For global warming, there is no hope Inhofe
By Lee Russ
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 08:18 PM
The web page for the Republican majority on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works yesterday posted what purports to be a "scientific" debunking of an AP story from the same day. The AP story detailed the scientific community's support for the soundness of the science in Al Gore's global warming movie.
Isn't that strange? Why would a Senate Committee web site attack the veracity of an AP report and, by extension, the science in a documentary movie?
Two words: James. Inhofe.Here's the Committee's attack on the AP & Gore:
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy" by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP's bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the "more than 100 top climate researchers" they attempted to contact to review "An Inconvenient Truth." AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore "five stars for accuracy." AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore's movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific "skeptics" they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll's reported links as an "affiliate" of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides "expert testimony" in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore's reliance on the now-discredited "hockey stick" by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990's were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week's National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann's often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe's statement on the broken "Hockey Stick."
Gore's claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there's less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore's film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." - Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore's film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
"...A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
"...Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?"- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore's claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology," -Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
This protest of Gore and the AP is not from the full committee--only from the Republican majority, which labors under the large right thumb of the aforementioned Jim Inhofe. You will not find a more rabid opponent of the idea of man-made global warming than Mr. Inhofe. Business Week did a piece on him a while back that showed how vicious he has been in trying to keep global warming off the national stage--not likely to bring "the truth" to light. I couldn't find the Business Week story, but here's a description of it from a SF Chronicle-run blog site:
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who not only believes global warming is a "hoax," but is using the power of his office against those who believe otherewise. Last year, according to Business Week Inhofe demanded six years of tax and membership records from two groups of state and local air-pollution control officials after they testified that his proposed clean air legislation was too weak ... Now he is requesting information on all employees and projects at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Inhofe is "using the power of government and the power of office to threaten," says Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science.
Inhofe, who is chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, is also going after Christian evangelicals., who have become increasingly -- and actively -- concerned about global warming. According to Business Week, Inhofe called the Rev. Richard Cizik, of the National Association of Evangelicals, "a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing." Cizik's sin, most likely, came when the self-proclaimed "die hard Reagan Republican" told Bono at a meeting in Washington last month, according to Newsweek, "Global hunger and global warming are inescapably linked. You know that."
Funny that Senator Inhofe didn't see fit to reveal that in his piece attempting to smear the AP and Gore.
But then again, what can you say about a Senator who, according to Wikipedia:
++Said that the Oklahoma City federal building bombing was unlikely to have killed many federal employees, because they weren't likely to be at their desks as early as 9:00 am?
++Found public outrage over the Abu Ghraib torture to be more outrageous than the torture itself?
++Called the Red Cross a bunch of bleeding hearts?