Senator Responds to CNN Hit Piece On Global Warming

[rushmc 23]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
See his responce in the news anywhere?

I didn't think so.

Interesting comments on ice and polar bears.


Speeches & Statements

AMERICA REACTS TO SPEECH DEBUNKING MEDIA GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 28, 2006
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

Contact: Marc Morano (202) 224-5762 ( marc_morano@epw.senate.gov ) Matt Dempsey ( matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov ) (202) 224-9797

Click Here To Watch or Read Full Speech from Monday Debunking Global Warming Hysteria

This past Monday, I took to this floor for the eighth time to discuss global warming. My speech focused on the myths surrounding global warming and how our national news media has embarrassed itself with a 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories.

Over the last century, the media has flip-flopped between global cooling and warming scares. At the turn of the 20th century, the media peddled an upcoming ice age -- and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 1930s, the alarm was raised about disaster from global warming -- and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 70’s, an alarm for another ice age was raised -- and they said the world was coming to an end. And now, today we are back to fears of catastrophic global warming -- and again they are saying the world is coming to an end.

Today I would like to share the fascinating events that have unfolded since my floor speech on Monday.

CNN CRITICIZES MY SPEECH

This morning, CNN ran a segment criticizing my speech on global warming and attempted to refute the scientific evidence I presented to counter climate fears.

First off, CNN reporter Miles O’Brien inaccurately claimed I was “too busy” to appear on his program this week to discuss my 50 minute floor speech on global warming. But they were told I simply was not available on Tuesday or Wednesday.

I did appear on another CNN program today -- Thursday -- which I hope everyone will watch. The segment airs tonight on CNN’s Headline News at 7pm and repeats at 9pm and midnight Eastern.

Second, CNN’s O’Brien falsely claimed that I was all “alone on Capitol Hill” when it comes to questioning global warming.

Mr. O’Brien is obviously not aware that the U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto style carbon caps when it voted down the McCain-Lieberman climate bill 60-28 last year – an even larger margin than its rejection in 2003.


Third, CNN’s O’Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O’Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.


CNN’s O’Brien also criticized me for saying polar bears are thriving in the Arctic. But he ignored that the person I was quoting is intimately familiar with the health of polar bear populations. Let me repeat what biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, said recently:


“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”


CNN’s O’Brien also ignores the fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s than today.


O’Brien also claimed that the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.


So it seems my speech struck a nerve with the mainstream media. Their only response was to cherry pick the science in a failed attempt to refute me.


It seems that it is business as usual for many of them. Sadly, it looks like my challenge to the media to be objective and balanced has fallen on deaf ears.


SPEECH BYPASSED THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Despite the traditional media’s failed attempt to dismiss the science I presented to counter global warming alarmism, the American people bypassed the tired old traditional media by watching CSPAN or clicking on the Drudge Report and reading the speech online.

From the flood of overwhelming positive feedback I received, I can tell you the American people responded enthusiastically to my message.

The central theme was not only one of thanks, but expressing frustration with the major media outlets because they knew in their guts that what they have been hearing in the news was false and misleading.

Here is a brief sampling:

Janet of Saugus, Massachusetts: “Thank you Senator Inhofe. Finally someone with the guts to stand up and call it what it is -- a sham. I think you have taken over Toby Keith's place as my favorite Oklahoman!!”

Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It's about time someone with a loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage - if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”

Kevin of Jacksonville, Florida writes: “I’m so glad that we have leaders like you who are willing to stand up against the onslaught of liberal media, Hollywood and the foolish elected officials on this topic. Please keep up the fight!”

Steven of Phoenix, Arizona writes: “As a scientist, I am extremely pleased to see that there is at least one member of congress who recognizes the global warming hysteria for what it is. I am extremely impressed by the Senator's summary and wish he was running for President.”

Craig of Grand Rapids, Michigan writes: “As a meteorologist I strongly agree with everything you said.”

My speech ignited an internet firestorm. So much so, that my speech became the subject of a heated media controversy in New Zealand. Halfway across the globe, a top official from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition challenged New Zealand’s television station to balance what he termed “alarmist doom-casting” and criticized them for failing to report the views of scientists in their own country that I cited here in America.

( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0609/S00306.htm )

As the controversy in New Zealand shows, global warming hysteria has captured more than just the American media.

The reaction to my speech keeps coming in: Just this morning, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper wrote an editorial calling my speech “an unusual display of reason” on the Senate floor.

I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ’s Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen’s office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune.

As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money.

But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ's questions about the 'Ketchup Money’ grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.

ABC NEWS PROMOTES CLIMATE HYSTERIA

I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.

Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”

The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook -- warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.

But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.

( http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2374968 )

You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” ( http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 )

On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.

I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes -- is increasing.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.

I hope my other colleagues will join me on the floor and start speaking out to debunk hysteria surrounding global warming. This issue is too important to our generation and future generations to allow distortions and media propaganda to derail the economic health of our nation.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Oh, shit. then when I was in Alaska, and they showed how all the glaciers were retreating, it was all a big Ketchup conspiracy.

That observatory near Juneau, where they show how the Mendenhall glacier has retreated steadily since the early 20th century, was all a ruse.

Glad to have that cleared up.

( I did notice how the snack bar had all those dispensors of Heinz Ketchup there. )

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.

( http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2374968 )

Well, here it is :
clicky and we can let people decide if that was really what Blakewell was saying.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,070]

>Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It's about time someone with a
>loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage
>- if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being
>brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”

You know, after I saw the Alaskan pack ice retreating, the Knik glacier shrinking, the shorelines of Barrow eroding away and read reports by hundreds of scientists describing the degree of climate change we are experiencing - I became concerned. Thank god Al in Connecticut has put my fears to rest! If only we could have more area men like Al to assuage our fears.

I am anxiously awaiting Al's statements on terrorism, H5N1 containment strategies and coal power plant pollution. We will all breathe easier when we hear that Al doesn't believe in pollution, terrorists or avian diseases either.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It's about time someone with a
>loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage
>- if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being
>brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”

You know, after I saw the Alaskan pack ice retreating, the Knik glacier shrinking, the shorelines of Barrow eroding away and read reports by hundreds of scientists describing the degree of climate change we are experiencing - I became concerned. Thank god Al in Connecticut has put my fears to rest! If only we could have more area men like Al to assuage our fears.

I am anxiously awaiting Al's statements on terrorism, H5N1 containment strategies and coal power plant pollution. We will all breathe easier when we hear that Al doesn't believe in pollution, terrorists or avian diseases either.

No no, Bill. He's from Clinton. He's not Clinton himself.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[skymiles 3]

No matter how strong the evidence, there will always be a wack job to dispute it.

Phil

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It's about time someone with a
>loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage
>- if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being
>brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”

You know, after I saw the Alaskan pack ice retreating, the Knik glacier shrinking, the shorelines of Barrow eroding away and read reports by hundreds of scientists describing the degree of climate change we are experiencing - I became concerned. Thank god Al in Connecticut has put my fears to rest! If only we could have more area men like Al to assuage our fears.

I am anxiously awaiting Al's statements on terrorism, H5N1 containment strategies and coal power plant pollution. We will all breathe easier when we hear that Al doesn't believe in pollution, terrorists or avian diseases either.

Oh the self righteous indignation of it all. You disagree with a point and let the debate begin. Let someone disagree with you and they are some kind of nut job. Your rebuttal (here) is very revealing......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

Would you point more specifically to those? Thanks!

The only recent studies I have seen are:

(1) Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5795/1958
Science
29 September 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5795, pp. 1958 - 1960

Abstract: "Using time-variable gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission, we estimate ice mass changes over Greenland during the period April 2002 to November 2005. After correcting for the effects of spatial filtering and limited resolution of GRACE data, the estimated total ice melting rate over Greenland is –239 ± 23 cubic kilometers per year, mostly from East Greenland. This estimate agrees remarkably well with a recent assessment of –224 ± 41 cubic kilometers per year, based on satellite radar interferometry data. GRACE estimates in southeast Greenland suggest accelerated melting since the summer of 2004, consistent with the latest remote sensing measurements."

&

(2) Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5788/827
Science
11 August 2006
Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 827 - 831

Abstract: "Antarctic snowfall exhibits substantial variability over a range of time scales, with consequent impacts on global sea level and the mass balance of the ice sheets. To assess how snowfall has affected the thickness of the ice sheets in Antarctica and to provide an extended perspective, we derived a 50-year time series of snowfall accumulation over the continent by combining model simulations and observations primarily from ice cores. There has been no statistically significant change in snowfall since the 1950s, indicating that Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere."

From opening paragraph (requires subscription for full access): "Global sea level (GSL) has been increasing by 1.7 mm year–1 over the past century (1) and 2.8 mm year–1 over the past decade (2). One of the greatest uncertainties in predictions of GSL rise is the contribution of the Antarctic ice sheets (3). The Antarctic ice budget is balanced by the buildup of snowfall in the interior and wastage due to melting and calving of ice along the coastal margins. Future scenarios from global climate models (GCMs) suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate, mainly due to the greater moisture-holding capacity of warmer air (4), partially offsetting enhanced loss at the ice sheet peripheries."

"Perplexing temperature trends have been reported over Antarctica since continuous monitoring began with the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957–1958, varying by the season, the region, and the time period analyzed (5, 6). A recent study suggests a strong tropospheric warming signal has been manifested over Antarctica during winters since the early 1970s (7), the season during which much of the continent receives its maximum snowfall (8). Satellite-based ice velocity and altimetry measurements indicate that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been thinning over the past decade, with a contribution to GSL rise of 0.13 to 0.16 mm year–1 (9, 10), consistent with widespread melting of ice sheet grounding lines (11). In light of these studies, it is essential to assess whether Antarctic snowfall has been increasing."

What did you mean by "on balance"?

Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,106]

What makes Inhofe an expert, other than that he seems to agree with you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,534]

Why he's the chairman of the Senate Environmental committee! That automatically makes him an expert, doesn't it?

One can find someone who disagrees with almost any position. I'll bet ol' Al in Connecticut gets quoted more and more often as time goes on

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Why he's the chairman of the Senate Environmental committee! That automatically makes him an expert, doesn't it?

One can find someone who disagrees with almost any position. I'll bet ol' Al in Connecticut gets quoted more and more often as time goes on

Wendy W.

Well, following that logic, when do GWB, Inhofe and ol' Al get their Nobel Prizes (Peace, Physics, and Chemistry)?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

I fully expected the type of responces I am getting here. I know most of you have already set the final post in this debate because "nearly all" researchers agree with your view.

Well, not all agree with the "only valid view" as you all see it.

If someone wants to talk details and facts (as he did use some references and names of researchers (who must be nuts or crazy because they do not agree with most of you)) I am will to listen. Continue to asail the source, and I will sit here and smile

I have found the the retoric gets the most crazy as the truth floats closer to the surface..........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why he's the chairman of the Senate Environmental committee! That automatically makes him an expert, doesn't it?

One can find someone who disagrees with almost any position. I'll bet ol' Al in Connecticut gets quoted more and more often as time goes on

Wendy W.

Well, following that logic, when do GWB, Inhofe and ol' Al get their Nobel Prizes (Peace, Physics, and Chemistry)?

It seems you have no problem with the committees when their observations agree with your own...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

enjoying those who are "stuck on stupid".... at times by looking in the mirror.

[rushmc 23]

then stop looking!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

It seems you have no problem with the committees when their observations agree with your own...

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

If someone wants to talk details and facts (as he did use some references and names of researchers (who must be nuts or crazy because they do not agree with most of you)) I am will to listen.

Then why don't you reply to nerdgirl?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

There are reports touting both sides of the debate. My point in this post was to once again debunk the "most scientists" type of statement.

As with debabates with billvon I do not necessarly disgree that the global climate is currently in a warming cycle but, I do have major problems with the global warming alarmists claims that man is the major cause.

The other point I am making is this topic (as with many others) is mainly getting one side of the story from the media. Sensationalizm is not good journalism.

It is posslible to research the media history on this too.

As for the details. I only pulled the text of the speach from the Senator. Searching for the "other" side of the issue on the internet is possible but is it buried in the volumes data that is out there and takes some time.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

There are reports touting both sides of the debate. My point in this post was to once again debunk the "most scientists" type of statement.

.

Since you haven't surveyed "most scientists", and neither has Inhofe, how can you have debunked it? You flatter yourself without justification.

I suppose you are next going to tell us that the National Academy of Sciences is a left wing propaganda machine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There are reports touting both sides of the debate. My point in this post was to once again debunk the "most scientists" type of statement.

.

Since you haven't surveyed "most scientists", and neither has Inhofe, how can you have debunked it? You flatter yourself without justification.

I suppose you are next going to tell us that the National Academy of Sciences is a left wing propaganda machine.

Thanks! I needed that!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

There are reports touting both sides of the debate. My point in this post was to once again debunk the "most scientists" type of statement.

Fair enough; your point is taken.

Would (note: I'm not asking "could") you provide the specific Nature & Science references that you mentioned? I searched using the key words suggested in your earlier post but found only those that I listed. Thanks!

Quote

The other point I am making is this topic (as with many others) is mainly getting one side of the story from the media. Sensationalizm is not good journalism.

Couldn't agree more with you on your last point! Hence, my question on what you meant by "on balance." Semi-rhetorically, do you advocate that scientific technical journals publish/push through the peer-review process research articles that don't stand up to rigorous academic vetting purely so that the "other perspective" be presented?

Or that vetted science not be published in order to give equal space to the other side? Only one out of some thousand manuscripts submitted to Science or Nature makes it to publication, largely because of competition.

A slightly different version of the first scenario had been observed in medical journals in which researchers had not declared their financial ties to pharmaceutical firms.

Congressional hearings are a completely different creature. Science policy and public policy in a democracy is much larger than facts ... as frustrating as that can be to scientists!
Most scientists aren't swayed by what "most" anybody thinks, but most like data. In that spirit, to balderize a movie line: " show me the data"
VR,
marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[quade 4]

Quote

Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It's about time someone with a loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage - if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”

Uh . . . is it just me or does that name and location seem a bit contrived?

I'd love to see the sourcing on that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

A friend of mine lives in Clinton, Massachusetts. west of Boston, outside 495.

But yes, there is also a Clinton, CT.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Yeah, but come on . . . "AL" (as in Gore) of "CLINTON"?!?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver