Quote


Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. In a July 28, 2003, Senate speech, Inhofe claimed to offer "compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."[10] He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of numerous individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon). In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[11] However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[12] Additionally, the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record effectively in 1958, so it is unclear what Inhofe means by "last century".

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis. He said, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."[13] Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.[14] He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.[15][16] Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."[17]

Inhofe, claiming uncertainties related to climate science and the adverse impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme. "Global warming is still considered to be a theory and has not come close to being sufficiently proven", he said.

Inhofe has similarly criticized predictions of ozone depletion, particularly in relation to the Arctic.[18]

In 2006, Inhofe gave a speech in the Senate in which he argued that the threat of global warming was exaggerated by "the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture." Inhofe claimed that "From the late 1920s until the 1960s they [the media] warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years." He also accused the media of ignoring scientists such as Roger A. Pielke and William Gray who, Inhofe claims, disagree with global warming.[19]

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle.[20] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[21]

Quote
spearmint
Just a study by 400 distinguished scientists.

Quote
MacMagus
> Now click on the link on that linkfor the actual study.

It's not a study.

It's not a report.

It's a press release with a vainglorious title.

Quote
spearmint
This Report shows both are saying very questionable and I think dishonest things to sway the masses and from the responses here somewhat successful at with those who want to believe to foster their political causes.

Quote
spearmint
Just a study by 400 distinguished scientists.

Quote
spearmint
Just a study by 400 distinguished scientists.

Quote
spearmint
Just a study by 400 distinguished scientists.

Quote
spearmint
Would someone please question the content of this Senate Report or bother to glance at it? No references so far. Prove these 400 plus scientists wrong.

Quote
spearmint

Almost got me there. Not fair. You know I am easily duped.

Quote
spearmint
I believe the 400 plus brought up here as much as you do your "believers."

Quote
spearmint
On the basis of credentials you cannot come with better.

Quote
spearmint
I do not have to prove anything.

Quote
Greg the dogsitter

Quote
spearmint
I believe the 400 plus brought up here as much as you do your "believers."

Ad hominem.

Quote
x-uri
Science is all about dissent and disagreement. However, the dissenters must bring compelling evidence. It is not enough to say "I don't agree", you must refute the hypothesis by showing how it fails to explain the data, or by constructing a new hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the data.

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
x-uri
Science is all about dissent and disagreement. However, the dissenters must bring compelling evidence. It is not enough to say "I don't agree", you must refute the hypothesis by showing how it fails to explain the data, or by constructing a new hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the data.

There is no final "refutation," of course, because most of the predictions related to this "human-caused global warming" scenario describe the future.

Refuting the IPCC alalysis for some of its analysis of climate of the past, for example, is quite easy - say, over the period 1970-2000 (If anyone asks, I'll so it, but if not, I won't bother).

The issue is, is this going to bring on some catastrophe? I believe any such thing as catastrophe from human related activities is impossible - but how does one prove that to somebody?

If I tell somebosy - you're going to be OK - will that make a difference? If I write down 130 equations and tell them, there see? Nothing to worry about.

Will they still be convinced?

I'm one of those awful 400.

Some people have the time to look at something and analyze it and say, it isn't right.

Some people have the ability to do that and some some don't

Some people who have the ability to do that also have the courage to say in public, it isn't right

Some people have the guts to put on an Army uniform and stand out in the streets of Baghdad and risk gettin g blown to pieces and some don't

But the country has lasted for more than 200 years because people who had the courage to do something like that, live in the country

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
x-uri
Science is all about dissent and disagreement. However, the dissenters must bring compelling evidence. It is not enough to say "I don't agree", you must refute the hypothesis by showing how it fails to explain the data, or by constructing a new hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the data.

There is no final "refutation," of course, because most of the predictions related to this "human-caused global warming" scenario describe the future.

Refuting the IPCC analysis of climate of the past, for example, is quite easy - say, over the period 1970-2000 (If anyone asks, I'll so it, but if not, I won't bother).

The issue is, is this going to bring on some catastrophe? I believe any such thing as catastrophe from human related activities is impossible - but how does one prove that to somebody?

If I tell somebosy - you're going to be OK - will that make a difference? If I write down 130 equations and tell them, there see? Nothing to worry about.

Will they still be convinced?

I'm one of those awful 400.

Some people have the time to look at something and analyze it and say, it isn't right.

Some people have the ability to do that and some some don't

Some people who have the ability to do that also have the courage to say in public, it isn't right

Some people have the guts to put on an Army uniform and stand out in the streets of Baghdad and risk getting blown to pieces and some don't

But the country has lasted for more than 200 years because people who had the courage to do something like that, live in the country