Inhofe Distorts New UN Report On Climate Change: ‘We Are All Skeptics Now’
Inhofe Distorts New UN Report On Climate Change: ‘We Are All Skeptics Now’
On Sunday, the London Telegraph previewed a new report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is viewed as an authoritative source of global warming science.
According to the Telegraph, the report concludes “there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet.” Moreover, carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating and the IPCC predicts “that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.”
The IPCC also “lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.” The new estimate was “a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), outgoing chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said the report is evidence that global warming was all hype:
We are all skeptics now. It appears that the UN is now acknowledging what an increasing number of scientists who study the climate have come to realize: Predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming are simply unsustainable.
Inhofe’s core claim is that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and humans are not responsible for climate change. The new IPCC report does not support Inhofe’s position, it undermines it.
It’s ironic that Inhofe is now citing the IPCC as an authority. In speech on the Senate floor in 2003, Inhofe claimed that “the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
84 Responses to “Inhofe Distorts New UN Report On Climate Change: ‘We Are All Skeptics Now’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What do you mean WE, white boy?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWTF??? I’m so tired of these neocons who live in an alternate universe.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWhy do republicans hate Earth?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:17 pmA serious contender for stupidest AND most deceitful person alive.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:20 pmThe only thing anyone from the right wing achieves attacking global warming is that they end up with their foot in their mouth.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:20 pmThis is one issue that could have been bipartisan, could have had everyone working together. But the right had to make it partisan. Are they that stupid, or extremely desperate?
If they are unsure about global warming being real, then why not say something like ‘we cannot be certain, but why risk being wrong’ and support measures to reduce CO2 emmissions? It took much less evidence for them to want to go into Iraq.
Agreed - I loved when the Grand Wizards tried to label Gore an Arch Druid lol, like loving the Earth is a bad thing. Hey corporate schill republicans, here’s a hint - the end of the world is bad for business!
December 11th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI think Inhofe has the IPCC confused with the Bush Administration…
December 11th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI’ve been a skeptic until now about Inhofe’s alleged intelligence, but I’m a believer now — he has none.
Sen Inhofe, stop embarrassing yourself, and just go…
December 11th, 2006 at 1:28 pmWhy does inhofe hate the earth?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pmWait until he finds out the the earth actually orbits the sun rather than vice versa. That’ll really send him over the edge.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pmAshenShard
What gets me is…
Well think about this: The Rightwing goes on, and on, and on, and on about Islamic terrorism being a massive threat right?
And if you look at the countries with the bulk of the world’s oil, they seem to mostly be Islamic states that sponsor terrorism right?
And they are selling that oil for vast sums of money right?
So why does the rightwing oppose efforts to reduce the world’s need for oil?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:31 pm“the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American peopleâ€
Inhofe is already doing his autobiography and memoirs and he is only second to King George the Dumb.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThe good news is we only have to listen to him for a few more weeks… then he will be a back-bencher and demoted to the role of a Minority senator. (How does that minority tag feel, Jimmy Boy?)
and Oklahomans…………PULEEEZE wake up and don’t send him back to Capital Hill next election. Isn’t there anyone in your great state that has a triple digit IQ and not owned by the oil and utility K-Y Street boys?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmEven my republican mom and dad agree that we need to do some thing about Global Climate Change. When I was driving with my mom to Los Angeles this weekend she was talking about places that aren’t having Winters and are just going straight to Spring.
Because as a real Christian, she knows that God did NOT say “Here is the Earth do whatever you want to it.” She knows that she should protect what God provided her and the rest of us.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pm# 7 Zimzone - He’s up for election in ‘08
December 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmMaybe someone on Inhofe’s staff could read the report to him and explain all the big words.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#18
Here are two more for your list
Commandment # 4
Losing is winning
Commandment #5
December 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmNew way forward is stay the course
#13 - DonD
I thought Sen. In-a-huff was one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on the American people!
And I bet is autobiography will have the EXXON logo on the front cover!
December 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmcan we please label people that make comments;
“on the take”, oil, pharma, etc..
“numb from neck up”
known paranoid, psychotic, etc.
your labels are okay now, just go that one extra step so we know from what position the person is spitting
please help us with a roadmap of the loonies
December 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmMaybe someone on Inhofe’s staff could read the report to him and explain all the big words.
Comment by chimpeach
They woould need to hire a consultant for that.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pmSo, what is it that the US should do about Global Climate Change?
I’m serious — what is the recommended solution?
Oh, and what is the cost to the economy of this solution?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pmActually…
(A repost I know, but I still like it so :p)
December 11th, 2006 at 1:46 pmka-ching ka-ching ka-ching goes the Inhofe cash register, as the big oil lobbyists pay him more and more to say this stuff. He is now at that point in his efforts where he has no choice to go further and further out there, because losing his chairmanship reduces him to nothing whatsoever except their Pinnochio!
December 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pmthe good citizens of oklahoma should forego any and all federal emergency funds they demand following the inevitable tornadoes and/or other weather-related disasters. after all, the good lord will take care of all their clean-up and medical needs.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:53 pmInhofe must have been dropped on his head as a child — far more times than is absolutely necessary.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:55 pmHere’s what I don’t understand:
We know that certain gases hold back more heat than others
We know that we are pumping ever more of them into the atmosphere
Therefore we would expect the earth to warm up, irrespective of natural variations
And the earth is warming up…
Where’s the problem?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:55 pmHe’s the greatest cretin that ever came out of Oklahoma.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:59 pmNow that’s a face only an oil compny could love.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:00 pmSorry, instead of ‘Where’s the problem’
I mean ‘What is the objection to that argument?’
All this stuff about heat islands (whatever the hell that was) and similar are surely just missing the very simple point.
The only question I see is whether the amount of gas is great enough to actually affect the climate right this minute. As far as I’ve seen, the climate has been affected more or less since the 1970s…
December 11th, 2006 at 2:00 pmHistory will not be kind to this man.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pmhey bruce, i never saw the 15 commandments post… it is quite good!
anyway, can we just find the video of inhofe pleasuring his pony named ‘timmy’ on his ranch and just get him the hell out of here???
December 11th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#24 - R U serious????
The US has the largest carbon footprint/resident, is the largest consumer of hydrocarbons in the world, creates the most garbage/person, etc etc.
And we ALSO are the most technically advanced country, and in the past, anything we decide to do (other than illegally invade certain Middle East countries), we have been successful at finding solutions that make economic as well as environmental sense. So why not take a shot at it… the only thing we have to lose would be the planet.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmInhofe must have been dropped on his head as a child — far more times than is absolutely necessary.
—- Zooey
Naw, he wasn’t dropped, his dad used his head to drive fence posts into the rocky oklahoma soil when he was a child.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmThe new IPCC report does not support Inhofe’s position, it undermines it.
Creationists don’t do reason. Or fact. Or science, for that matter.
Everything is what they already want to believe or it’s ‘wrong,’ no matter if it’s right.
Children.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:08 pm.
Why does our policy on global warming have to be “Stay the Course”? I would think “Adapt to Win” is actually a useful framing of the problem. The future is in renewable energy. So let’s apply our exceptional American ingenuity, the same stuff that made the atomic bomb and put a man on the moon, and just get ‘er done!
Eventually renewable energy will be cheaper to produce than fossil fuel-energy, and where will that leave Exxon? We’ll have to prop up the oil industry like we prop up our lackadaisical auto industry, when having a better product would just be better all around.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:09 pm‘We Are All Skeptics Now’
Yes I am a skeptic. I don’t believe this Inhofe knows one thing about this topic or cares to know.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:11 pmThe Bush Administration can lie and lie all they want but Mother nature and God have shown the world we have Global Warming. It’s all about the money for big business and the greed. This Administration would take the gold tooth out of your mouth rather then save your life. America is no longer the leader of the world nor is it trust worthy. Bush has allow our country to be liars. I noticed their are still people who support this conduct. After watching the Jack, Ralph and Grover report of crime on PBS I understand how this happen. The GOP only hired Republicans and punished people and companies that support Dems. Then Ralph got the Church to lie cheat and steal in the name of God, just as was done to Jesus. Satan is truly running the GOP and White House. So destroying the world means nothing to this group. Some Americans still want to kill Iraq people regardless if their women/children how sick is that.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:11 pmCynicon: “So, what is it that the US should do about Global Climate Change?
I’m serious — what is the recommended solution?
Oh, and what is the cost to the economy of this solution?”
Anything to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions. New, more stringent regulations on gas efficiency and car emissions, shoring up wetlands protections and government-aided programs for emission-free power sources. The cost to the oil and coal industry would be offset by the economic development of new green technologies. Tens of thousands of people could be employed in solar cell plants alone.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#41 Bluedog49,
Ya think Cynicon and the rest of the ‘head-in-the-sand’ Neocons EVER read anything that might disagree with the Bushco Corporate profit at any cost mantra???
December 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pmNaw, he wasn’t dropped, his dad used his head to drive fence posts into the rocky oklahoma soil when he was a child.
Comment by Wayne
One would think they’d breed them to be able to withstand that…he must have been “delicate.”
December 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pm41,
Obviously we can’t possibly have both a stable economy and try to slow down global warming! Clearly any sort of government interference constitutes “economic castration”…
Or maybe not.
However, it is a useful- if false- dichotomy to pursue if you’re running out of ideas and/or cannot question an ideological viewpoint. It seriously worries me that global warming is divided along left/right economic lines. If the right cannot look beyond ideology because it might mean acknowledging a lefty viewpoint, what does that tell us about representative democracy? That it is more about dogmatism than people?
December 11th, 2006 at 2:27 pmThe “cost to the economy” will only effect approximately 2 percent of the American public.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:29 pm(Until that 2 percent passes their loss along to the working class…………., heaven forbid the haves and the have mores should have any less………………..)
upside00, what I have found is that kooky cons come on these boards and sometimes ask questions. And, when you answer a question, they often just ignore the answer and keep asking the same questions. I don’t think the majority of conservatives who come here really want to engage in a legitimate argument. I think they come here to provoke and to get attention. If you don’t respond to them, they often leave quickly. On the other hand, there’s no crime in attempting a discussion with them.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#44 - Prince Myshkin
Why would we expect anything different from these Bozos? They increase air pollution standards and call it a Clean Air Act, they lower water quality standards and call it a Clean Water Act, they want to sell off Federal lands and open Wilderness to development and find nothing wrong with it.
About the only thing they haven’t done yet is call James Watt back into service. Then they would be assured of having the worst environmental record in our history.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:34 pmBluedog,
Doesn’t it take 2 intelligent sides to have a debate? Looks like we are missing one side here!!
December 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWhy do you ask? Do you really care? If you do, then how is it that you can’t come up with any solutions yourself? Why do we have to give you ideas on how to help preserve the world on which you live? Why don’t you give us some ideas for a change? I’ll bet you drive a big giant truck or SUV that gets 6 MPG.
That gives me one idea right there. Make SUVs commercial vehicles that require a class C license. No more road hogging, gas guzzling SUVs.
And no I didn’t say that everybody has to drive e tiny electric car. I just think SUVs are way overboard. If you don’t believe me, come to Southern California. They are everywhere.
The problem is that we always give you people ideas and you blow them off. You guys are happy with status quo, otherwise known as staying the course. In fact I would have to say you people want to reverse course and go back in time. Back to when everything was perfect.
Oh wait, there never was a perfect time in history.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pm47,
What I am really asking is ‘Why don’t the right respond to the obvious threat of global warming’ and ‘why do they have to see a response in terms of economic castration’?
Perhaps it is because of ideological differences that they cannot see what is obvious to the majority of mankind?
December 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pmI just love it when the right-shiners say something like “what would be the impact to our economy if we try any sort of solution?”
The better quesiton is “what would be the impact to our economy if we just ignore global warming and count on prayers alone to address the situation?”
Most of the ani-climate attitudes don’t care about our economy after they become fertilizer, so if it’s going to cost us one dollar they’d rather screw over our future than pay one sinlge penny. How shortsighted can you get?
Ooops, I guess that is a rhetorical question when I consider how much the right-whiners have screwed the country thus far.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:54 pmThe Repugs believe Global Warming is just the sun coming up in the morning……. and not to worry it will go away at sunset.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pmDon’t you find it odd that the righties see Global Climate Change as a problem that will kill the economy, with its cost. But, they see the war in Iraq as a fine way to waste money, since it is for “humanitarian” efforts, which is not the reason we went there in the first place. Even with the fact that people will die as a result of Global Climate Change, which would seem like a bunch of “republican humanitarians” would be all about.
As I mentioned above, even my republican parents have now realized that the NeoCons do not have republcain’s best interests or idealogies in mind.
Anybody still supporting these idiots are idiots themselves. They will never change, because what is wrong with them is a mental condition.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pm53,
Exactly, the current administration has some seriously twisted priorities, such as its approach to the AIDS problem.
Also, it is worth mentioning that, being as the (global) poor will be the worst affected by global warming, it is not the concern of the global rich!
Either way, the obsession with winning votes in order to retain power seems like a fundamental handicap of American politics. Madison, Hamilton and Jay seemed to think that balancing powers would prevent an irrational faction taking over, but that seems the opposite of what has happened…
December 11th, 2006 at 3:13 pmGlobal warming found to be worse than expected.
Data sampling not accounting for Global Dimming due to particulate pollution.
Temperature increases will expected to be larger than reported, as tailpipe and smokestack particulate pollution reduced.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThe data model not complete.
Expect lower incidence of asthma, higher temperatures.
Myshkin and Spudge -
Isn’t it interesting that since 2000, we have actually had a 3 party system ……… Dems, Republicans and the Bushco Corporatists.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:21 pm56,
Since 2000?
Problem is, I can’t see how anyone can divide the corporatism from the two party system generally…
Is there really sufficient evidence to suggest Bush’s reign is qualitatively different from all his predecessors?
December 11th, 2006 at 3:35 pmSen. Imhofe’s conclusions about the hoax are well-grounded in the evidence. IPCC’s first assessment in 1990 emphasized a graph showing nice match between atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature using ice core research. But now that it looks like the CO2 rise followed, rather than led, temperature proxy in that record, it doesn’t get emphasized so much anymore. IPCC’s third assessment portrayed the Mann et al “hockey stick” as policy-relevant. But it was based on an unreplicable mess of a paper that has come to be an embarrassment to at least some of the folks who so uncritically embraced it. All the IPCC Working Group I reports have contained much of interest, but this doesn’t mean that state-of-the-art climate models are of more than dubious predictive value, for purposes of policy.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:46 pm55,
See my post at 26.
Can you explain the problem with that? I’m not a scientist, so simply, please!
No sarcasm, I genuinely don’t understand the case against global warming.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:51 pmPrince -
You may be right, but the current Cabal has taken it to a new (and absurd) level.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:52 pmSen. Imhofe’s conclusions about the hoax are well-grounded in the evidence.
Comment by Steve Schulin — December 11, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Looks like a professional global warming denialist has arrived to the discussion to spew misinformation and lies.
Beat it, pal, no one here is buying your snake oil.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:57 pmInhofe IQ = 7
December 11th, 2006 at 5:05 pmBag of Hair IQ = 10
56, your question is a fine question. But without assigning significance, it’s not much of an “argument”. There are several anthropogenic greenhouse gases, each with estimated “global warming potential”. When you total up the GWP values, you’ll find that we’re already the equivalent — greenhouse gas-wise — to about 2/3rds of the equivalent of doubling atmospheric CO2 levels. And the observed effect has been about as indistinguishable as can be from plausible unforced and/or natural variation. The science is not settled as to why the relatively large estimated forcing has been associated with relatively small change in temperatures. The argument that aerosols have balanced a lot of the forcing seems pretty speculative, especially given the possibility that black carbon may have been even bigger forcing — and one that tends to warm the surface — than the sulphates which are presumed to have provided cooling. The argument that oceans act as a buffer, slowing the surface rise, seems more reasonable, but the much-improved monitoring of ocean temperatures shows cooling in top 1500-meters of the oceans in recent years — more cooling than any of the state-of-the art climate models have been able to simulate.
Your question also prompts me to note that IPCC’s best estimate of the effect of urbanization on the surface temperature record was a linear increase from 0 in 1901 to 0.12 degrees C in 2000. There’s no reason to imagine that this trend has been abated, so one should not be surprised, all else being equal, if each year is a slight record-breaker.
58, most of the big companies in my industry (nuclear power) seem quite content to ride the wave of CO2-climate alarm into a renaissance. It was the environmental advantages which first attracted me to nuclear in the 1970s, and my personal financial interests would probably benefit from anything that improved prospects for new nuclear build. I’ve read a lot of climate science papers over the years, and have concluded that of the many reasons to want to reduce coal-oil-gas use, possible climate change is way down on the list.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:43 pmStay the Course energy policy? Or cut (our emissions) and run (cleaner fuels)?
December 11th, 2006 at 5:50 pm60,
Thank you for your response. However, I don’t understand what you mean by ‘forcing’. Is this the amount of variation relative to the natural amount of CO2?
And also I don’t understand why the oceans are relevent to the theory you are suggesting.
As I said previously, no sarcasm, I just don’t understand how such a simple argument can be opposed.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmBelow a copy of my rebuttal of the original ‘The Telegraph’ article which I just posted on an not to be named climate-skeptics blog.
—————————————
As usually happens with this kind of articles, it is unclear which parts comes from the original report and which parts are the result of the author’s own unscientific deliberations. The fact that the original IPCC AR4 report is still in its drafting stage and, as such, is still embargoed and not to be released nor distributed, makes it impossible to verify the articles claims. Thus, claiming as the article does that these are all IPCC conclusions is not only premature, it is also unscientific as there is no way to back it up! Quoting a leading UK climate scientist ‘who asked not to be named’ doesn’t help the credibility of the article much either.
Science Correspondent Richard Gray, author of this article, seems to have forgotten about the Science issue when writing this piece of info. Reading Mr Gray’s article, we’re supposed to believe that the IPCC has reached the following conclusion:
“…the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.”
With all due respect but that’s absolute bullsh!t.
If one would light a match in a room and add fuel to it, the fuel would obviously burn and release heat. The more fuel one adds, the bigger the fire would be and the bigger the heat released would be. Now according to the author of the article, the IPCC’s 2,000+ scientists worldwide all agree that if one would now turn on the air-conditioning in the room, its’ diminishing effect on the overall room temperature would mean that the HUMAN CONTRIBUTION to the heating of the room in the first place would have decreased! Wow!
This alleged IPCC conclusion is scientifically speaking completely illogical and it points to extremely sloppy writing on behalf of it’s authors. If the mentioned paragraph would have just said that the “EFFECTS of global warming are less because of aerosols” it would have hit the nail on the head but for some strange reason (more readers, add-revenues?) it had to add the ‘human-effect’ twist to it.
This alleged IPCC conclusion mixes up two fundamental scientific principles which no scientist would ever mix up, let alone 2,000+ of them: Cause and Effect. It takes one Effect (aerosol related cooling) and applies it to the wrong Cause (human induced global warming). That the aerosol induced cooling effect diminishes the overall global warming does NOT mean that therefor the CAUSE of the OVERAL HUMAN EFFECT on global warming itself has diminished. The Overall Human Contribution remains the same, it is the EFFECT which has diminished. Quite a difference!
This aerosol issue alone gives a pretty good indication of just how much of the original article comes from the 2,000+ IPCC scientists’ report and how much from Mr Gray and a leading UK climate scientist who prefers to remain anonymous.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:46 pm——————————————————————————-
Senator Inhofe, what color is the sky in your world?
December 11th, 2006 at 8:03 pm62, “Forcing” refers to the influence of something outside the climate system on the climate system. There are natural and anthropogenic forcings. A volcanic eruption is considered a natural forcing, for example, as are changes in solar output. Anthropogenic forcings include greenhouse gas emissions associated with human activities, particulate air pollution associated with human activities, and land use change.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:55 pmEven if forcing was steady, the climate system exhibits variability. This is called unforced variation. One of the reasons that the “hockey stick” graph was so compelling was how it minimized the potential of unforced variability on centennial scale, thus making recent variation in the surface temperature record quite anomalous. To say what’s abnormal, one must be able to identify what is normal. The IPCC’s best estimate for 20th century warming was 0.6 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C. Subtract the 0.12 degrees C that IPCC attributes to urbanization, and that leaves 0.48 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees to be attributed to forcings or unforced variation. This is a very small amount compared to the high end of various model projections for the next century. It is not at all apparent that the 20th century observations reflect change outside of the range of what’s normal. And the few years of 21st century, despite the seemingly constant barrage of headlines to the contrary, do not represent much of an increase, if any, from the 1998 peak in 20th century record.
You ask about how the ocean fits in. Well, any heat transferred to below surface of ocean would necessarily subtract from the warming that could be captured by surface record.
There’s been a lot of interesting research over the years, and much that doesn’t seem to be worth the paper its printed on. One of the interesting areas of study was looking at satellite data on radiation flux at top of atmosphere. Wielicki et al. and Chen et al. had companion papers on this in Science a year or so after the last IPCC report. They concluded that the variation of outgoing longwave was much higher than models simulated. They also concluded that the “forcing” change in a decade due to the trend observed in the satellite era was greater than the forcing total of every CO2 molecule emitted by man since beginning of industrial age. And the sign of the forcing was opposite. The notion that CO2 has driven climate, when other changes are more significant, seems silly to me.
I don’t know how any reasonable person following the science could conclude Inhofe’s claims are well grounded in the evidence.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:11 pmIf Steve Schulin is a nuklar fizzisist, I would suggest that you find out where he works and immediately move upwind - far upwind. As for DrSinker, your only hope is another planet.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:32 pmIn 67, ‘as for’ should read ‘as per’.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:35 pmWalt,
Good to see you here again. This site has changed a lot in the past year or so.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:49 pmWhat a sicko!
December 12th, 2006 at 12:08 amI’m curious what this moron without a doctorate in environmental science will say when Santa is forced to move his facilities to a raft.
————————————————————————————
Experts warn North Pole will be ‘ice free’ by 2040
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter of The Times
Ice is melting so fast in the Arctic that the North Pole will be in the open sea in 30 years, according to a team of leading climatologists.
Ships will be able to sail over the top of the world and tourists will be able visit what was, until climate change, one of planet’s most inaccessible landscapes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2499663,00.html
————————————————————————-
In fact Inhofe never even had a degree until 38 years old and then proceeded to run an insurance firm into the ground. Seems he wants to run the Earth’s environment like a business too.
From Wikipedia:
Inhofe received a B.A. degree from the University of Tulsa in 1973, at the age of 38.
In his business career, Inhofe was a real estate developer and became president of the Quaker Life Insurance Company. That company went into receivership while he managed it; it was liquidated in 1986, and despite a two year investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into accounting irregularities connected with the failure, Inhofe was never charged with any criminal offenses, and has since denied any wrongdoing
December 12th, 2006 at 8:31 amWake up and get out of your feedback loop. Get some real facts, instead of your self-loving BS:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=/ news/ 2006/ 11/ 05/ nosplit/ nwarm05.xml
December 28th, 2006 at 9:18 amHey idiots. Until you understand the material covered here:
March 1st, 2007 at 8:40 pmyou should not be mouthing off like you have any idea what you’re talking about. The fact is that there is no consensus, despite what Al Gore might tell you. The Oregon Petition Project had 21,000 signatories, and this is just the some of a growing opposition.
The debate does not lie with whether or not the Earth is warming. Of course it is, environmentalists just try to put words in the mouths of skeptics to look like idiots. The debate lies with if increased evaporation will be a positive or negative feedback. In other words, will increased evaporation from higher temps contribute more to the greenhouse gases or to albedo (reflectivity in clouds)? This is very complex and not at all understood.
[…] is commensurate with the sort of willful delusion he says is contained in Inhofe’s “greatest hoax” speech. “Just to be clear, this is a measurement of detachment from widely accepted […]
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:18 pmInsurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 amair conditioning and heating
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
March 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pmHome Owners Insurance Comparison
It is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me -
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 amHealth Insurance Gulf Breeze Insurance Flood Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 12:07 amEric
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:16 ambusiness writing course london
The term is used colloquially for any kind of Linkback. (Blogger now has backlinks - very similar to the trackback feature in Movable
April 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pmParticulate Emission Reduction Natural Gas Power
Found your blog on yahoo - thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:05 pmJack
Thanks for the post. I couldn’t agree with you more.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:26 amEmerson
April 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pmbest company debt reduction
April 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pm