"They've Been Cooking The Science For A Long Time": Sen. Inhofe on Climate Change
By CSPANJunkie Wednesday Nov 25, 2009 6:00pm
November 24, 2009 FOX News
From The Hill--Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research:
The publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that climate change skeptics say proves the threat is exaggerated has prompted one key Republican senator to call for an investigation into their research. [...]
However, it is not immediately clear what Inhofe hopes to accomplish with his proposed hearing. U.S. lawmakers and scientists routinely cite IPCC evidence when discussing climate change legislation, but Congress can hardly force the United Nations to halt spending on a program over which it has no jurisdiction.
Rather, Inhofe perhaps hopes to deal a symbolic blow to next month's climate change conference, at which IPCC is likely to play a major role.
And The Washington Independent--Is ‘Climategate’ Really the Game-Changer Skeptics Say It Is?:
On Friday, the news broke that hackers had obtained and released thousands of email exchanges between climate scientists at England’s University of East Anglia. Climate change skeptics pounced on the leak, dubbing it “Climategate” and proclaiming that the questionable communications between the scientists proved that global warming was based on cooked data.
So what exactly in these emails is causing such celebration among the deniers? The Daily Telegraph compiled “the most contentious quotes,” and while they’re certainly embarrassing for their authors, they don’t come close to undermining the very basis of climate science.
And more from The Wonk Room--ClimateGate: Hacked Emails Reveal Global Warming Deniers Are Crazed Conspiracy Theorists:
Thousands of “emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server” — a top climate research center in the United Kingdom — “were hacked recently” and dumped on a Russian web server. Global warming deniers are sifting through the illegally obtained letters of private correspondence for “proof” that the scientific consensus on climate change is actually a global conspiracy. [...]
Evidently due to this e-mail conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it’s the hottest decade in history.
Login or Register to post comments.
Doesn't Oklahoma have the most oil after Texas and Alaska? If you look close enough you can see the strings of Exxon/Mobil moving Inhofe's lips.
Follwing the money:
Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Industry Total Indivs PACs
Oil & Gas $429,950 $250,350 $179,600
Retired $287,968 $287,968 $0
Electric Utilities $206,654 $31,454 $175,200
Lobbyists $175,233 $167,904 $7,329
Republican/Conservative $161,725 $139,925 $21,800
____________________
Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Koch Industries $39,500 $30,500 $9,000
Murray Energy $30,600 $25,600 $5,000
Contran Corp $21,500 $13,200 $8,300
Devon Energy $19,500 $9,500 $10,000
OGE Energy $17,800 $11,800 $6,000
___________________________
Cycle Source of Funds, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte only
legend Individual Contributions $4,038,103 (66%)
legend PAC Contributions $1,901,205 (31%)
legend Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
legend Other $206,317 (3%)
_______________________________________
Top 20 Contributors to Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
Rank ↓ Contributor ↓ Total ↓ Indivs ↓ PACs ↓
1 Koch Industries $64,500 $30,500 $34,000
2 Anadarko Petroleum $41,100 $6,600 $34,500
3 BAE Systems $37,700 $2,700 $35,000
4 Retired $37,550 $37,550 $0
5 National Assn of Home Builders $35,000 $0 $35,000
5 Valero Energy $35,000 $0 $35,000
5 National Assn of Convenience Stores $35,000 $0 $35,000
8 Southern Co $34,000 $0 $34,000
9 Constellation Energy $31,000 $0 $31,000
10 Murray Energy $30,600 $25,600 $5,000
11 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $30,000 $0 $30,000
11 Sunoco Inc $30,000 $0 $30,000
11 American Bankers Assn $30,000 $0 $30,000
11 Associated Builders & Contractors $30,000 $0 $30,000
15 Jefferson Consulting Group $28,400 $28,400 $0
16 Vern Clark & Assoc $27,700 $27,700 $0
17 Edison Electric Institute $27,236 $0 $27,236
18 Nuclear Energy Institute $27,000 $0 $27,000
19 Williams & Jensen $26,100 $25,100 $1,000
19 Capitol Hill Consulting Group $26,100 $26,100 $0
Is this moron's reptilian brain. He must have snorted up too many toxic hydrocarbons while groveling to his masters at Exxon/Mobil to cause that severe of brain damage.
Just like all groups, from all walks of life, “scientists” can be bitter, childish, contentious, and rude (right, Inhofe?). Science is not infallible, nor are scientists. But science is self-correcting and does inch ever closer to truth via a valid method.
People communicating privately via emails does not a conspiracy make. People communicating privately via emails is also not science. I’ve not read the emails, but I’m very sure they PROVE NOTHING.
Perhaps. But these are private emails and many are scientific "locker room" discussions and are full of jargon and non-standard usage of language that is easily misunderstood. If you wish to understand better, you can read here for details and explanation from one of the victims of the hack:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Really, there is not much there there. These are top-notch scientists just doing their work, but for those who (Inhofe and his ilk) have no effing idea...well they will read what they are able to/wish to read into them; these interpretations have next to nothing to do with what the writers of the emails meant in pretty much every case.
By far the most embarassing emails are ones that discuss deleting emails in response to a what were a series of spurious FOI filings [in the U. K., which were all rejected. (the a FOI is a different animal in the UK)]. Apparently, these emails were deleted in a hasty, poorly thought out response to these. This is complete speculation on my part, but I'll guess here that there were emails that specifically referred to various pain-in-the-ass "tools" of the "denier" community and their repeated efforts to get data from CRU in unflattering terms that would have been troublesome, given the circumstances.
One last thing I would like to point out is that typically AGW deniers are utterly sincere in their beliefs; broad-brushing them cynically as corporate lackeys is just not right (i wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the case with Inhofe...not that he isn't a corporate hack; i just think it's very likely that he doesn't/can't get the climate science; his ignorance serves his hackery well). Being ignorant and unable to understand the science behind AGW should be expected to be common as the science is more complicated and less intuitive than, say, believing in evolution which is an older concept with tons of easy to comprehend evidence to support it but is still accepted by only about 50% of US adults.
To be clear, yes, there is plenty of compelling evidence (pictures!) for AGW if you buy the concept, but most people who accept AGW have, in truth, only an intuitive sense of what is wrong with what people like Lindzen, McIntyre, Michaels, Gray, etc., are saying and couldn't tell you why. If you are ideologically predisposed, you'll just believe these guys.
Coe doesn't demand doctrinal loyalty, only a willingness to do business behind the scenes, and liberals are free to join him in the back room. Testifying before Congress about global warming in 2007, Al Gore came under angry assault from Senator James Inhofe, a longtime member of the Family. Gore blunted the attack by invoking their "mutual friend, Doug Coe," with whom, he suggested, he and Inhofe ought to meet away from the cameras. "You know what I think of when I think of Doug Coe?" Schenck asked, his voice thick with admiration and laced with envy. “I think literally of the guy in the smoky back room, you can't even see his face. He sits in the corner, and you see the cigar, and you see the flame, and you hear his voice—but you never see his face. He's that shadowy figure. Nobody ever sees him. At the Prayer Breakfast, he's never on the dais, but he puts the whole thing together. Nobody speaks from that podium, including the president, without Doug's nod of approval. It's a delicate play: He brings everyone together."
THE FAMILY (pp. 259-260)
Check out this video and see if you think he accuses doctors of insurance fraud to supplement their lack of reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=3377
Republicans are about as dangerous as little babies,... playing with matches.
And never want to go to such an assbackwards and intellectually desolate sorry ass excuse for a state. This dumbfuck Inhofe couldn't get a job handing out paper towels and mints in the mens room of any of Chicago's dance clubs.
What does Oklahoma have to offer?
Not much. if anything other than oil.
Oh, btw, Happy Thanksgiving Left.
I hope you have a very nice day tomorrow. :)
On Climate change.
Alaska is warming at 4 times the rate of other states.
Link here.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19463513/ns/us_news-environment
I guess I don't mind U of Oklahoma's football team. :)
Both sides of my family were Dust Bowl "Okies" during the 30s and 40s straggling westward over about a ten year period. When I was young, I used to enjoy going back and visiting friends and family that had managed to hang on there through the bad times but this was before the carpetbaggers and oil barons took over. Haven't been back in almost 15 years now for just the reasons some of you are talking about here.
Inhofe is a perfect example of why "you can't go home again"... because by the time you get around to trying, some corporate owned pussy like him has torn it down to put up corporate offices and condos and "home" no longer exists.
Ya. all conservatives want to go home again! [well teabaggers anyway, not the barons. The baggers want to go all the way home to 1776]
Make that 1773 - to get 'dem selfs some salty-tea...
I moved back to my ancestral home in Europe and have never been happier.
is embarrassing as hell. I ended up in this state due to not entirely self caused circumstances and to think that this evangelic\moronic\hatemongeric creep represents me is just plain embarrassing. It's not my fault, I hate him too.
For years I thought the Republican Party were the sane ones - then I saw the light. Over the past year they have turned into complete loons. They use astroterf groups to spread their points of view, they steal to make a point and now they have Sara the simplton leading them. This is getting scarry, folks!!!
The Republican politicians are not complete loons in this case, they're hired guns in the employ of the combustion corporations. The constituencies that they appeal to are complete loons, and they have to speak to these constituencies in a language that they'll understand, namely loony-tunes.
It started farther back than just the past year. John Rogers (Kung Fu Monkey ) occasionally blogs about politics (when he's not writing about, well, writing, comics, music, the entertainment industry, etc.). He pretty much had the same thought about how Republicans have changed as you and I seem to have. Check this blog entry "I Miss Republicans" from late 2004. Hit the nail on the head with that one.
That A GOP doesn't realize these were stolen emails that most likely were altered and/or only parts given out to sell a narrative.
Backroom deals, self-serving goals, and hidden agendas are how people like Inhofe work. When Inhofe sees these types of workings by those who use the scientific method, this assures him that the scientific method works the same. It doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what’s in these emails, edited or not.
Much of what gets published (selection not content) IS political in scientific circles. Analysis is always open to debate. For the most part, however, the bickering and squabbling is background noise. In politics – it’s the music.
i bet there are a lot of emails to choo choo choose from.
It's quite clear where the motive of the combustion/pollution advocates is coming from. I don't see the money motive for those who see global warming as man made.
Here's the NY Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/ear...
I don't see leadership coming from the U.S. on this issue. I think it's going to be up to Europe and other progressive nations to have trade embargoes against polluters. Money is the only thing that the U.S. will understand. Otherwise, all I see is a lot of pontificating and foot stomping that will go nowhere.
I guess these individuals think their lifeless corporation is worth sacrificing their lives, and their children's lives within the near future. I can't accept that these individuals don't believe what the scientific community is concluding.
these are people that believe in ghosts and devils so why oh why won't they believe in global warming? They do.
Some of the emails talk about weather as if it were climate.
Ya. and that's because none of these emails have been peer reviewed.
I hope people are made aware of this up front...
That would be nice. Most of them look like they came from 1st year, undergraduate interns.
In my neck of the woods just a few days ago, we broke the warm temperature record for the date. Not by one degree or less, but by FOUR AND A HALF DEGREES !
These guys will be in denial while stuffing special interest money in their pockets until they're on a space shuttle to some moon base fleeing their disintegrating planet while the rest of us croak. At least that's what they probably dream of at night.
So people are hacking the university are they? Possibly global warming deniers. In a word Republicans. Or in another word Republiscum.
Neophyte.
Troglodyte.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEswYNdBR1Y
Don't get me wrong, I don't know if I'm for it or against it, but, wasn't this planet, basically, a swamp in the very beginning? There were giant lizards and lots and lots of water....All over the place. And, are we using their fossil fuel to return it back to it's original state? Is it full circle? Science is still working on that one. This planet was a swamp. And then something happened. But the smog is killing us, I agree.
Who can't hyper link ? Or even post a link?
Same here... I thought it was me?
Seems like an old or different drupal software ver.? Somthin like that.
Let's try this.
Using Firefox....Because maybe it's a browser thang.
Must be my Firefox settings, thanks again.
Using MSN browser (IE)
Happy Thanksgiving!
I admire Gates, but prefer FF.
Gobble Gobble... ♥
Chrome is good too.
Google Google
I'm in favor of an open source attitude though. I'm not inclined to believe Google is? I appreciate your time, nonetheless. ♥
No problem (mostly I wanted to do the Google Google thing).
I use FF as my main browser but test my software with almost all browsers. BTW - I never run FF without FireBug.
Erased by author.
:P
I did not change a thing, now I'm able to do this
Could it have been a SBC/AT&T thing? (My ISP)
[Nope! It was a server thing. Thanks for your patience. Site Monitor]
Did you look outside for a van or truck out of place?
I'm thinkin maybe NSA/FBI?
Where is my foil hat?
:)
I need my foil for my fowl. ;)
I hope this works.
.
The topic is global warming...Or are you some kind of troll?
:P
!
:)
Your Excellency ;)
From the party of cooking the books?
Do the GOP understand what irony is?
Yeah, it's a conspiracy.
AND THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN ON IT!
Those arctic ice and glacier photos from around the world are all faked.
What a lowlife scumbag pos Inhofe is.
How does a transparent liar and corporate whore like him keep getting elected?
are wrong then the results are: less pollution, less pollution related deaths, cheaper energy (less demand), better balance of trade (don't have to buy the oil if we ain't using it).
If Inhofe is wrong: millions dead and billions homeless. Most of the world live right by the sea.
I would rather be safe than sorry especially when its cheaper.
5 - 10 years ago when there still was some reasonable doubt in the scientific community about GW. But now we don't really need to resort to that kind of argument. The evidence is irrefutable and there isn't a serious climate scientist who denies it. Even the ones who work for big oil admit that its real although they may quibble about what the biggest cause is or how to fix it. My favorite argument (in the sense of making me want to scream and hit something) is that global warming is real but its too late to do anything about it now so we may as well just live with it.
... talk about Freudian slip. LOL
If only all these climate change deniers would do the right thing, and prove all of us how harmless these gasses are... by starting their cars in a locked garage and give us minute by minute updates on how wonderful those fumes are.
Freud was into ladies lingerie?
That was Vitter.
Just what are Inhofe's qualifications or what experience does he have that make him the one to judge the validity of climate scientists' research? Has he got a degree in any technical field? Has he headed any large research teams? Didn't think so. His so-called investigation will be nothing more than another forum where he can complain about global warming with the added twist of wasting the taxpayers' money. Heck, every time the outside temperature goes below 72 degrees, he seems to find a news camera crew to claim that global warming is a hoax. Why does he needs to spend Congress's time putting on this show? Ah, that's right. Obama's going to Copenhagen soon. And Cap and Trade will be the new hot topic in the Senate.
does he have that make him the one to judge the validity of climate scientists' research?
You must have missed them they were posted in the 2nd post:
Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Industry Total Indivs PACs
Oil & Gas $429,950 $250,350 $179,600
Retired $287,968 $287,968 $0
Electric Utilities $206,654 $31,454 $175,200
Lobbyists $175,233 $167,904 $7,329
Republican/Conservative $161,725 $139,925 $21,800
____________________
Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Koch Industries $39,500 $30,500 $9,000
Murray Energy $30,600 $25,600 $5,000
Contran Corp $21,500 $13,200 $8,300
Devon Energy $19,500 $9,500 $10,000
OGE Energy $17,800 $11,800 $6,000
___________________________
Cycle Source of Funds, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte only
legend Individual Contributions $4,038,103 (66%)
legend PAC Contributions $1,901,205 (31%)
legend Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
legend Other $206,317 (3%)
_______________________________________
Top 20 Contributors to Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
Rank ↓ Contributor ↓ Total ↓ Indivs ↓ PACs ↓
1 Koch Industries $64,500 $30,500 $34,000
2 Anadarko Petroleum $41,100 $6,600 $34,500
3 BAE Systems $37,700 $2,700 $35,000
4 Retired $37,550 $37,550 $0
5 National Assn of Home Builders $35,000 $0 $35,000
5 Valero Energy $35,000 $0 $35,000
5 National Assn of Convenience Stores $35,000 $0 $35,000
8 Southern Co $34,000 $0 $34,000
9 Constellation Energy $31,000 $0 $31,000
10 Murray Energy $30,600 $25,600 $5,000
11 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $30,000 $0 $30,000
11 Sunoco Inc $30,000 $0 $30,000
11 American Bankers Assn $30,000 $0 $30,000
11 Associated Builders & Contractors $30,000 $0 $30,000
15 Jefferson Consulting Group $28,400 $28,400 $0
16 Vern Clark & Assoc $27,700 $27,700 $0
17 Edison Electric Institute $27,236 $0 $27,236
18 Nuclear Energy Institute $27,000 $0 $27,000
19 Williams & Jensen $26,100 $25,100 $1,000
19 Capitol Hill Consulting Group $26,100 $26,100 $0
This is a man who believes the world is only 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days.
He has as much understanding of climate science as an amoeba has of flying a rocket to the moon. But be sure, that won't stop him from putting on his fuck-tard hat and spewing whatever the "smart" people at Mobile-Exxon wrote on his note cards.
It surprises me that humans as a species will probably die out because 1% of the population wanted to have more than 99% of all the money. Don't these people realize that wealth doesn't do shit to stop a super-hurricane, or tidal waves? They are going extinct with the rest of us no matter how many gold toilet seats they own.
these nutjobs get back in the majority watch out!!!!!
That's why, if the rest of the world perceives global warming as a greater threat than terrorism, that they'll have to put some teeth in global warming treaties, and decline to trade with, or use as a reserve currency of, any nation that is exacerbating the global warming problem, starting with the largest per-capita polluters.
It's not "if" the lunatics and mad men get back the majority but when , and man , look out because the worst is yet to come . You sure got that right .
These nutjobs will finish off what's left of America; steal the remainder of what little is left for the bottom 95%, push unemployment up to 40%, and the Teabaggers will celebrate by putting their crayons and signs down, deliriously happy that they have taken their country back!
Especially after President Palin enacts a signing statement that says the constitution is unconstitutional. You betcha' - wink wink.
You can't make this stuff up.
The archive was posted on alt.binaries.test on usenet. Didn't see a smoking gun so far. Pretty much scientist stuff. I think they'll have to cherry pick stuff out of context to come up with a smoking gun.
Those right wing SOB's will bury us all , the ONLY thing they care about is money , profit and more profit ... for themselves and their wealthy bosses, greed has driven them right outta their minds .
The tactic is simple, instead of arguing the science, they are going to argue the ethics of the scientists. Climate change is far too inconvenient for their libertarian philosophy.
personal wealth."
What better spokesman for a philosophy that says; "we are ignorant, supersticious, uncurious fools, hell bent on committing global suicide in the quest for even larger corporate profits, and you cannot stop us from taking you down with us. We read the bible, and that's all you need to know."
Otherwise, why would ALL the scientists agree:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement." --wikipedia
John William Draper (1811-1882), English-born American chemist, historian, and photographer. Professor at New York University. First person to take an astrophotograph (the moon, 1840) and a deep space photograph (Orion nebula, 1880). Coauthor of the "conflict theory," which holds that religion and science are almost always at odds.
"The history of science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on the one hand, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interest on the other." --John William Draper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Charles Caleb Colton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friend,
It's true that the Cato Institute is leading the fight against the explosion of federal government growth in Washington. And it's hard to deny that there are "few remaining limited-government types" in Congress and in the White House. But those of us who disagree with them are hardly "hunkered down." Indeed, [I have never seen our side more energized and clear-eyed in its commitment to reclaim our liberties and our government from the statists and big-government advocates of every stripe who now infest our nation's capital.
Far from 'hunkering down," we're fighting back—most recently with the enclosed two full-page ads in dozens of major newspapers across the nation. Those ads led with the challenging headline:
"With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true."
The first ad dealt with President Obama's claim that there is `no disagreement" about the need for trillions of dollars of federal spending to get us out of the recession and financial meltdown. Turns out, there is plenty of disagreement. Nearly 400 top economists, including several Nobel laureates, signed our ad taking exception to the president's claim.
The second ad cites President Obama's assertion that "the science is beyond dispute": the threat of climate change is `urgent" and demands immediate, radical action. Again, hundreds of top scientists, including the highly respected Richard Lindzen of MIT, signed on to our ad, making the point that "the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated." There is plenty of scientific dispute over climate change hysteria—enough not to rush headlong into crippling our economy in a costly attempt to stop an unproven threat.
What is truly frightening about the Obama White House is its apparent unwillingness to even admit that there is a debate over these important issues, much less engage in that debate.
This is my take on this particular subject, and I wish more laymen like me would adopt the same because everytime I use it to a man or woman regardles of their opinion I've received no argument.
I'm not smart enough to know if mankinds industrialization of the planet is the cause of global warming or not, but do you honestly think we can't use our resources more efficiently and cleaner? If you don't then who do you think you're bullshitting?
This entire video is science fiction. I don't think that Inhofe can even read. I suggest that we send his address to a starving polar bear in search of food. What kind of qualifications do you need to be in the Senate? Cleatly, none if Inhofe is a example.
I almost watched that clip. I make it a point to never watch anything from Faux News. No matter if you believe it's real or just a liberal plot to suck your brains out, it's most likely too late to do anything about it now. Personally, I believe climate change is real and I believe all the blame is on us as a species. I can remember the scientific world starting to talk about it in the mid '70s. They also said there would be a point of no return, which I, again, believe has been reached. So if the emission of every greenhouse gas known to man were stopped tomorrow, it would still take the planet at a century to return to a normal pattern. All anyone can do now is prepare and adapt. I read somewhere the Midwestern U.S. is already showing weather patterns that are common for semi-arid desert.
Our current efforts, while commendable, are little more than putting a band aid on a hemorrhage. In the meantime, we hear both a chorus of good intentions with no action plan and the moronic idiotocracy represented by swine like Inhofe.
All of the above represent a massive IOU to the future. You wonder what future generations will think of our self absorption and apathy when they realize that we had such a good time at their expense.
I don't understand people who say "I believe X" and then give some opinion about evolution or climate change or other scientific issues with no justification. Its not a poll and it doesn't really matter what you "believe" these are scientific questions with scientific answers. In this case you are absolutely wrong that "its too late" and you are just feeding into the deniers by saying it. Actually to be more precise it is too late to have no consequences from GW. We already HAVE had changes and no matter what will continue to have them. But its not a switch that is either on or off, its a continuum and we are at the early stages of the damage now. There is a lot more to come and how bad it is depends on what we do now. If "the emission of every greenhouse gas known to man were stopped tomorrow" the planet would absolutely be saved any of the really catastrophic climate changes and effects. The problem is that we won't do that, we can't really to completely stop emission of all green house gasses now would also cause massive food shortages and other catastrophes of their own. I do agree that so far the things that have been done and are being proposed are too little to late.
Login or Register to post comments.