Inhofe Recycles Unscientific Attacks on Global Warming, NYT's Revkin Gives Him a Pass

So Sen. James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe (R-OK) issues a report in which he claims:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.

"Padded" would be an extremely generous description of this list of "prominent scientists." Some would use the word "laughable" (though not the N.Y. Times' Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

I'm not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as "prominent scientists," and many of those, like Freeman Dyson -- a theoretical physicist -- have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I'm not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.

Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list. Why? Because he apparently told CNN and the Washington Post:

These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don't account for anything like the technological progress we're going to experience.... None of the global warming discussions mention the word 'nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years.... I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that's not going to happen.

And people say I'm a techno-optimist. So Kurzweil actually believes in climate science -- rather than the reverse, as Inhofe claims -- but thinks catastrophic global warming won't happen because of a techno-fix that stops emissions. If wishes were horses ... everyone would get trampled to death. In the real world, energy breakthroughs are very rare, as we've seen, and it's even rarer when they make a difference in under several decades.

Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe's list:

CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that there is a "consensus" about mankind's role in global warming.

Wow, a TV weatherman expressed skepticism. If only the IPCC had been told of this in time, they could have scrapped their entire report. Seriously, Wikipedia says "Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University." I guess Inhofe has a pretty low bar for "prominent scientists" -- but then again he once had science fiction writer Michael Crichton testify at a hearing on climate science.

I don't mean to single out Baskerville. Inhofe has a lot of meteorologists on his list, including Weather Channel Founder John Coleman. I have previously explained why Coleman doesn't know what he is talking about on climate, and why meteorologists in general have no inherent credibility on climatology. In any case, they obviously are NOT prominent scientists.

Then we have people like French geomagnetism (!) scientist Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist Louis Le Mouël, geophysicist Claude Allègre, geomagnetism (!!) scientist Frederic Fluteau, geomagnetism (!!!) scientist Yves Gallet, and scientist Agnes Genevey -- whose "research" on global warming is brutally picked apart by RealClimate here and especially here (and again here by other scientists), who together "expose a pattern of suspicious errors and omissions that pervades" their work.

So, yes, the Inhofe list is utterly ignorable compared to either the IPCC report or the Bali declaration by actual prominent climate scientists. The notion it is relevant to the climate debate is laughable, as even a cursuory examination makes clear. And yet in an article unhelpfully titled, "Climate Consensus 'Busted'?" the NYT's Andy Revkin amazingly writes of it:

The perennial tug of war over what average people should think and do about human-caused global warming has just experienced another big yank, this time from those saying actions to cut greenhouse gases are a costly waste of time.

Big yank? More like Inhofe is letting go of the rope. Revkin continues

But when you sift through the studies, what emerges (to me at any rate) is not so much the shattering of a consensus as a portrait of one corner of the absolutely normal, and combative, arena in which scientific ideas emerge and either thrive or fade.

What does Inhofe's list have to do at all with the normal scientific process? What do meteorologists and economists have to do with the normal process of climate science? Should scientists really be influenced at all by one inventor's wild claim that nanotechnology will eliminate fossil fuels in 20 years. Or by a contrived and mistake-riddled study by geomagnetists?

One final (depressing) note: How effective is Inhofe's media outreach compared to that of the entire community of climate scientists? Well, according to technorati, as of today, Friday the 21st, the IPCC Synthesis report has had 278 blog reactions since its release November 17, whereas Inhofe's "report," issued just yesterday (Thursday), has already had over 300 blog reactions.

We have a long way to go if we're going to triumph over the disinformation and preserve the health and well-being of the next 50 generations. Let's all redouble our efforts in the new year.

Comments

[MicroftHolmes]

Whats wrong with a warmer more hospitable earth?
all the dire predictions take 20 to 100 years. We are pretty good at adapting as are most animal and plant species. There will be more crop producing land, more biodiversity, insects will flourish, then so will all the other animals up to man. Didnt the UN ban DDT, and doom tens of millions of third world people to death

[Tator]

It is a hoot to watch the moonbats Religion crumble before their eyes. What is it, about once a week more REAL scientist speak out that Man-Made Global is based on JUNK SCIENCE put out by government grant tit addicted dollars and UN third world hack socialist scientist who's goal is a worldwide tax to feed the criminals in the UN.

Better start praying to Gaia and Pope Gore(college dropout) real hard because the data continues to destroy the faith.

[kingcityguru]

Hard to take you and the prophets of "man made" global warming seriously when you are also not in favor of nuclear energy. Really, if we have "10 years" you can cut CO2 emissions in the US by half or more in that period by building 400 nuclear reactors on shuttered military bases and in so doing close all CO2-emitting electrical generation (France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy). It does completely solve the problem/calamity that you say exists in the time period which you say is crucial, yet not a word in favor of it.
Maybe you don't want a solution?

[1will]

Is it unscientific when Al Gore inflates projected sea level increases by 16 times? How about when UN beaurocrats are described as scientists when reaching a consensus on Global Warming? Are those using the broken 'Hockey Stick Graph' still being scientific? What about those using the bogus NASA temp readings for the USA? You might remember them as the readings taken over asphalt.
Both sides have their hacks. If you believe enviromentalists and global warming supporters aren't faking research, threatening dissenters and and spinning information then you are very naive. Why does Gore put himself out as an expert on global warming yet run from every debate invitation?
Global Warming is happening. How much, how fast and the cause is still up for debate. Every time the greens put out more faked info or attempt to destroy opposing researcher's reputations (instead of refuting their research) they cast doubt on their cause.

[OkieMon]

Although CO2 gets all the bad press resulting from our use of fossil fuels, equally important are the toxic effects of oil and coal and their combustion products, causing untold numbers of cardiovascular disease, cancer, autism, and lung disorders.

[OkieMon]

Inhofe is a fraud...he lied about having a college degree when he didtn't...­.he's been sued by most of his family members...­he is nothing more than a brainless puppet for big oil.

[realpolitic]

Conservatives love disinformation. It is the the lifeblood of their arguments. For example, we know cutting taxes for the wealthy makes us all richer and waging eternal war will ensure peace. "Intelligent design" should be taught in public schools, we are told. Teach the controversy they argue. Although scientifically, there is no controversy. "Intelligent design" is bunk. A consensus of 70 to 90% of scientists agree climate change is real and man made. This consensus is growing annually. But in the face of all evidence, conservatives keep the disinformation campaign going. They must. They have nothing else.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Let's cut to the chase on Glabuwawa. K. One
of the things that's caused Global Whining is
manufacturing and production. In order to
make stuff, or do stuff, ya pretty much gotta
set something on fire. Fire good. Fire FRIEND.
But, we're just not really quite as proficient
as we could be in USING fire.

NEW fire, AKA lektrizzdy, that stuff that
shoots through the wires and lets you read
s'more about Global Whining, well, that's
only really been widespread in the NitdStets
for oh, about what, 60 years, now? 70, maybe?
Anyway, we're just as ignant about that as
we are about OLD fire. Anyway, technologically,
mainstream Murkuh tends to usually use what's
put in front of em. And, curiously enough,
that effect is also observable in OTHER
countries. Well, wouldn't you know there's
highly profitable infrastructures already
in operation AROUND the world to let you have
something to whine ABOUT?

Instant inexpensive remedy? Shut everything
off, refrigerator included, and sit there
and think about it.You are now officially
a Global Whiner, sitting there in the dark
and probably wondering why your TV reception
has suddenly degraded. Hmmm....th­en, when
you're done whining, get up, and go turn the refrigerator back on. You can open the door
and read by that little light in there, but
having the door open kind of defeats the purpose
so you just might want to wait until morning
to finish that book. What, the DVD player
doesn't work? Well, I guess you'll just have
to start thinking for YOURSELF again, there.
I know, sounds like hard work, but the fix
we're in today where we basically owe half
of our country to some guy that owns an oil
well is that we DON'T tend to think very hard
in our daily doings, we make assumptions and
continue past practices. Speaking of practice,
practice walking.
Shoes? 30 bucks
Pants? 25 bucks
Shirt? 14 bucks
Jacket? 45 bucks
Not watching your paycheck migrate to the
middle east anymore? Priceless.

[Nofoolhere]

The climate warming dilemma will be resolved when either Bush or Cheney die. Then there will be massive withdrawal of the earth's atmospheric heat into the nether regions in order to meet the specifications for the amount of energy required for hell to deliver full justice to those who have earned that scale of it. Then the earth and its ecology will be plunged into the equivalent of a nuclear winter, a condition that will last for decades before normality is slowly recovered.

But at least the polar bears, glaciers, and artic ice fields will be saved and real estate developers can go back to scamming waterfront property all over the world. So, go ahead and buy that offshore island.

[MaxBialystock]

All you need to know is that the oil companies have defined a formal strategy in which the objective is to delay action by creating doubt. It's exactly the same they did with tobacco, and why invent something new when that well tested scam works? Financially it makes perfect sense, though it is deeply immoral.

When you look at the junk science, well non-science is more accurate, that Inhofe spews, you'll have to also seriously question the IQ of a lot of people. The "arguments" are so lousy (but there are many of them) that you have to really be poorly informed to buy them. But Inhofe and his likes know that they can control people by controlling the information sources. I've seen many people who will actually reference Inhofe as scientific ("this guy goes directly to the science"), which just shows how effective the propaganda has been, and still is.

[SD61]

I'm with Kurzweil. Global warming is real, but we don't need to return to the stone ages to solve the problem. The matter is fast becoming a political wedge issue, due to an irritatingly poor understanding of science by the mainstream media, and it is now being used wholesale against ANY and all pro-technology development.

Technology can (and will) save the planet, if we play our cards wisely, and the last thing we need right now is an ignorant outcry by the uninformed masses, demanding a slowdown or stoppage of genuine research. Don't get me wrong--there is definitely plenty of greed and outright criminal behavior in corporate America, particularly in the oil and defense industries, but we cannot broadbrush all business enterprise as inherently evil.

We need more positive thinkers like Ray Kurzweil, who advocate using technology to move rapidly and efficiently FORWARD, rather than backward.

[UncleDave]

It Is amazing,as some commenters have pointed out Here,how the naysayers are becoming more desperate,to the point where they end up looking foolish."T­his winter is the coldest on record' when Winter started YESTERDAY. Or another giving stats from Britain.We­ll I can state stats from Australia where the last five summers have had Increasing Temps.Then I could look foolish and conclude that Australia is sucking in all the heat,therefore making Britain cooler. I could,but I am not foolish ,nor willing to look so. But,when presidential candidates state publically that Evolution doesn't exist,then ,well what do I know?

[Norpag]

It is depressing how many of the comments on climate change articles resort to ad - hominem attacks on the motivations and sources of funding of scientists on both sides of this issue.Each side is free to hold their own interpretation of the data and what speculations and projections they draw from it. They are not free however to invent their own basic data.I think most investigators could agree to the following statements as factual.
The Data from Britains Climate Research Unit show the following. The global temperature in Nov 2007 was 0.22 degrees cooler than in Nov 1997.
There has been no net warming in the last 10 years.
The earth warmed by about 0.8 degrees in the 20th century.
Annual mean temperatures peaked in 1998.
1998 might have been unusually hot but 2006 was cooler than 2002,2003,2004 and 2005.

2007 thru Nov averages out to be cooler than 2006.
During this 10 year period CO2 increased by >5%.while the net temperature increase was zero.

The above are facts what follows are reasonable projections.

In the light of the above it seems to me that any objective person might well not jump to the conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is the main climate driver.

It is increasingly evident that the sun is the main climate driver. The distribution of the time series of temperature has the same Levy - walk statistics as the distribution of solar activity as measured by sun spot numbers showing the likely correlation between solar activity and temperature. (See Scafetta et al Physical review E 2004)
The next two sunspot cycles are probably going to be times of unusually reduced solar activity leading to falling temperatures for the next 20 years and perhaps until mid century.
The next five - 10 years of temperature data will resolve most of the uncertainty between the anthropogenic CO2 and Solar protagonists.

In the light of the net lack of warming in the last 10 years there is no need for any drastic actions such as carbon caps etc until these unceratainties have been resolved.

[Dendroica]

I wish this website was more designed to generate actual debate, rather than simple back-and-forth naysaying. Because I would love to have the opportunity to debate any of the AGW illiterates here, to an actual debate without the ability for them to draw from real-time resources.

Just from general knowledge, without the ability to bring in non-scientific sources that they google without even understanding what they read, most of them are unable to argue coherently their own case.

[jbatch]

Meteorologists are to climatologists as journalists are to historians.

You wouldn't ask a journalist about the fall of Rome, and you would go to a historian for the headlines of the day.

There's a reason these lists have a derth of real experts -- they can't find any, so they bring in cats, dogs, and the kitchen sink and try to make it a numbers game.

The very few climatologists these lists inevitably include -- folks like Singer and Michaels -- are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry.

The remarkable thing about all this is that the press keeps getting played. Folks like Revkin should realy have their credentials snatched from them; they do little more than filter info -- good or bad -- with no due dilligence on its source or veracity.

Simply reporting what's said, rather than assessing the real state of knowldege, reduces reporting to a battle of words, with no ties to reality.

That's how we got into Iraq, and that's how we are sustaining a "debate" that should have ended a decade ago.