an entirely different paper by Mann and a colleague, and the disagreement concerns the period between 1971 and 1998 -- not the past 1,000 years. It looks as though Inhofe went rifling through the scientific literature to find someone criticizing Michael Mann without even bothering to understand the context of that criticism.
Yet Inhofe's latest speech stoops even lower than this. The senator also implied, on the slender basis of a Washington Post cartoon (which he misinterprets), that some "alarmists" think climate change triggered the recent Asian tsunami. "Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes?" Inhofe asked rhetorically.
Answer: No, we aren't to believe that. No one believes that.
In criticizing environmental "alarmists" for something that none of them have said, Inhofe has created as big a straw man as we've seen in politics lately. Yet when it comes to climate change, Inhofe doesn't seem to care whether he has a sound argument to make, so long as he has something contrary to say that takes at least some effort to deconstruct.
Let's take one more glance at the way Inhofe abuses climate science. In his latest speech, Inhofe took aim at a recently released report from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, produced by some 300 scientists working under the auspices of the Arctic Council (an intergovernmental group that includes the United States). The report shows that human-caused climate change has already had a pronounced effect in the Arctic region, where average temperatures have shot up "at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades." The result? Ongoing impacts such as melting glaciers and sea ice.
These conclusions come from a body of scientific experts who have studied the problem for four years. What does James Inhofe do when faced with such a major, peer-reviewed scientific consensus document? The same thing he always does: He draws on a tiny number of skeptic scientists, here pointing out that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s rival those today, to challenge the consensus. But while 1930s and 1940s Arctic temperatures were probably caused by natural variation, today's temperature spike seems to have a human fingerprint. That's the whole point.
Throughout his speech, moreover, Inhofe made constant reference to a work of fiction: Michael Crichton's new novel, State of Fear. Calling Crichton a "scientist" -- actually, he's an M.D. -- Inhofe credited the author with telling "the real story about global warming" to the public. In fact, Crichton's new book misrepresents climate science nearly as badly as Inhofe does. Inhofe further suggested that Crichton's depictions of environmentalists -- as fear-mongers who hype the possibility of disasters to bring in donations -- show "art imitating life." Actually, Crichton's notion of a global eco-terrorist conspiracy, aided and abetted by leading environmental organizations, seems more than a tad conspiratorial.
Nevertheless, we haven't heard the last from Senator Crank. Speaking of the remaining cadre of climate-science "skeptics," Inhofe pledged in his latest speech: "I will do my part to make sure that they are heard." In other words, he will continue to challenge each new major piece of scientific evidence on climate, raising dubious criticisms rather than trying in earnest to understand the best science. And this is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works talking.
Oooh, they used sophisticated computer models. Probably like the ones now that can't predict the weather for tomorrow morning.
Dan Blather Confirmed this is True.
"Ever since then, global warming deniers (and especially Inhofe) have been trying to break the "hockey stick,"
Excuse me? The "deniers" have *already* broken the "hockey stick" - you can't use two differing sets of data the way they did and call yourself a scientist. Most of the authors other points are of a similar vein - he's like Dan Rather claiming that if he memo's are indeed fake, he wants to be the one to break the story.
Wake up from your echo chamber - there is no consensus that human activity has contributed to climate change in any significant way. Kyoto is a hoax.
Glad he is my Senator.
Three cheers for "My Senator". We need more senators like him.
Wow, we even have a UNITED NATIONS intergovernmental yada yada to confirm computer models? Are we supposed to believe this stuff?
Guess I still don't understand why any American would want us to sign on to a treaty that does nothing except take huge sums of money from Americans, and then give it to the rest of the world...
Everybody should know that Kyoto is useless to solve the problem it supposedly solves. IF CO2 is the problem, the only way to reduce CO2 is to pull it from the atmosphere is mass quantities and compress it until a legitimate use or disposal can be created, something Kyoto does not even address.
The claim that man has an effect on global climate reminds me of the clamoring the MSM made about the 9.0 earthquake affecting the rotation of the Earth itself. What they neglected to tell was how microscopically little it did affect it - 3 millionths of a second. Coincidently, that's how much man has affected global climate.
You should be glad he's your senator, I wish he were mine. Inhofe is the concience of the Senate...I should say the only concience in the Senate and the only one brave enough to come out and speak the truth on several subjects.
Chris Mooney and CBS News were made for each other.
This sounds rather like the plot of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (the novel, not the video game).
Of course, all of these inerrant, omniscient scientists couldn't possibly be wrong, and no one could ever accuse any of them of having any preconceived ideas that might impact their objective review of the 'facts'.
I think most of the global warming problem is due to all the hot air being generated by the lefty scientists and their sycophants in the media.
The earth is flat. Flat, I tell you! As all our greatest scientists already have established!
I have taken a carpenters level to many areas around my property, just today and reaffirmed the overall flatness of the earth. And that doesn't begin to recount the hours I have spent on boats, affirming that water in lakes, large and small, similarly prove the inherent flatness of the earth.
And even if we are proved wrong about global warming, at some time in the future, what is worse? Having dismantled the most robust economies on the face of the planet to no discernable effect? Or having done nothing at all?
At least we will have tried!
ping - FYI
My two cents:
Earth - 4,000,000,000 yrs old (give or take)
Industrial Revolution - 200 yrs (give or take)
Does any of these global warming alarmists expect me to buy into the theory that over two hundred years of technological advances is going to single-handedly destroy our climate?
The earth has been around a helluva long time. Two hundred years worth of fossil-fuel burning technology cannot even hold a candle to the profound changes in climate and geography that the earth makes to itself.
I've been told that Michael Crighton's new book "State of Fear" really sticks it to these alarmists, and backs his assertations up with FACTS, not speculation or projections.
"And even if we are proved wrong about global warming.."
Nice satire. But a Global Warming Rant is incomplete without a bash at America. Take another swing at it.
If The Polar Icaps on Mars are retreating, maybe the fact the United States sent up those Mars rovers has something to do with it? You think?
Probably, huh? you sure it wasn't those 1920's SUVs? The whole "point" Inhofe and others are making is that "probably" is not going to be good enough to dismantle and destroy our economy, put millions out of work, and bankrupt American families. Not while he and other sit in the Senate, thank God!
If the rise in the 30's & 40's were caused by natural variation, how do we know the effects we're seeing today aren't also caused by natural variation.
If Kyoto fails to address massive CO2 polluter states like China and India, how is it going to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions?
This is like saying the Tsunami was worse because ports were dredged by man.
And Danno has the forgeries to prove it.
Oklahoma has two darned good senators.
See?! Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!!
Everybody should know that Kyoto is useless to solve the problem it supposedly solves. IF CO2 is the problem, the only way to reduce CO2 is to pull it from the atmosphere is mass quantities and compress it until a legitimate use or disposal can be created, something Kyoto does not even address.Absolutely correct.
"Senator Crank" ...????
I wonder how much flack conservatives would get if they called John Kerry - Senator Crank ..??
Since the CO2 rate climbed consistently for the last 100 years, while the temperatures went up until the mid 30's, then down till 1970, then back up to today. Then it appears to me that there is something larger at work in the climate than CO2. Whatever effect CO2 has, is smaller than that other unidentified cause.
And "records" go back how far?
That's right - not before the invention and widespread use of... the thermometer.
Fahrenheit invented the thermometer in 1724, and I doubt that accurate repeatable measurements were made with it less than a hundred years afterward.
Say 1800; so everything that climatologists "know" about global warming is based on about 200 years of data - out of millions of years of Earth history.
Starting Rap music, now..
"It's getting hot in here, let's take off all our clothes"...
Now THAT'S the kind of America-bashing that every global warming enthusiast can warm to.
Actually, it's worse than a hoax, it's a way to transfer enormous amounts of wealth from the developed to the devloping world.
I resent you calling my Senator stupid -- we need more like him not less! I cannot believe your comments but then you probably don't live in flyover country either where are Reps are plain spoken and tell it like it is.
I actually meant it as a joke.
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!! That was funny seeing Jim Inhofe and "liberal" in the same sentence. Obviously some folks don't realize how conservative he truly is -- in fact he gets trashed by the Norman Transcript as being a right winged nut!
Shirley you can't be series.
Actually, with Dr. Coburn in there, Inhofe would have to be considered the more liberal of the two.
How do we know that there weren't "ozone holes" 200 or more years ago, and that they have only come into being in the last century? The answer is, we don't know, and neither do these "scientitsts". How do we know that the global temperature now is higher than it was 200 or more years ago? The answer is, we don't know that, and neither do the global warming prophets.
I don't see any reason not to study this type of thing, of course. But presenting as fact something that clearly is not, and attempting to ram it down the throats of the public, borders on criminal activity. Certainly it is propaganda, at least in the way it is done.
Yeah--and next to Coburn, he'll look like a lefty!
I wish everyone would read "State of Fear" by Dr.Michael Crichton.....best novel ever written to decry the lefts use of junk science to misinform the world about that non existent theory known as global warming. A great read, a good novel, with lots of footnotes a bibliography and a couple of postscripts detailing his scientific (he is a Harvard Graduate MD) research debunking this darling of the left, Global Warming.
The data may be fake, but its accurate!
ROFLMCAO!!!
Don't get me wrong, but denying the reality of global warming can only hurt the credibility of the conservative cause in general. We're talking about an objective, OBSERVED phenomenon. People are going outside and getting wet, don't insult them by insisting it's not raining. There will never be 100% certainty about the cause(s) of the current warming, but we to have to deal with it regardless. Science works, don't demonize it when it reveals something uncomfortable.
But yes, Kyoto is pointless... if we are the cause of warming, it won't even put a dent in it.
Actually, we do know pretty conclusively that European and American temperatures were somewhat lower 200 years ago. But since these same scientists call that period "The Little Ice Age," I'm not sure that that is a good representative time frame.
Yeah we do need more Senators like him!
http://www.theconservativerepublican.com/index.html
This is an arrogant opinion. We are powerless to change the Earth.
Wait a while on Dr. Coburn - something funny seems to happen to folks when they get inside the Beltway...
Crichton's novel is pretty weak, but kudos to him for all the footnotes and ideas on science funding. At least Crichton makes clear how saying things like "4th hottest year since 1861" should raise all kinds of flags: why did the researchers cut off at 1861? How reliable were the weather station reports over those 140 years? How close to growing cities (concrete jungles) were the weather station reports, etc...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.