CNN Fact Checks Inhofe’s Diatribe Against Global Warming Science
CNN Fact Checks Inhofe’s Diatribe Against Global Warming Science
On Monday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor and launched into a 45-minute diatribe on global warming science. Repeating his claim that global warming is a hoax, Inhofe said, “The American people know…when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.”
In particular, he attacked the news media. According to Inhofe, “During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry.”
This morning, CNN hit back with a segment documenting that virtually everything Inhofe said was flatly contradicted by the facts. Watch it:
The CNN segment concluded: “Inhofe challenged the media to get this story straight in that speech, but when we asked for an interview with him we were told he’s just too busy to speak with us this week.”
Read another debunk of Inhofe’s speech at Gristmill.
Transcript:
O’BRIEN: But some Republicans are fighting a different battle. Listen to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment.
INHOFE: I’m going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, is the word that gets everybody upset when you say it and the word that many or the phrase that many politicians are afraid to say and that is global warming.
O’BRIEN: It’s not new ground for Oklahoma’s senior senator. Jim Inhofe has repeatedly called global warming a hoax. Despite a steady stream of stark evidence, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, the warmest temperatures in 12,000 years, the senator is not convinced.
INHOFE: During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media.
O’BREIN: In a 45-minutes speech on the Senate floor, he voiced skepticism over this graph called the hockey stick. Despite some flaws, most climate scientists consider it the best t depiction of Global Warming. Inhofe says there’s evidence that the an arctic is actually cooling, even though most scientific findings suggest the contrary and point to the loss of major chunks of ice sheets and shelves. And he says the polar bears of the arctic are thriving, even though two of the most influential wildlife agencies say they are veering toward endangered status. Inhofe is all but alone on capitol hill these days. Most Republicans believe the scientific juror is in.
REP. CHRIS SHAYS (R-CT): We have seen too much documentation to know that the world is getting warmer. We know that the ice shelves are melting. And for him to say otherwise just is like putting a bag over his head and not seeing it.
O’BRIEN: Undaunted, Inhofe also took on Al Gore.
INHOFE: In May our nation was exposed to one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time, former Vice President Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
O’BREIN: Inhofe offers a 12-point indictment of Gore’s documentary on climate change. He says the list might have been longer if he had actually seen the movie.
[snip]
O’BRIEN: We should point out in the recent five-year period, Senator Inhofe received more than $850,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Inhofe challenged the media to get this story straight in that speech, but when we asked for an interview with him we were told he’s too busy to speak with us this week.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
85 Responses to “CNN Fact Checks Inhofe’s Diatribe Against Global Warming Science”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What Global Warming? American corporations say no, so it must not be there. Also, Inofe’s family has no gays and that proves global warming does not exist.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:20 amHow do these idiots keep getting elected? This man is chairman of the environmental committee? Lord help us.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:21 amClassic.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:23 ami’ll be damned — fact-checking a republican disinformation campaign at cnn? i didn’t think they had it in them…
September 28th, 2006 at 11:24 amomg, journalism.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:26 am“Inhofe offers a 12-point indictment of Gore’s documentary on climate change. He says the list might have been longer if he had actually seen the movie”
Riiiiight… Gawd forbid you would build a cognizant argument against your opponent by learning and studying their position. Winging it is so much more efficient than that bothersome research…
The War on Science continues…
September 28th, 2006 at 11:27 amCould this mean that the media is finally doing its job?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:29 amFact-checking? How the hell did that happen? Clearly, CNN still has some cost-cutting that it can do.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:31 amIs CNN getting a backbone? I just saw this morning the report showing the 70% of Iraqis want us out within 1 year. Going against what the Administration has been touting.
The jury’s still out but it caught my attention. Oh yeah, Inhofe’s an idiot.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:35 amI don’t like Inhofe.
I don’t like Inhofe in a tree.
I don’t like Inhofe in a bush.
I don’t like Inhofe outside.
I don’t like Inhofe on a boat.
I don’t like Inhofe.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:46 amUh, excuse me. More than 30 Democrats voted to allow Bush to make you disappear to a torture prison and Think Progress is Red Herring this junk?
UNBELIEVABLE
September 28th, 2006 at 11:49 amoh and he is supported by the oil and gas companies, how ironic.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:49 amanother idiot elected by idiots…
September 28th, 2006 at 11:51 amWe still have a chance to stop on of the most egregious features of the Detainee/Torture bill. Please contact your Senators and tell them to support Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter’s ammendment to restore habeas corpus rights, allowing suspects at the very least an opportunity to challenge their detainment in court. Senators Collins and Snowe, both moderate Republicans, need a bit of a push on this
capital switchboard: 866.340.9281 .or. 866.808.0065
September 28th, 2006 at 11:51 amhttp://www.worldcantwait.net
Anyone seen this?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:57 amInhofe is seriously deranged > must be all that inbreeding in his family tree in Oklahoma > lol.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:57 am“The American people know…when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.â€
Actually, it’s too bad the American people don’t seem to know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical right.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pmhe is somewhat pompous and self righteous. Ok he is very pomppous and self righteous.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pmThe most important line in the entire CNN story
We should point out in the recent five-year period, Senator Inhofe received more than $850,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry
booyah…Senator….everyone should know who butters your bread…
September 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#15 YESS!!!! I sent an email to TP regarding WCW.
Still NO RESPONSE from TP…
Come on People we need to bring it back to GrassRoots Organizing!
http://www.worldcantwait.org/
OCTOBER 5TH…..ARE YOU READY?
September 28th, 2006 at 12:14 pmAs Chris Mooney said so well in his book, “The Republican War on Science”:
If this situation is maddening, it is also tragic. There may be no other issue today where a corruption of the necessary relationship between science and political decision-making has more potentially disastrous consequences. And together, Jame Inhofe and the Bush administration have made that corruption systematic and complete. Not only do they strive to prevent the public from understanding the gravity of the climate situation, but in sowing confusion and uncertainty, they help prevent us from doing anything about it. And this - this - is what the Right calls “rational, science-based thinking and policy-making.”
September 28th, 2006 at 12:18 pmAs Chris Mooney said so well in his book, “The Republican War on Science”:
September 28th, 2006 at 12:19 pmIf this situation is maddening, it is also tragic. There may be no other issue today where a corruption of the necessary relationship between science and political decision-making has more potentially disastrous consequences. And together, Jame Inhofe and the Bush administration have made that corruption systematic and complete. Not only do they strive to prevent the public from understanding the gravity of the climate situation, but in sowing confusion and uncertainty, they help prevent us from doing anything about it. And this - this - is what the Right calls “rational, science-based thinking and policy-making.”
Something I will say now, if the people have to beg their representatives to stand against torture the people need new representatives.
If you don’t believe in the Democrats being any better then the Republicans, vote independent.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:21 pmbooo Jim Inhofe!!!!
horaaay investigative journalism!!!
September 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pmThey only did it because they felt insulted. Don’t get too excited…
September 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pmNATURAL SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING
In the year 1905, Nobel physicist, Albert Einstein, published his E=mc² EQUATION, which opened the door to THE WORLD OF THE PROTON GENIE, the door to all of the most abundant energy that Earth will ever need. But, nobody looked or listened except the Energy Cartel, which stood to loose its enormous wealth and power if Einstein’s EQUATION should ever become implemented.
Many have attempted to implement Einstein’s EQUATION, but even the most promising successful efforts are routinely thwarted.
In brief review, “E=mc²†provides the basis for extracting and fusing PROTONS from ordinary, pure water, which will ultimately make everybody on Earth so idly rich and content from the benefits of this clean, virtually-free, and inexhaustible energy supply that nobody should ever again have to worry about pollution, war, or poverty, and Mother Nature will once again regain total control of any Climate Changes.
The Atomic Doomsday Clock reads, “7 minutes until Doomsday, and counting!”
Is it too late? Or, will some ordinary, individual Tinkerer (maybe just an average high school student) rise to the occasion and construct a simple physical demonstration of Einstein’s EQUATION so that the entire World Population can become enlightened to the prospect of a new future of peace, contentment, and prosperity? Anything less will fail to uncork the PROTON GENIE for the benefit of mankind because “The Special Energy Interests” have sufficient resources to block any individual efforts to provide Cheap Power.
Please encourage your correspondents to link to this blog, and help spread Einstein’s great-inspired VISION, “A Free-Energy Paradise On Earth.”
http://howtosavecivilization.blogspot.com/
September 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pmInhofe = ignorant, paid for by the oil companies, inbred douche bag
September 28th, 2006 at 12:55 pm# 2. These “idiots keep getting re-elected” because they come from states where people believe that abortion and gay marriage are THE critical issues of our time and where they will vote in droves so they can be represented by a pea-brain who regurgitates those feelings. Hence we have Inhofe and a whole host of other wingnuts. Is it November 7 yet?
September 28th, 2006 at 12:57 pmPutting the issue aside for a moment, it occurs to me that the only time the media gets itself into fact-checking is when the negativity is turned toward them. When THEY are ciriticized, they get defensive. When one of THEIRS is exposed as biased, only then do they do their homework.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:26 pmwhat a freaking ignorant tool. an embarassment.
and yet, this is the sort of idiot Republicans place in charge of the environmental committee.
bravo, CNN.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:37 pmInhofe is supposed to be the stupidest man in Congress…a remarkable achievement when you consider Cornyn or Stevens…
September 28th, 2006 at 2:09 pmInhofe: “GOTDAMMIT THE EARTH IS FLAT!”
September 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pmImahoe’s at it again I see…
September 28th, 2006 at 2:19 pmif the people have to beg their representatives to stand against torture the people need new representatives.
well, no shit, bruce, from s.africa, i might add..
If you don’t believe in the Democrats being any better then the Republicans, vote independent.
Comment by Bruce+Gorton — September 28, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
YOU ARE WRONG - AT THIS TIME - STOP PUSHING THAT NOTION.
again, i need to point out - you are in s.africa…
right now we are a TWO party nation… the ONLY way to get back OVERSIGHT, much less CHECKS & BALANCES, is to
VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN RECORD NUMBERS.
it can’t even be close…
OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC VOTER TURNOUT.
WIN FIRST — PURGE LATER.
it truly is the only way - at this time.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:25 pm…
#13 et al. Unfortunately not enough Okies moved to CA., and the remainder just love a guy who is stupider than they are.
Oklahoma went from populist at its inception as a state to rightwingnut crazy. Haven’t you heard of Babylon on the Arkansa river, AKA ORU campus?
September 28th, 2006 at 2:41 pmDid a media scan based on Inhofe’s claim that the media is bias against climate change “skeptcis” — as usual, Inhofe’s got his facts wrong:
http://www.desmogblog.com/ inhofes-media-bias-claim-innacurate-bordering-outright-falsehood
September 28th, 2006 at 2:54 pmI can relate to the Dixie Chicks. I am so embarassed that Inhoff is from my home state of Oklahoma.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:07 pmGlobal Warming is not a fact - the amount of time we have data on represents a blink of an eye for a 90 year old person, so who is to say emphatically which way it is going (hottor or colder, gore or Inhofe).
To support either end of this extreme is simply falling in line with the big govt or big business types it really matters to.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pmRe: the Torture Bill
I realize its pretty much too late to do anything about this issue. However, I think its safe to say that Global Warming pretty much trumps all other issues. Having a travesty such as this bill passed as permanent part of our legislature will mean Jack Sh!t if America turns into a giant dust bowl.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:38 pmReptilian or Democrat - One thing is certain - This Earth is in trouble and if we don’t fix it - we are screwed.
AND If these jackasses like Inhofe cannot PROVE conclusively that global warming is NOT due to human activities, then they need to shut the hell up, because if you err on something like this, you err in the direction of conservation, (something conservatives ironicly hate… )
The lust for money is so great in some of these Reptiles, that they would actually sacrifice the Earth itself, humanity’s future, and all living things, so that they may financially profit now.
They are you enemies. They are sick. They are suicidal, and want to take you with them.
They are environmental terrorists who will make the carnage caused by Bin Laden to appear laughable.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:54 pm[…] Refuting Craig’s global warming claims […]
September 28th, 2006 at 6:59 pmGlobal Warming is not a fact - the amount of time we have data on represents a blink of an eye for a 90 year old person, so who is to say emphatically which way it is going (hottor or colder, gore or Inhofe).
To support either end of this extreme is simply falling in line with the big govt or big business types it really matters to.
Comment by bonesTwo — September 28, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
You are so wrong and stupid there is no possible response. However, with carbon dating(which is just one of many scientific methods) we can look back almost to the start of time/space. Now, Gore vs: Inhofe. Gore very smart..Inhofe in the bag with the energy companies and also an a$$hat. We report you decide.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:07 pmSo ALL of the evidence says Inhofe is full of it, yet, he tries the old Jedi Mind Trick…. “the Earth is not warming… the ice is not melting… these are not the droids you’re looking for…”
Man I really hate Republican morons. What is worse is that red state idiots will believe him. The Jedi Mind Trick only works on the weak minded… 51 percent of Americans according to the last election results… or was it the electronic voting machines made by Reptilian owned companies?
September 28th, 2006 at 7:08 pmOf course Inhofe is going to promote global warming…. he’s a freakin’ Reptilian snake, and they love the heat.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:10 pmI can relate to the Dixie Chicks. I am so embarassed that Inhoff is from my home state of Oklahoma.
Comment by okieatty — September 28, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Buy their album…and listen to “not ready to make nice”.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:10 pmWhat facts did Miles mention in his “response”. He just said the environmtalist said this and that. There were no facts presented by CNN.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pmIsn’t Inhofe the guy that had the sad blastocyst visual. Sorry, James, most people aren’t as retarded as your constituents…can the idiotic cartoons.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:49 pmOk, Cheesie, what are YOUR facts? You have the floor.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:53 pmSaw Inhofe on Nancy Grace this evening at a restaurant where I was dining. Looks like he found some free time.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pmI hear that Inhofe can’t stop masterbating. Kiddie porn, beastiality, scat, it doesn’t matter. He has got a rocket for every occasion.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:43 pmActually, from what I hear, Jackimoff is a big fan of Screech’s new foray into the movie biz.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:45 pmThx, CNN to show us the fraud!
September 28th, 2006 at 10:48 pmMe and my wife will now go and ask why he can be still in charge, when he is just a paid moron, as the other reps agree.
I’m amazed at the amount of you “educated” people/idiots that accept the very premise of global warming from such luminaries as the inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson and whoever else longs for the microphones and TV cameras.
WAKE UP MORONS!
From the cover of Time Magazine, June 24, 1974…Yes, that’s right. Care of Google Archives
September 28th, 2006 at 11:11 pmAnother Ice Age?
That’s it! Republicans have bags over their heads! That’s it! That’s it! That explains their behavior.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:28 pmPJC can u provide anything else then a 1974 article?
Should i now quote nostradamus?
U r funny…as inhofe is…
ROFL
September 29th, 2006 at 12:16 amWe are like a frog sitting in a pan of slowly heating water-we will fry before we comprehend the problem. Humans learn through stimulus/response, and by the time the climate becomes unbearable it will be too late to reverse it.
The warmer the planet gets, the more the earth emits greenhouse gases. In other words, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters big time. Worse, it is predictable that within 10-20 years there will be an abrupt climate change, and our world will have it’s thermostat turned up 10C.
With a growing population, and everyone wanting to live a “Western” energy intensive lifestyle, it is unrealistic that mankind will dramatically cut it’s emissions rapidly. The only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted. Nature already does this, but we have retarded her ability to cope.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:13 am“In the end we humans may prove to be no more intelligent than cancer cells which are so stupid that they continue to multiply and consume until they kill their host, and thus themselves.”
Darryl - 2006
September 29th, 2006 at 2:50 amIf “The American people know…when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left” then maybe they should know by now that they are being used and duped by the fanatical, fascist, false right?
September 29th, 2006 at 3:57 amIt’s completely audacious and tragic yet in a sad way pretty funny that this Inhoffe guy is actually the chairman of the senate committee on the environment. He’s a great personification of big money republicans selling out the world for a big war chest of campaign contributions. What the hell, this jerk is going to be long dead before global warming starts to create problems that even old men in Oklahoma can’t ignore, like another dustbowl for example. As long as he says “Jesus” at least once in every five minutes of airtime he gets, his Christoholic constituency will continue to think he’s a man of morals. HAHAHAHA
Actually I think Jesus would much rather hang out with a promiscuous flaming homosexual than this guy.
Dear Senator Inhoffe,
Have a nice time in hell scumbag. I’m sure you’ll love the climate.
Love,
me
September 29th, 2006 at 6:10 amInhofe Funding:
http://www.opensecrets.org/ politicians/ indus.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2006
JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK)
For 2001 - 2006 Funding Season
1 Oil & Gas $313,208
2 Electric Utilities $190,907
3 Retired $145,771
4 General Contractors $116,611
5 Lawyers/Law Firms $103,072
6 Lobbyists $102,241
7 Leadership PACs $100,347
8 Commercial Banks $79,925
9 Health Professionals $77,550
10 Air Transport $77,069
11 Building Materials & Equipment $76,267
12 Insurance $72,171
13 Automotive $63,250
14 Misc Finance $61,500
14 Defense Aerospace $61,500
16 Real Estate $58,555
17 Business Services $54,769
18 Mining $52,600
19 Pro-Israel $49,300
20 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $47,010
He recieves 36% of his funding from coal/oil/gas and related interests (#1,2,10,13,18).
Nope….. no bias there…..
How about his “scientific” witness, sci-fi writer Michael Crichton advising “our” senate…. http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2005/ 09/ inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/
September 29th, 2006 at 8:36 amSenator Inhofe also attacked “The North Pole Was Here,” my second climate book and the first on global and Arctic warming for younger readers.
But the next generation has rushed to my defense:
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/506
For my views on this saga, visit my blog:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1L2TYV56JXF2V
Andy Revkin, The New York Times
September 29th, 2006 at 9:25 amRead for yourself. The first chapter of the book is online here:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming
revkin@nytimes.com
I have to wonder about all this global warming information. I hope you all have done your research and realized that 30 years ago climatologists were warning us that the earch was getting to cold, and that in less that 50 years the temperature would drop to the point that our environment couldn’t cope. Now, the same climatologists are telling us that the earth is getting too warm and that in less than 50 years the earth will be too hot for our environment to handle. I’m not climatologists, and I have to go based on information from credible sources. What makes today’s scientists and more credible then the others. Technology can’t have improved so much that the estimates have just done a John Kerry flip-flop.
September 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pm[…] When will America wake up and get rid of these idiotic Republicans?read more | digg story […]
September 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pmAndy you should sue that jackass for slander or liable or whatever the appropriate tort is. He must have misquoted or misrepresented you at some point. Just to get more quotes from him. I can’t believe any college even Jerry Falwell University would admit him much less give him a degree.
There can’t be global warming because the earth is 6,000 years old you heathen! When Noah was riding Jesus horses(Die no sawers)the climate was exactly the same as it is today. God has created all of the scientific evidence to test your faith. If God didn’t want us to use fossil fuels to warm up the earth he wouldn’t have put so much oil here. Have you ever seen an underground reserve of solar panels or windmills? The use of alternative fuels is therefore blasphemy. Thank God for brave men like Senator Inhofe who can guide us through your pseudo science double talk.
30 years ago we barely knew what DNA was, fast computers were the size of houses, there was a small fraction as many satelites in service as there are today, and you could smoke in grocery stores. How much has technology changed that you science types could know anything more than you did then?
September 29th, 2006 at 5:09 pmI don’t know about this one. Most everyone’s comments seem to support CNN’s “fact checking”, but I’m not really amused either way.
This case breaks down on either side: The Republican everyone is bashing seemingly took a bribe from oil companies to counter what Al Gore and the left have done with global warming.
However, from lots that I’ve read, Inhofe isn’t far from what many scientists are now considering to be the truth. Apparently most global warming research has been (until recently) conducted with mediocre science. That is to say, the methods and techniques used to find out what the Earth is doing were so primative that we didn’t really get concrete evidence supporting the hysteria behind global warming. Additionally, there’s a scant few research groups that have absolutely no connection to any political party anywhere, and as such their funding isn’t forfeit for “wrong answers”…these are the groups claiming that global warming is extremetly hyped up, that the evidence from newer testing methods doesn’t support our mass hysteria.
I’d caution everyone who posted pro-CNN on this page to watch that you’re not being duped from either the Left or Right…as I’m not saying the Republican is correct, its just that the world’s scientific community isn’t sure they were recieving true answers from their research. But the Left is just as bad as the Right; anything to win more votes for either party is something they will consider…and from what I’ve read there’s a bunch of junk science in Gore’s movie, not to mention he bribed certain scientists into giving their approval for the film. Lastly, CNN really is a shitty news portal, and I wouldn’t believe them even if they told me 2+2=4….they are scandalously corrupt.
Most of the controversy behind global warming is faily decently summarized here:
http://www.junkscience.com
September 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe debate on global warming is over. No credible scientist on planet earth doubt the existence of global warming. The scientist who have been cited by right wingers in support of “it’s ok to keep burning all the fossil fuel you want” position have come out with editorials in the NYtimes and LAtimes plainly and directly stating that YES WE HAVE GLOBAL WARMING. The only thing left for debate is 1. how much, how fast? 2. By curbing our fossil fuel consumption, how much can we slow the process. 3. What percentage of the global warming is beyond our control, i.e. occuring because of natural climactic cycles of the plant.
To the guy citing a 1974 Time article about ice ages…Guess what 9 of 10 of the hottest years ever recorded on this planet occured in the last 15 years. That’s the scary thing, global climate change doesn’t necessarily move at geologic speeds. Think things changed pretty quickly when the dinosaurs went extinct?
September 29th, 2006 at 5:40 pmInteresting that Republicans put forth a theory and who refutes it??? Democrats??…NO..CNN…Hmmmm
September 29th, 2006 at 6:58 pmWhoa - there’s a lot of un-checked facts rolling around this thread!
Take the time to get a little balance here — Inhofe is just the messenger, _not_ the creator.
Mann et. al. (creators of the Hockey Stick graph) were caught with their proverbial drawers down because:
a) It was discovered that their statistical models “mined” hockey graph results from _any_ data that was put through them;
b) They have obfuscated and refused to let _anyone_ other than their close friends and allies check their homework (aka “peer review”)
c) They have refused to release their statistical models and data sets that they used to conclude that the 90s were the warmest on record
As for the claim of being the warmest in “12,000 years” - again this needs checking. So far, there isn’t (repeat: isn’t) scientific consensus on temperature proxies that are reliable to 1,000 years ago — never mind any earlier.
In sum, the onus is on folks like Mann, Gore, et. al. to prove their science and submit it to unfettered review by _anyone_.
Just because it _feels_ warmer outside, doesn’t mean the causes are anthropogenic. Hell, up here in Canada I’d be typing to you from a glacier a mile thick had warming not begun over 20,000+ years ago.
Must have been a lot of mastodons farting, eh? ;-)
September 30th, 2006 at 11:50 am[…] CNN Fact Checks Inhofe’s Diatribe Against Global Warming Science » [Think Progress] Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
October 1st, 2006 at 11:05 amContrary to what you may think Chris, the Michael Mann “hockey stick” is correct. His methods were largely sound. Yes there were a few errors but not one of which conprimises the conclusions drawn. Mann’s methodology was investigated by the National Research Council and was deemed to have produced the correct results which have been verified by other scientists.
As for Dan, may I ask what credible sources you have based your statements on? Thirty years ago we were just beginning to understand the varying stable states of our planet. It alternates between interglacial and glacial. Thirty years ago, given this new found knowledge, the Earth would naturally be prepared to return to a glacial state, however, what you do not know is that this was not a prediction in any way. Question what ever sources you are using because they are wrong. Climotologists were not predicting a coming ice age, it was just the case of TIME magazine taking research and presenting it out of context. As for what we knew then versus what we know now, yes technology has increased that much as has our understanding of the world.
Dickie, I suggest you stop reading whatever made you believe that there is not a scientific consensus because there is, a very strong one. I highly suggest you stop pulling information from junkscience.com. There are a few respected researchers out there who still challege elements of global warming, however they do not challenge the hypothesis itself. I challenge you to research the so-called non-biased research centers that are saying that global warming is not of concern. I also challenge any person in this forum who would like to debate the issue to reply to the post.
In a nutshell, the Earth is warming. Atmospheric CO2 is currently at 370 parts per million by volume and rising 2 ppm per year. The pre-industrial level was around 270 ppm. Once it reaches the atmosphere, CO2 has a shelf life of 200 years. The bulk of this increase is due to fossil fuel usage. However, deforestation and poor agricultural practices also contribute to emissions. Nature also produces greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane as well as CO2, however these gases tend to work in an equilibrium with the biosphere or are out of our control. The CO2 that nature releases, and it releases a lot starting in September of every year as the leaves fall raises CO2 concentrations nearly 7 ppm per year. However, this CO2 is captured the following spring as the vegitiation in the northern hemishphere (where most of our land mass is) in the form of new growth thusly dropping CO2 levels 7 ppm. Methane is a part of natural decay though we do emit a measurable amount. As for water vapor, the warmer the air is, the more vapor it can hold which means as temperature gets warmer, this important natural GHG will increase exacerbating the situation. As we continue to emit more and more CO2 we further disrupt atmospheric chemistry altering the energy balance that drives our climate. It is simple physics, the sun releases energy (calculated by Wien’s law and Stephen Boltzman law) in the form of short-wave radiation. That energy passes through the atmosphere where it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. It goes through a phase change and is released as long-wave radiation. A fraction of that radiation is trapped by certain gases in the atmosphere. It is simple physics, any increase in atmospheric GHG concentration will cause an increase in temperature. It is an established fact that we, people, have increased these gases. The question remains how much the natural system will push back through natural feedbacks. It is a much more complex issue than can be described here but his is a start. Simply put, it is very likely that we have altered atmospheric chemistry enough that to overcome many of the natural feedbacks that regulate the system and will lead to a significant increase in global average surface temperature.
On one final note, during the previous ice age, the global average temperature was only five degrees C cooler than it is currently. We are looking at an increase greater than three by the end of the century. Please fill in the blank.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:46 pmMy, my aren’t we pissed… It pleases me to see sooo many hearts GLOBALLY WARMED! Maybe if y’all stick your heads up your butts we could really stop some hot air? Whataya say boys and girls? Let’s take our collective heads out of the sand and stick um where the globally warming SUN don’t shine…
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:06 amHow much good data do we actually have? I’m sure recorded temperatures only go back so far then we are stuck. Off the top of my head though I will agree that since the last ice age we are in a state of global warming. Is that such a bad thing? I’m sure the worm will turn again and eventually we will be in another ice age. I guess I don’t see the reason to panic. Let’s get some better data and statistical models before we start trying to force everyone into electric cars and so forth. By the way the third world and other developing countries can’t afford the latest and greatest technology. Also don’t forget what drives most consumers…the almighty dollar. Most people act with their pocket book. I’ll tell you right now I’m not going to pay an extra $5000-$10000 for an electric vehicle, my grandkids can buy extra sunscreen.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:55 pmCurrently we have accurate data for CO2 concentrations for the last 450,00 years from which we can estimate with some certainty the global average temperatures for some of that period. This information as well as other data give indications of what the temperature may have been like through that entire time period. That figure is about a year old so it may be a little higher. Through examination of proxy data very solid, though not pefect, estimations have been made for the last 1000+ years. The current modeling used to predict future climates are much more accurate than in the past and have been tested by altering the inputs to represent what the Earth was like in the past, 100+ years ago. These models are then run to the present. the results are compared to what we know the climate has been like for the last 100 or so years. When I model has accurately recreated the climate it is then used to generate prediction of future climates based on a number of scenarios that model the economics of the future. Obviously, these scenarios are assumption driven and can not be perfectly accurate though we continue to improve the scenario’s. These scenarios and the number of climate models used are the reason why you will see reports claiming that the earth will warm between 3 and 8 degrees C over the next 100 years. While they are not difinitive, a certain amount of confidence can be placed in the results.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pmtemperatures have risen 1 degree in a hundred years
October 11th, 2006 at 4:22 amsea levels have risen 10-20 cm in the last hundred years
find a real cause im taking a nap…
Global Warming. And the Paid doubters….politicians of course…..
Global Warming, keeps coming up day after day. yet those that don’t believe in it? or should I say get paid to not believe in it. always seems to be in power to do nothing about it…It’s okay for a group of idiots to not believe, or uneducated scien…
October 17th, 2006 at 3:09 pmi like potatoes but i dnt rele care about global warming one bit i ate a globe once and im not buring to death
November 15th, 2006 at 10:54 am[…] View another gem here […]
November 17th, 2006 at 10:20 pm[…] This is a sea-change from the previous Chairman, Sen. James Inhoffe who infamously declared that global warming is a hoax and who refused to let any legislation out of his committee to confront it. He is so ignorant and dangerous on the issue that Sen. John Warner from Virginia - who understands that global warming is a real problem that demands action – is going to challenge him for the Ranking Member slot on the committee among Republicans. […]
November 21st, 2006 at 12:35 pm[…] Senate environment committee chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) “will hold his last hearing as chairman Wednesday to highlight media coverage of global warming,” National Journal reports. “Inhofe has criticized news outlets for their coverage of global warming, which he believes is a hoax.” The last time Inhofe challenged the media, it didn’t go so well. 5:43 pm | Comment (0) […]
December 4th, 2006 at 5:43 pmloool… ”the artic is cooling .. yes it is cooling but why?
no one here ever heard of global dimming? not suprised. its an idea that wipes all thoughts about global warming away.
watch and you judge.
http://video.google.nl/ videoplay?docid=1027879546389218797&q=global+dimming
January 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pmFunny how CNN just quickly adds “despite some flaws” about the hockey stick graph in their piece, with no further explaination . They really didn’t refute anything, they just gave a negative review to his comments. No real info from either side in this case
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pmThis is the problem that environmentalist have always had, ever since the days of Malthus. It boils down to “just trust us”.
For example:
Contrary to what you may think Kay, the Michael Mann “hockey stick†is incorrect. His methods were largely unsound. Yes indeedy there were a few errors which conprimise the conclusions drawn. Mann’s methodology was investigated by the National Research Council and was not deemed to have produced the correct results which have been verified by other scientists.
As for Dan, may I ask what credible sources I have based my statements on? A measly thirty years ago we were just beginning to understand the varying stable states of our planet. It alternates between interglacial and glacial. A measly thirty years ago, given this new found knowledge, the Earth would naturally be prepared to return to a glacial state, we thought. However, what you do know is that this was a prediction. Dont question what ever sources you are using please, because they are right. Climotologists were predicting a coming ice age, it was TIME magazine taking research and presenting it. As for what we knew then versus what we know now, yes technology has not increased that much and neither has our understanding of the world.
Dickie, I suggest you continue reading whatever made you believe that there is not a scientific consensus because there isnt a very strong one. I highly suggest you stop pulling information from thinkprogress.org, or my butt for that matter. There are many respected researchers out there who still challege elements of global warming, however they do not challenge the hypothesis itself, just the part that says its our fault. I challenge you to research the so-called non-biased research centers that are saying that global warming is a concern. I also challenge any person in this forum who would like to debate the issue to reply to the post.
In a nutshell, the Earth could be warming. For now. Atmospheric CO2 is currently at only 370 parts per million by volume and rising by just 2 ppm per year. The pre-industrial level was similarly around just 270 ppm. Once it reaches the atmosphere, CO2 has a shelf life of only 200 years. Some claim the bulk of this increase is due to fossil fuel usage, or that deforestation and poor agricultural practices also contribute to emissions. However, nature produces much larger quantities of greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane as well as CO2. These gases tend to work in an equilibrium with the biosphere or are out of our control. The CO2 that nature releases, and it releases a LOT starting in September of every year as the leaves fall, as it has done for millions upon millions of years, plus our own co2 raises CO2 concentrations nearly 7 ppm per year. However, this CO2 is captured the following spring as the vegitiation in the northern hemishphere (where most of our land mass is) in the form of new growth thusly dropping CO2 levels 7 ppm. Methane is a part of natural decay though we do emit a barely measurable amount. As for water vapor, the warmer the air is, the more vapor it can hold which means as temperature gets warmer, this important natural GHG will increase as has always been the situation for millions of years. As we continue to emit more and more comparatively tiny amounts of CO2 we dont really disrupt atmospheric chemistry or alter the energy balance that drives our climate. Its simple physics, the sun releases energy (calculated by Wien’s law and Stephen Boltzman law) in the form of short-wave radiation. That energy passes through the atmosphere where it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. It goes through a phase change and is released as long-wave radiation. A tiny fraction of that radiation is trapped by certain gases in the atmosphere. It is simple physics, but any increase in atmospheric GHG concentration does not really mean it will cause an increase in temperature. It is definetely by far and away NOT an established fact that we, people, have increased these gases by any significant. The question of course remains how much the natural system will push back through natural feedbacks. Or not. It is a much more complex issue than can be described here or anywhere else for that matter but is a start on a road of a million years. Simply put, it is not very likely that we have altered atmospheric chemistry enough to overcome any of the natural feedbacks that regulate the system and so it will not lead to a significant increase in global average surface temperature.
On one semi final note, during the previous ice age, the global average temperature was only five degrees C cooler than it is currently. We are looking at an increase greater than three by the end of the century. Or we are just five degrees shy of another ice age. Who knows? Please fill in the blank.
Currently we dont have accurate data for CO2 concentrations for the last 450,00 years from which we cant estimate with certainty the global average temperatures for such a long ass period. This information as well as other data, which shall remain anonymous, dont give indications of what the temperature may have been like through that entire long ass time period. That figure is about a year old so it may be a little higher or a little lower. Through examination of proxy data very solid, though not pefect, guesstimations have been made for the last 1000+ years. The current modeling used to predict future climates are much more accurate than in the past 1000+ years and have been tested by altering the inputs to represent what the Earth was like in the past, 100+ years ago. These models are then run to the present. the results are compared to what we know the climate has been like for the last 100 or so years. When I model has accurately recreated the climate it is then used to generate prediction of future climates based on a number of scenarios that model the economics of the future. Obviously, these scenarios are assumption driven and can not be perfectly accurate though we continue to improve the scenario’s. In other words, past performance is not guarantee of future returns. Or as my broker puts it: “Backtested performance does not represent actual performance and should not be interpreted as an indication of such performance. Backtested performance results have certain inherent limitations. Backtested performance also differs from actual performance because it is achieved through the retroactive application of model portfolios designed with the benefit of hindsight. As a result, the models theoretically may be changed from time to time to obtain more favorable performance results.”
These scenarios and the number of climate models used are the reason why you will see reports all over the place claiming that the earth will warm between 3 and 8 degrees C over the next 100 years. They are not difinitive, so can a certain amount of confidence can be placed in the results?.
M’Kay?
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:09 amhttp://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pmtry this link for some info about an inconvenient truth
Uh, sorry by my words, spelling, informality and all that stuff at which you may be disturbed. It is not easy for me to compose a text like this…I am in a serious problem and I do not even know why am I writting here and why do I have time for this.. ok… but then… here my comentary goes:
Peolpe is so fool that many times, they do not believe in anything but what some kind of t.v.’s say and newspapers.. but everyone must be alarmed about the global warming. For example, now, we do not care about global warming because when it grows and the problem affect (more) human being, we are not going to be here, alive still; but, what about our children???what about beloved people who will die after us??? what about Earth?? what about living “stuf”???? You do not care??? oh, yea, soon you will care a lot, because in 2 years or less, everyone will be more worried about it. And it can be that, even you will be seriously affected… You will see, you will see…
Where I am going is to the point of: We may, and should, start making something for the Earth, for the human being, for our beloved people or for what you care about… Many people is starting to do something little, something form home, but they are doing something!!! If everyone in this world did at least 4 things to reduce their wastes, rubbish, car pollution and all that easy ways of helping world, we were even in a better world, even our relationships may get better and our life may be longer, we could be with our beloved persons more time, we would LIVE.
Please, if someone reads it, think about it, and start making something, it does not matter if it is somehting small, you will help. And one more time, excuse me because of the composition, I am really not british or from a country where it is spoken a lot the english, but I am doing my best, and I think that for a student of a 3rd world country, this compositions is not as bad as many…. and excuse if I made you lose your time or only wasted you the space of antoher commentary… I wanted to express myself… thank you.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:44 pm[…] when they are being duped by the hysterical left.” In particular, he attacked the news media.read more | digg story April 11th, 2007 | Category: Environment News […]
April 11th, 2007 at 5:48 am