Senator Jim Inhofe

on Copenhagen, Cancun and the death of Cap & Trade.


h/t: Captain Ed

Climategate meets the Law

via Pajamas media:

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

[...]

Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

Senator Inhofe's blog.

Inhofe: ‘CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE' IN THE IPCC

Senator James Inhofe's speech on climategate to the US Senate:

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight several recent media reports uncovering serious errors and possible fraud by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

I can already hear the question: just what is the IPCC? Many in this body may not be familiar with it. But I hope the Senate becomes more acquainted with it very soon, if only because of its sheer importance to the debate we're having on global warming and cap-and-trade legislation.

For now, you need to know just 3 things about the IPCC: (1) the Obama Administration calls it "the gold standard" of climate change science; (2) some say its reports on climate change represent the so-called "consensus" of scientific opinion about global warming; and (3) the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007 for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change..."

Put simply, what this means is that, in elite circles, the IPCC is a big deal. So when ABC News, the Economist, Time Magazine, and the Times of London-among many others-report that the IPCC's research contains embarrassing flaws, and that the IPCC chairman and scientists knew of the flaws, but published them anyway-well, you have the makings of a major scientific scandal.

Where to begin?

A good place is here.

Climate Depot

Marc Morano no longer works for Senator James Inhofe. But Morano has expanded his campaign to bring reality to the climate change debate with his new website.

Bookmark it now.

It's hard to make data where none exist

Unless of course, you are trying to convince the world that Antarctica is warming.

Washington, DC: A new study on Antarctic temperatures – which is contrary to the findings of multiple previous studies - claims "that since 1957, the annual temperature for the entire continent of Antarctica has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, but still is 50 degrees below zero.”

Despite the fact that the study was immediately viewed with major skepticism by scientists who are not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming claims, many in the media pounced on the study as a chance to attack those skeptical of man-made climate doom. According to the release of the study, “The researchers devised a statistical technique that uses data from satellites and from Antarctic weather stations to make a new estimate of temperature trends. […]

The scientists found temperature measurements from weather stations corresponded closely with satellite data for overlapping time periods. That allowed them to use the satellite data as a guide to deduce temperatures in areas of the continent without weather stations.” (emphasis added)

Few media outlets noted that in 2007 Antarctic “sea ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area.” [See also other factors impacting Antarctica: “Volcano, Not Global Warming Effects, May be Melting an Antarctic Glacier & The Antarctic deep sea gets COLDER – April 21, 2008 & A January 12, 2008, peer-reviewed paper in AGU (American Geophysical Union) found “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” Map of Volcanoes - See comprehensive data round up below]

The new Antarctic study was published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature and the lead author of the study was Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and Space Sciences. Other co-authors include: David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, a former student of Steig's; Scott Rutherford of Roger Williams University in Bristol, RI; and Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, who is not in any way a climate change skeptic, said of the study, "I remain somewhat skeptical… It is hard to make data where none exist.” Echoing Trenberth’s analysis were several other scientists.

Be sure to read the rest of this post by Marc Morano at Senator Jim Inhofe's EPW Press Blog.

Here's another review from Roger Pielke Sr.

And at the Heliogenic Climate Change blog they're a little more blunt about this in a couple of related posts: Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears and Rewriting History.

Jackson: I will serve with science as my guide

At her confirmation hearing, Obama nominee for EPA administrator Lisa Jackson was asked by Senator James Inhofe if she would "take science seriously" with regard to global warming.

“If confirmed, I will serve with science as my guide,” said the former commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection.

“Science must be the backbone of the EPA,” Jackson added. “We will make decisions based on the best available science … based on the judgment of the agency’s scientists and independent scientists.”

That's good news if she's really willing to listen to scientists who have added their names the ever growing list of skeptics.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called Jackson’s pledges to make scientific integrity the core value of the EPA “music to my ears,” but admonished her to consider all available scientific opinions on climate change -- especially critics of "global warming."

The ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee asked Jackson to commit to listen to a speech he made on the Senate floor last week about the science and economics of global warming.

A Senate minority report titled, “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims,” provided the basis for the speech.

The report lists the names of hundreds of internationally recognized scientists who are now skeptical of global warming, many of whom currently or formerly worked for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

Guess what? She agreed.

Consensus in Freefall

Senator James Inhofe explains how a carbon tax would punish the poor, how Al Gore is getting rich selling his global warming "whopper", the failed Lieberman-Warner climate change bill and how the IPCC's so-called scientific consensus on global warming is now in full freefall.

UN Blowback

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims via Marc Morano at the Inhofe EPW Press Blog:

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

Inhofe: Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’

From Marc Morano on Senator Jim Inhofe's EPW Press blog: Part TWO: ‘Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Scientists Continue Dissenting – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS!

Washington DC - The bad news for global warming alarmists just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The majority of data presented below is from just the past few weeks. Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 - July 18, 2008 & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK

Senator Inhofe has a lot more goodies for your reading pleasure here and here.

Inhofe: We Don't Need a Climate Tax on the Poor

U.S. Senator James Inhofe in the Wall Street Journal:

With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.

The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill (America's Climate Security Act) represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods.

President Bush says he will veto the US $6 trillion spending bill if it reaches his desk in its present form.

Update: Inhofe: Lieberman-Warner a regressive tax with no benefits

US Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon

Via the Business and Media Institute, Senators Inhofe and Sessions blast the massive costs of global warming legislation.

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.

Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.

“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).

“So now I think we need to concentrate on what it will cost the American people,” he said during the press conference. “To try to put it in a perspective people understand, if we had ratified, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Kyoto Treaty, back five years ago, it would have cost about – between $300 and $330 billion – that was the range they had. This bill that’s up today is $471 billion – far more than that. And the question is, what do you get for it?”

Canada, it seems, is not alone when it comes to liberal lunacy. Senators Inhofe and Sessions are battling the same insanity of raising energy taxes at a time of record high prices.

And this will do nothing to combat a global warming problem that just isn't happening. It's just another gigantic liberal tax grab.

2008 will be the year that the climate alarmists will be discredited

Media Promotes Global Warming Alarmism by Jack Kelly at RealClearPolitics via Yahoo News:

About this time last year, Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain, predicted 2007 would be the warmest year on record.

It didn't turn out that way. 2007 was only the 9th warmest year since global temperature readings were first made in 1861.

2007 was also the coldest year of this century, noted Czech physicist Lubos Motl.

Both global warming alarmists like Dr. Jones and skeptics like Dr. Motl forecast that this year will be slightly cooler than last year. If so, that means it will be a decade since the high water mark in global temperature was set in 1998.

And the trend line is down. Average global temperature in 2007 was lower than for 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. November of last year was the coldest month since January of 2000, and December was colder still. "Global warming has stopped," said David Whitehouse, former science editor for the BBC. "It's not a viewpoint or a skeptic's inaccuracy. It's an observational fact."

But observational fact matters little to global warming alarmists, particularly to those in the news media. "In 2008, your television will bring you image after image of natural havoc linked to global warming," said John Tierney, who writes a science column for the New York Times. "You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change -- and that these images are a mere preview of what's in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet."

"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter," said Steven Guibeault of Greenpeace. There is no dispute among scientists that the planet warmed about 0.3 degrees Celsius between 1980 and 1998. What is in dispute is what caused the warming, and whether it will continue. The alarmists say the warming was caused chiefly by emissions of carbon dioxide from our automobiles and factories, and that, consequently, it will continue at an ever increasing rate unless we humans change our behavior. The skeptics say the warming trend was caused chiefly by natural cycles, and that it is at or near its end.

"The earth is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells," said Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. It'll start getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041, he predicts.

The news media promote global warming alarmism through selective reporting. Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news articles, while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three.

"When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign the planet was warming," Mr. Tierney wrote. "When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored."

Two studies published last year which indicated the melting of Arctic sea ice was due more to cyclical changes in ocean currents and winds than to planetary warming also attracted little attention, Mr. Tierney noted.

And though the record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely reported, the record growth of Arctic sea ice this fall (58,000 square miles of ice each day for 10 straight days) was not.

More than 400 scientists -- many of them members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- challenge the claims of the leading global warming alarmist, former Vice President and now Nobel laureate Al Gore, said a report issued by the Republicans on the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works committee last month. Kailee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said there criticisms should be discounted because 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corp.

It's Mr. Gore who is the crook, says French physicist Claude Allegre in a new book. He's made millions in an eco-business based on phony science, Dr. Allegre charges.

Mr. Gore isn't alone, says Weather Channel founder John Coleman: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming," Mr. Coleman wrote. "Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going...In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious."

Emphasis and links added.

Morano on consensus and climate insurance

An interesting exchange of emails between Bill Houck and Marc Morano of the Inhofe EPW Press Blog posted as Marc Morano uses facts to answer an "ad hominem" attack from an alleged scientist at Greenie Watch:

One would have hoped that a scientist would have put scientific points to Morano but it was not so. Bill Houck [billhouck@bellsouth.net] (the Bill Houck of the EPA, I assume) wrote rather condescendingly to Marc Morano (of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) as follows:

Assuming you are sincere in your beliefs about the lack of evidence proving `global warming', I would encourage you to look back 45 - 50 years ago and consider the (400 or so) "prominent scientists" or doctors the tobacco companies would parade around who would insist that cigarette smoking was not proven to be seriously harmful to your health. Perhaps 400 said no while many thousands accepted the obvious about smoking without feeling compelled to write or make public statements about it. After all, it was obvious.

Even if the warming/dimming concerns are exaggerated, there's no great down side to halting excessive and unnecessary pollution. Certainly everyone would want an environment that is as clean as possible.

Morano replied politely as follows:

Thank you for writing. You may have a good point with your tobacco analogy. Please read this article, I do tend to agree with the comparison.

As for the "thousands" of scientists who believe we face a "climate crisis," where are they? The UN IPCC had only 52 scientists write the alarmist Summary for Policymakers in 2007. There are no "thousands" of UN scientists. Even the UN says "hundreds" but they are not involved in the media hyped summary. Many of the "hundreds" of UN scientists are skeptical of the alarmist summary written by the 52 scientists. Many of the skeptics are profiled in our report.

Even the National Academy of Sciences and American Meteorological Society's "consensus" statement was only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members, rank and file scientists never had a say. Take a look at this post, an environmental scientist admits he never looked at evidence of man-made climate fears, he just parroted the UN's line. Because of the new Senate report of over 400, he is now reconsidering his views. See here

Finally, as for your "no great downside" to halting pollution. Of course that statement is true. But that is not what we are facing. Because of fears of a "tipping point" and we "must act now" and "it's cheaper to act now than wait" the US and other nations are being rushed into meaningless and ineffective international treaties and complete climate symbolism for huge costs domestically.

In over three decades of global warming fears, there has been no single proposal that would have a detectable impact on temperatures if fully enacted and the alarmists are correct about the science. Even if Kyoto, the grandaddy of all climate agreements were being complied with, it would not have a detectable impact on temps 50 or 100 years from now. (this is not in dispute, Gore's own scientist Tom Wigley has said this).

There is no such thing as an "insurance" policy against warming when it comes to current proposals. The upcoming cap-and-trade LIeberman-Warner bill in the Senate would not have a detectable impact on global temps, but will cost poor and middle class Americans huge amounts in higher energy bills. All economic pain for no climate gain.

Would you buy and insurance policy that had a huge up front premium for absolutely no payout at the end of the term? If you would, then by all means support all of the current climate bills. But if they were "insurance policies" they would be shut down for insurance fraud for taking money and not paying any benefits.

Cleaner burning technology and wealth creation go hand and hand. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not 'solve' the "climate crisis."

After attending the last four UN climate conferences in a row, I can tell you unequivocally that if we were facing a man-made climate "crisis' and the UN were our only hope to "solve" it, we would all be doomed.

Please read this very long speech to understand the scientific and economic and technological issues.

Please do not continue parroting the meaningless line about "insurance" policies or how "thousands" of scientists endorse a mythical "consensus" unless you can show a shred of evidence for your claims.

Above exchange received by email from Marc Morano [marcmorano@gmail.com]

Emphasis added.

Senate: Number of AGW skeptics growing

From Senator Jim Inhofe's EPW Press Blog:

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. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

h/t SDA

Consider this little bit of detective work by Tom Harris of the NRSP into the IPCC's Working Group I (WG I) report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change including future ‘projections’ and the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published recently by Canada Free Press:

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. [...]

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

So at best, not 2,500 but just 62 scientists reviewed the IPCC's critical chapter that concludes the greenhouse gases are causing climate change. Compare that to the 400+ scientists above and it's pretty clear that there's no consensus on this theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

Marc Morano at The Inhofe EPW Press Blog:

Nearly two dozen prominent scientists from around the world have denounced a recent Associated Press article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 and beyond based on unproven computer models predictions. The AP article also has been accused of mischaracterizing the views of a leading skeptic of man-made global warming fears. The scientists are dismissing the AP article, entitled “Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History” (LINK) as a “scare tactic,” “sheer speculation,” and “hype of the worst order.” (H/T: Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org - LINK)

...more...

Senator Inhofe at today's EPW Hearing

see also epw.senate.gov/minority

Update: Link to text of Sen. Inhofe's statement.

Senator Inhofe speech to CPAC

Senator James Inhofe spoke to CPAC in Washington DC yesterday on global warming.

From Senator Inhofe's EPW Press Blog:

Senator Inhofe has made available his CPAC speech notes and PowerPoint presentation to the public. The science section notes below are only a sampling of the new developments since January 2007 refuting the media engineered 'consensus' on man-made global warming.

The Senator has provided lots and lots of useful links in this blog post.

Or, if you prefer you can always download A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (pdf)
or watch Senator Inhofe's videos on YouTube.

Inhofe: One-sided media reporting

Senator Inhofe's opening statement from the Dec 6, 2006 EPW Committee hearing "Climate Change and the Media"

From Inhofe's statement:

Today's hearing is the fourth global warming hearing I have held as Committee chairman. We will examine the media's role in presenting the science of climate change. Poorly conceived policy decisions may result from the media's over-hyped reporting. Much of the mainstream media has subverted its role as an objective source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate. We have seen examples of this overwhelmingly one sided reporting by "60 Minutes" reporter Scott Pelley, ABC News's Bill Blakemore, CNN's Miles O'Brien, Time Magazine, the Associated Press and Reuters, to name just a very few outlets.

from InhofeEPWPress channel.

Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears

Via the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

Climate alarmism is proving more unsustainable everyday. Increasing numbers of scientists and climate experts are growing more skeptical of predictions of a man-made catastrophe. For proof of the growing momentum, see previous EPW release: Climate Skeptics Vindicated as Growing Number of Scientists & Politicians Oppose Alarmism

Today's climate roundup includes articles about scientists standing up for climate realism.

1) Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

From Crain's Cleveland publication on February 13, 2007:

The Ohio TV meteorologists, Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Mark Nolan and John Loufman, mocked the UN's global warming alarmism. "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Johnson said. "I’m not sure which is more arrogant — to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said. "Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, ‘about 95%’ share his skepticism about global warming," the paper reported. Johnson dismissed the new UN IPCC summary, “Consensus does not mean fact. … Don’t drink the Kool-Aid."

Also See: From The Cleveland Plain Dealer on February 16, 2007 : TV Weathermen Downplay Global Warming Fears

2) Meteorologist Dismisses UN IPCC Report From Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allen blog on the 2007 UN IPCC global warming report:

"But, just because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association and is the chairman of the Kentucky Weather Preparedness Committee.

As I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen, who is with WBKO in Bowling Green, added.

The more the climate alarmists ratchet up their doomsday rhetoric, the more skeptical scientists and the public will become.

There will be much more forthcoming...

Source: James M. Inhofe EPW Press Blog at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Experts Criticize IPCC Decision to Withhold Global Warming Report

By: Michael Van Winkle

"The policymaker's summary is being carefully edited behind closed doors by politically appointed bureaucrats," warned Joseph Bast (jbast@heartland.org - 312/377-4000), president of The Heartland Institute. "It is astounding that reporters, aware of this, would nevertheless treat the summary as credible and newsworthy."

The Heartland Institute contends the body of the study will contain many qualifications and point to natural variance, uncertainty in the temperature record, and disputes over future emission scenarios. "But the summary," Bast said, "will generate misleading page-one headlines, while details of the full study, details that will contradict the headlines, will be buried on page 47 six months from now."

"This is not how science should be reported," said Bast.

Source.

Jim Brown OneNewsNow.com February 2, 2007

A global warming skeptic says a new United Nations assessment on climate change was not approved by scientists but rather U.N. bureaucrats. The report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change links burning fossil fuels to rising temperatures.

Hear This Report

A spokesman for Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe says a much ballyhooed United Nations report on global warming was not approved by scientists but rather by politically motivated U.N. bureaucrats.

The report released by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says it is "very likely" the burning of fossil fuels by humans is linked to rising temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather. Marc Morano with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee says while the U.N. may claim the summary speaks for 2,500 scientists, it is written by U.N. political delegates.

Morano contends scientists have to alter their work to meet the U.N.'s political agenda as laid out in the summary. He notes that in 2000, French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto Protocol the first step to "authentic global governance."

"So the U.N. has that agenda," Morano contends. "[It] wants to be able to tax, regulate, and essentially be an international governing body over the developed world, particularly the United States. This is seen by many as an opportunity to get their hands on United States taxpayer wealth."

Uh-huh.