Inhofe Attacks Children’s Book on Global Warming

[gerryhatrick]

Inhofe Attacks Children’s Book on Global Warming

Tore and the Town on Think Ice CoverJames Inhofe, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, is spending his last days in power attacking a children’s book on climate change. The book, published by the United Nations in March, is “based on the theme of climate change and on what children can do to mitigate effects of climate change.” Inhofe’s staff breathlessly notes, “The book features colorful drawings and large text to appeal to young children.”

Inhofe claims the book conveys inaccurate information about climate change to children. Actually, it’s Inhofe’s press release that’s inaccurate. Here’s an example:

“The morning after his dream, Tore sets out on a quest for knowledge about the dangers of catastrophic manmade global warming. A “snowy owl” informs Tore that “the planet’s heating up” and that both the Arctic and Antarctica “are warming almost twice as fast as elsewhere.” [EPW Note: The Arctic, according to the International Arctic Research Center was warmer during the 1930’s than today and both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding — on balance — Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.]

So, Inhofe claims Antarctica is gaining ice. There is only one study that examined all of the ice sheet on Antarctica. The study was published this March and, using NASA satellites, found, “The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.”

Some right-wing groups have used a study by Curt Davis to claim Antarctica is gaining ice. But Davis’ study only looked at the interior of the continent. Since global warming leads to more precipitation, increased snow on the interior of Antarctica is consistent with climate change. In June, Davis told ThinkProgress that using his study to claim Antarctica is gaining ice is “completely wrong.”

We could go on, but you get the idea.

This isn’t the first children’s book that Inhofe has attacked. He also smeared a book for children written by respected New York Times reporter Andy Revkin.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/13/inhofe...l-warming-book/

I know we're not supposed to engage in third party insults, but this guy is so far out to lunch it's hard to abide by that.

The insanity of having someone who has called Global Warming a "hoax" as Chairman of the Environment & Public Works committee is beyond understanding.

Good riddence to this man. He has endangered us all.

[gerryhatrick]

Global warming gets a crusader

BOXER TO HEAD SENATE ENVIRONMENT PANEL

By Margaret Talev

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON - Automakers and manufacturers, beware: There's a new environmental policy boss in town, she scowls a lot, and two of her favorite phrases are "global warming" and "extensive hearings."

The Democrats' coming takeover of Congress is expected to feel pressure for policy change on a number of fronts, from Iraq to taxes, but the starkest change may come at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, when Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., will surrender the gavel to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Her appointment was announced yesterday, but won't take effect until January.

Inhofe rejects a wide scientific consensus that human use of fossil fuels is largely responsible for catastrophic climate change, calling it "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He's accused environmental activists of exploiting people's fears to raise money and blocked legislation aimed at curbing global warming.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/...on/16015089.htm

All I can say is thank God this evil man is not the Chairman of the E&PW committee anymore.

[margrace]

Interesting show on 5th Estate last night showing that the same "scientists" who tried to discredit the health problems from 2nd had smoke in the US are now working on discrediting global warming. Fisher is very prominent in this. The have moved strongly into Canada evidently, afraid of what can happen to the Tar Sands when enough people realize the damage to the water in that area I guess.

[Canadian Blue]

All I can say is thank God this evil man is not the Chairman of the E&PW committee anymore.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, and Mussolini, all evil men. Some guy who believes Global Warming a hoax, not really evil.

[gerryhatrick]

All I can say is thank God this evil man is not the Chairman of the E&PW committee anymore.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, and Mussolini, all evil men. Some guy who believes Global Warming a hoax, not really evil.

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

[cybercoma]

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

Your label is inappropriate and makes light of what truly evil men in history have done, as such what you said is nothing more than biased tripe.

[gerryhatrick]

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

Your label is inappropriate and makes light of what truly evil men in history have done, as such what you said is nothing more than biased tripe.

Or you wish to make light of Global Warming and the suffering it will cause. One or the other I guess.

A Senator is charged with taking care of the citizens. When a Senator spends all his energy deceiving his citizens on a matter that impacts the world as Global Warming does, he is a criminal and should share in the responsibility for the millions Global Warming will kill.

[Canadian Blue]

So than Ralph Klein is "evil" for making the "dinosaur farts" comment.

I think you have to readjust your idea of "evil", since I doubt the Senator is evil. Besides, he is welcome to his opinion as well, no matter how "evil" you consider it to be.

[gerryhatrick]

So than Ralph Klein is "evil" for making the "dinosaur farts" comment.

I think you have to readjust your idea of "evil", since I doubt the Senator is evil. Besides, he is welcome to his opinion as well, no matter how "evil" you consider it to be.

Does Ralph Klein work tooth and nail to discredit the idea of Global Warming?

Does he have as much power and influence as the Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Comm.?

Inhofe has made the fight against the truth of Global Warming his life's work.

After hundreds of millions of deaths have been attributed to Global Warming maybe then we'll talk again about the definition of "evil".

[Canadian Blue]

So Infohole wants to debate the science around Global Warming, why not let him....

Inhofe has made the fight against the truth of Global Warming his life's work.

After hundreds of millions of deaths have been attributed to Global Warming maybe then we'll talk again about the definition of "evil".

I doubt he wants to be responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Besides, some scientists dispute Global Warming as well, I wouldn't call them "evil". I'd tolerate their views since were a tolerant society and are supposed to be accomodating to everybodies views.

Why don't you get the whole story about what Inhofe believes and then tell us about how "evil" he is. Just because you disagree with a person that doesn't make him "evil".

Idi Amin EVIL, Inhofe, not really all that evil in comparison!!!

[gerryhatrick]

Besides, some scientists dispute Global Warming as well, I wouldn't call them "evil".

Name them.

I will take special joy in this topic exposing the corruption of any scientist who's on your side.

[Canuck E Stan]

After hundreds of millions of deaths have been attributed to Global Warming ......

Name them.

[Canadian Blue]

You know Gerryhatrick, your view isn't the only one that counts.

Various alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or part of the observed increase in global temperatures, including but not limited to:

The warming is within the range of natural variation.

The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age.

The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar irradiance, possibly via modulation of cloud cover [17]. It is similar in concept to the operating principles of the Wilson cloud chamber, however acting on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays catalyze the production of Cloud condensation nuclei.

The observance actually reflects the Urban Heat Island, as most readings are done in heavily populated areas which are expanding with growing population [18].

There have been attempts to measure the degree of scientific consensus on the issue of anthropogenic warming. In the journal Science, an essay by UCSD Professor of History Naomi Oreskes considered the abstracts 928 scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change". Dr. Oreskes concluded: Of these 928 articles 75% were either explicitly or implicitly accepting of the consensus view while 25% covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on climate change.[19] [20]. Dr. Oreskes did not specify how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorsed human-induced warming effects, however.

Modeling studies reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) did not find that changes in solar forcing were needed in order to explain the climate record for the last four or five decades [21]. These studies found that volcanic and solar forcings may account for half of the temperature variations prior to 1950, but the net effect of such natural forcings has been roughly neutral since then [22]. In particular, the change in climate forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 was estimated to be eight times larger than the change in forcing due to increasing solar activity over the same period [23].

Since the TAR, some studies (Lean et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2005) have suggested that changes in irradiance since pre-industrial times are less by a factor of 3 to 4 than in the reconstructions used in the TAR (e.g. Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, Lean, 2000.). Other researchers (e.g. Stott et al. 2003 [24]) believe that the impact of solar forcing is being underestimated and propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming. Others (e.g. Marsh and Svensmark 2000 [25]) have proposed that feedback from clouds or other processes enhance the direct effect of solar variation, which if true would also suggest that the impact of solar variability was being underestimated. In general the level of scientific understanding of the contribution of variations in solar irradiance to historical climate changes is "very low" [26].

The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years [27]. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10–30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output [28]. In a review of existing literature, Foukal et al. (2006) determined both that the variations in solar output were too small to have contributed appreciably to global warming since the mid-1970s and that there was no evidence of a net increase in brightness during this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

As well leave the idea of real "evil" to people who are actually "evil".

[gerryhatrick]

You know Gerryhatrick, your view isn't the only one that counts.

Oh, is it only me saying that Global Warming is happening and if left unchecked the results will kill millions?

Sorry, I hadn't realized that.

[Canadian Blue]

No Gerry, I'm simply pointing out that no issue is black and white, and perhaps you should use words like evil for people have purposely mass murdered people, instead of somebody who disagrees with the theory behind man made Global Warming. As many other do have opposing viewpoints, I wouldn't say any of them are evil or the cause of "millions of deaths".

[B. Max]

You know Gerryhatrick, your view isn't the only one that counts.

Oh, is it only me saying that Global Warming is happening and if left unchecked the results will kill millions?

Sorry, I hadn't realized that.

A ridiculous statement no matter who makes it.

[sunsettommy]

All I can say is thank God this evil man is not the Chairman of the E&PW committee anymore.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, and Mussolini, all evil men. Some guy who believes Global Warming a hoax, not really evil.

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

LOL,

The pointless demonizing you tell us.

It is irrational to do that since the Senator never killed anyone or destabilized nations.

The Senator is nothing like Hitler who plunged his nation into a vicious world war and killed millions of Jews and Gypsies.

Pol Pot killed millions after Cambodia fell.

Stalin starved,purged and plain murdered millions.

Need I go on?

[sunsettommy]

Interesting show on 5th Estate last night showing that the same "scientists" who tried to discredit the health problems from 2nd had smoke in the US are now working on discrediting global warming. Fisher is very prominent in this. The have moved strongly into Canada evidently, afraid of what can happen to the Tar Sands when enough people realize the damage to the water in that area I guess.

Did you actually read the 1993 EPA Second Hand Smoke report?

It is a fraudulent report violating the standard epidemiological standard.

Here is a link that shows the falsehood that the EPA tried to pass as good science.

We have undeniable global warming.

It just not a CO2 driven one.Nearly 20 years later no catastrophic warming is evident.

Your attempt to smear scientists is an old trick that is easily understood why it is done.

[sunsettommy]

“The morning after his dream, Tore sets out on a quest for knowledge about the dangers of catastrophic manmade global warming. A “snowy owl” informs Tore that “the planet’s heating up” and that both the Arctic and Antarctica “are warming almost twice as fast as elsewhere.” [EPW Note: The Arctic, according to the International Arctic Research Center was warmer during the 1930’s than today and both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding — on balance — Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.]

So, Inhofe claims Antarctica is gaining ice. There is only one study that examined all of the ice sheet on Antarctica. The study was published this March and, using NASA satellites, found, “The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.”

My emphasis

Did anyone here in the forum actually read those 3 papers?

Do you guys realize that it is well below zero on most of the continent?

Here is a link that shows the stations on Antartica.

Look at the temperature range.

South Pole - 49 below zero as the mean.

Davis Station -10 below zero as the mean.

Scott Base -20 below zero as the mean.

Go see the rest of them.

[sunsettommy]

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

Your label is inappropriate and makes light of what truly evil men in history have done, as such what you said is nothing more than biased tripe.

Or you wish to make light of Global Warming and the suffering it will cause. One or the other I guess.

A Senator is charged with taking care of the citizens. When a Senator spends all his energy deceiving his citizens on a matter that impacts the world as Global Warming does, he is a criminal and should share in the responsibility for the millions Global Warming will kill.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is irrational stuff you post here attacking someone.

Charging him for a crime for something that has not happened and what is more.You convict him for a future event!

The IPCC and the U.N. spends a lot of time right along with the MSM and the Environmentalists deceiving and plain lying about GW or is it now Climate Change issues.

Silence from you.

The Scaremongering has been going on for 15 years and still at this hour no evidence of a catastrophe is upon us.

Silence from you.

Maybe you back off in your stance and take a deep breath?

[gerryhatrick]

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

Your label is inappropriate and makes light of what truly evil men in history have done, as such what you said is nothing more than biased tripe.

Or you wish to make light of Global Warming and the suffering it will cause. One or the other I guess.

A Senator is charged with taking care of the citizens. When a Senator spends all his energy deceiving his citizens on a matter that impacts the world as Global Warming does, he is a criminal and should share in the responsibility for the millions Global Warming will kill.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is irrational stuff you post here attacking someone.

Charging him for a crime for something that has not happened and what is more.You convict him for a future event!

Actually many deaths have already been attributed to Global Warming.

Inhofe is behaving in a manner that is consistent with criminal endangerment of others and I would fully support charges against him.

If I tell you a bridge is safe to cross when I know it is not, should I not be charged when you are killed?

[Canadian Blue]

Actually many deaths have already been attributed to Global Warming.

Inhofe is behaving in a manner that is consistent with criminal endangerment of others and I would fully support charges against him.

If I tell you a bridge is safe to cross when I know it is not, should I not be charged when you are killed?

Yikes, thats a bit Orwellian for my tastes. How many politicians would be jailed for having views contrary to popular opinion. Really this is no different then the idea of a "thought police". If we were to charge him, then that would mark a very sad day for western society. As well when do we stop, social conservatives in the states could argue that abortionists must be arrested for crimes against humanity, and people supporting euthanasia could be charged as well. It's a slippery slope, and will have absolutely no benefit to the world.

[sunsettommy]

But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it.

Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have.

Your label is inappropriate and makes light of what truly evil men in history have done, as such what you said is nothing more than biased tripe.

Or you wish to make light of Global Warming and the suffering it will cause. One or the other I guess.

A Senator is charged with taking care of the citizens. When a Senator spends all his energy deceiving his citizens on a matter that impacts the world as Global Warming does, he is a criminal and should share in the responsibility for the millions Global Warming will kill.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is irrational stuff you post here attacking someone.

Charging him for a crime for something that has not happened and what is more.You convict him for a future event!

Actually many deaths have already been attributed to Global Warming.

Inhofe is behaving in a manner that is consistent with criminal endangerment of others and I would fully support charges against him.

If I tell you a bridge is safe to cross when I know it is not, should I not be charged when you are killed?

This is classic example of delusion.

Does this mean that during the global cooling period (1940-1976) someone who "denies" global cooling was a criminal?

That many deaths were attributed to Global Cooling?

Se why your post is silly?

[gerryhatrick]

Actually many deaths have already been attributed to Global Warming.

Inhofe is behaving in a manner that is consistent with criminal endangerment of others and I would fully support charges against him.

If I tell you a bridge is safe to cross when I know it is not, should I not be charged when you are killed?

Yikes, thats a bit Orwellian for my tastes. How many politicians would be jailed for having views contrary to popular opinion.

Let's be honest about the situation, alright?

He's not just got "views contrary to popular opininion".

He's spreading disinformation that is contrary to science, and through his obfuscation he endangers the planet.

[gerryhatrick]

Does this mean that during the global cooling period (1940-1976) someone who "denies" global cooling was a criminal?

The blathering about the supposed "global cooling" is just another tired old lie from those who cannot handle the reality (or are being paid to cloud it).

And before you go dredge up the 1 or 2 articles that appeared on it in the 70's, don't bother. Yes, a couple of articles appeared, but in the scientific community there was never any serious acceptance or promotion of the idea. The comparison is dishonest, as is pretty much everything the deniers and liars put out is.