Inhofe responds to AP with flurry of BS 15

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Tina Harrison Posted 3:51 pm
   27 Jun 2006

   Critique of scientists' critique of Gore filmWhich of the science remarks of the scientists in the above do you disagree with, please?

   Permalink

2. 

   sunflower Posted 4:08 am
   28 Jun 2006

   The Poop on TopsoilA clean government will be required for successful global warming abatement.
   My mind does not work in the negative nor politics.  Kerry proved that politicians should not play engineer.  I do not know Senator Maria Cantwell's CO2 position or level of concern.  It should be the number one issue, loud and clear.
   We need the political focus on shutting down coal power plants.  Anything else is denial of reality.  I would like to see a Grist global warming investigation of Congress, lots of work -- each member.

   Permalink

3. 

   couloir007 Posted 6:35 am
   28 Jun 2006

   Elobarate please"Can you find a single fact in that release -- a single one -- that isn't false, misleading, or irrelevant?
   Maybe it is, maybe it isn't misleading, but am I suppose to take your word for it?

   Permalink

4. 

   CowsEatGrass Posted 8:02 am
   28 Jun 2006

   Yes, please teach us.The only thing I get out of this post is that you disagree with Inhofe and that you're unreasonably mad that he holds this position.  He has a history of being wrong, and even being a total ass at times, but you haven't shown that this is par for the course.
   It's just one polemic after another.
   
   Andy

   Permalink

5. 

   Chris Schults Posted 8:14 am
   28 Jun 2006

   While I don't speak for Dave ...... I'll take a guess as to why he hasn't refuted the statements here: it has been done many times over in Gristmill and elsewhere.
   Quoting Dave from a related post:
   ThinkProgress does the yeoman's work of refuting the claims in the release. For my part, I'm sick of knocking down the same zombie falsehoods again and again. The folks advancing these claims can no longer claim to be acting in good faith, so they won't get good faith responses from me. From now on, they get what they deserve: disdain and mockery. Wo0t!
   
   Look out! It's a media shower!

   Permalink

6. 

   masterdk Posted 9:49 am
   28 Jun 2006

   Inhofe's response to Al Gore's MovieShame on you, Mr. Inhofe!  On what planet have you been residing on?  We are past questioning if our planet is heating up and why.  The evidence is all around us, on every continent including our state of Alaska.  Who needs a scientists endorsment when all you have to do is look around at the evidence.
   I applaud Al Gore for his work.  He has no political agenda other than a love for our planet which is self evident.  We need more like him to step forward.  He is correct in saying that it is going to take the voice of the poeple to finally get the politicians moving on this issue, I for one will not depend on poeple like Mr. Inhofe, after reading his response on the Al Gore movie, and that is most self evident.  Wake up, Mr. Inhofe, look around!!  

   Permalink

7. 

   David Roberts Posted 9:56 am
   28 Jun 2006

   Yes,What Chris said.
   These claims are not new. It's the same small group of skeptics making the same discredited claims over and over and over and over and over. The slightest bit of google searching can find a refutation. Or you could just read the latest IPCC report.
   With good information available at their fingertips, you really think these people just aren't convinced yet? That they have good-faith scientific disagreements? I appreciate the progressive urge to focus on substance, but at this point we're just getting played, wasting energy. Engaging this discredited bullshit just legitimizes it.
   Inhofe and the carbon lobby don't want to be right. They don't care about the truth. For them it's purely a game of power and influence. Earnest, wonky treatises are not going to change anything. It's time for the people on the right side of history to pull up their pants and start taking swings. It's time to start playing the game that's being played and stop pretending that there are real scientific disputes here.
   (Why yes, I am feeling cranky today.)
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

8. 

   couloir007 Posted 1:16 pm
   28 Jun 2006

   Ends justify the means?First, I don't doubt global warming is occuring, but to just ignore and pass off as just another numb nut blowing his horn attitude doesn't accomplish anything. You have a readership that contains people with little knowledge about the issue, and will listen to whatever you say without question. This is no different than the far right evangelical christian whackos that think creation science actually constitutes science and will listen to what ever Pat Robertson says. The fact is, current warming may or not be attributed to human induced changes. Even if it isn't, it doesn't mean human caused global warming is not occuring. Light a match under a glass of ice water and I bet no temperature change occurs until the ice has melted. It might be worse than we think. I do know a bit about climatology and weather, and I know enough to know that the climate is highly variable with or without humans. That said, I do believe we are screwing things up, but we cannot take a Michael Moore the end justifies the means attitude towards those who constantly doubt the issue. Address what was said. Don't just blow it off. Blowing it off is not journalism, which I'm assuming GRIST stides to be. Take the high ground and don't stupe to their level.

   Permalink

9. 

   David Roberts Posted 2:12 pm
   28 Jun 2006

   NoThe fact is, current warming may or not be attributed to human induced changes.
   No, that's not the fact. The fact is that every major scientific report of the last decade has concluded that humans are driving the changes -- most recently the NAS, just days ago.
   Do you have some data that these thousands of scientists don't have? Have you done some of your own research? If not, why are you not convinced, and what could possibly convince you?
   For a non-scientist, the only recourse on scientific questions is to trust what the bulk of scientists agree on. The vast bulk of climate scientists agree that warming is happening and humans are driving it. I don't see what's left to say.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

10. 

    Kif Scheuer Posted 11:34 pm
    28 Jun 2006

    double noYou have a readership that contains people with little knowledge about the issue, and will listen to whatever you say without question. This is no different than the far right evangelical christian whackos that think creation science actually constitutes science and will listen to what ever Pat Robertson says.
    I'm not Grist staff, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that
    
    
    
    Grist is aware that their readers have varying amounts of knowledge.
    
    They're also aware that some readers will take what they say on faith.
    
    
    BUT
    
    
    They don't have intention of capitalizing on people's limited knowledge.
    
    They discourage blind followers and encourage debate.
    
    
    For me, nothing in David's post, Chris' follow-up, or David's follow-up, replicates the kind of fear-mongering, knowledge-bashing demagogury that you compare it to.
    As David points out it's easy to find the refutations. His point as I see it is to alert us that despite the availability of refutations Inhofe persists in making these claims. For this issue there's several levels of critique to be had, if enviros just stick to the "substance" they keep getting whalloped by the manueverings of people who don't give a damn about the substance. So while it's important to manage the substance, and Chris refers to places where that's being done, it's equally as important to manage the maneuverings.

    Permalink

11. 

    mihan Posted 12:27 am
    29 Jun 2006

    Been there, done thatWhen I first read Inhofe's statement, I began fuming. Then, I read the first question, and thought about picking each point apart. I'd start with the second word of the first quote ("Gore's"---okay), "circumstantial" (I doubt that by "circumstantial" he means "statistically rigorous"). I had better things to do (like work), and figured someone would post something along the lines of what Dave did, in fact, post.
    Speaking of work, I'm a climate scientist. We do, in fact, agree that (1) the earth is warming, (2) there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than ever before, and (3) we're causing both. I saw Gore's movie, and only had one very minor science-related quibble with it.
    There are a few scientists who doubt that humans are causing (1) (one of them works on my floor), but they are few and far between. Some of them are honest, most are paid by oil companies. Here's a bit more perspective: Spencer doesn't believe in evolution, but even he agrees that greenhouse gas levels are skyrocketing. All other points are pretty much indisputed. Unfortunately, the way science works is not as straightforward as you might hope, and there will always be doubters.

    Permalink

12. 

    CowsEatGrass Posted 12:57 am
    29 Jun 2006

    My jealousy..."As David points out it's easy to find the refutations."
    Perhaps for environmental journalists and doctoral students, but not all of us can be so enrobed in the latest information.  We might choose a few more poignant/entertaining/informative sources and catch what we can from those sources.  I have always chosen to come by Grist and Gristmill when I do have a chance for those very reasons and I am now becoming leery that I'm only going to find cynicism and indignities.  I can do that on my own.
    Further, I'm sick of knocking down the same zombie falsehoods again and again. The folks advancing these claims can no longer claim to be acting in good faith, so they won't get good faith responses from me. From now on, they get what they deserve: disdain and mockery.
    
    
    
    is just unacceptable in my opinion.
    
    I read contracts to pay the bills right now.  It sucks beyond belief.  I'm also sick of changing the same things over and over again.  I'd love to respond with "disdain and mockery," as rarely do I find one written in "good faith."  But that's not my job.  I say this with the utmost respect for this publication, but my understanding is that the folks at Grist are journalists and I think they should do their job, too.  Professionalism is grossly overrated, but it still has its place.  I'm getting out of here in about a month in a half; it seems to me that's the best cure for getting away from something one is tired of doing, not just falling into self-serving acrimony.
    I am, of course, jealous of David and his cohorts whose job it is to research and write about interesting stuff all day--and I enjoy sarcasm as a favorite personal pastime--so maybe this is all just more jealousy that now he also gets to do that and get paid for it.  But, through the jealousy, I really think that the sarcasm can be sprinkled into real information.  You don't have to respond to the idiots in good faith with a dry response to provide us with real, useful information.  The only information contained in this post was Inhofe's press release.  And this post was chosen to be linked from the daily email.
    
    Andy

    Permalink

13. 

    elasticsoul Posted 2:59 am
    29 Jun 2006

    Andy and those who want refutationsGrist: can you provide a link or two to sites that refute this nonsense?
    To everyone who wants Grist writers to spend time refuting rubbish...why aren't you asking Inhofe and company for their data? Push the need for proof back on the people disputing the science. Don't try and force legitimate scientists to constantly disprove nonsensical, unsubstantiated, greed-driven rants. It's your world, too, but most of us don't want to face up to reality, especially when people like Inhofe tell us more pleasing lies. Why on earth are you believing a politician over thousands and thousands of scientists? What happened to independent Americans, distrustful of big (or any) government?
    Look, people like Inhofe and the CEOs are - literally - signing death warrants for our children, possibly even for us. They have a heck of a lot more money, land, and resources than most; who do you think will suffer more: them or us? These are people who believe in social Darwinism and that 'might is right'; and if you and your progeny cease to exist, or became serfs in the new world order, it will only prove that you were unfit, while the current big power brokers have clearly demonstrated their superiority.
    Despite this, I will take a shot at a few bits of the drivel:
    
    
    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."
    
    Scores? Name some reputable scientists who have published their theories and data on climate change in peer-reviewed journals - and who maintain that GW is not due to human GHG emissions. You won't be able to find any, or at best only a few whose views are not supported by the bulk of the existing data. So now you have to prove a conspiracy among thousands of scientists working at hundreds of universities, government organizations, and other organizations, in dozens of countries. I believe the IPCC report was prepared by 1500-2000 scientists. The people quoted by Inhofe are the same people who are quoted every time, and I don't think any of them have published anything on climate change recently. The least in-credible is Lindzen, but how much actual research has he done or reviewed? His publication record in the past 4-5 years is near-zero, not counting EDITORIALS in the Wall Street Journal....
    
    
    
    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.
    
    Why? What would this prove? Remember, thousands of reputable scientists agree.  Perhaps it would allow Inhofe to attack those scientists, as another senator has launched a personal investigation into the authors of the "hockey stick" graph.
    Skipping the slag at Correll - if you dispute the science, then dispute the science. Don't launch ad hominem attacks to distract people from the science.
    
    
    
    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."
    
    This is a flat-out lie. The NAS report largely AFFIRMED the hockey stick. No scientist is disputing the MWP or the LIA. Neither one has anything to do with the current warming.
    Somebody else can tackle the rest if they choose, but I think the effort is largely wasted. The average American is still too committed to hearing what s/he wants to hear.

    Permalink

14. 

    couloir007 Posted 5:42 am
    29 Jun 2006

    Preaching to the ChoirI guess you don't understand climate very much. For instance, no one can say for sure that last year's hurricane season had anything to do with global warming. Meteorologist Dr. William Gray doesn't think so (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4403). I would say that there is a high probability based on the evidence. I doubt any scientist would say that they are 100% certain all that we are seeing can be attributed to global warming. I also never said I wasn't convinced. I'm 100% convinced by the evidence. What I don't like is how you posted the Senetor's opinion and dismissed it without addressing what he said. He is quoting Richard S. Lindzen, who, as an MIT Professor, has a lot of influence. This style of journalism will not change anyone's mind who isn't convinced, which leaves you preaching to the choir. Preaching to the choir accomplishes little.

    Permalink

15. 

    mihan Posted 3:28 am
    30 Jun 2006

    ScientistsYou won't hear any climate scientist saying there's a 100% chance of anything. That's how climate science works, and that's why politicians are able to amplify doubt into disbelief. The fact that every one of the scientist naysayers are familiar faces bespeaks their scarcity. He may be a professor at MIT, but Lindzen disputes the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. Spencer---evolution. I'm just saying.
    Kerry Emmanuel, also an MIT Professor, should also be listened to---he recently said that warmer waters are likely breeding stronger storms. He's a true "skeptic:" until very recently, he was not ready to say that climate change is happening, or that it is human-caused. Now, after weighing the evidence, he is. These other people are "denyers:" they aren't weighing the evidence, they're just denying (1) that the climate is changing and/or (2) that we're causing it.

    Permalink