Accuracy in Media

AIM Report

The issue of global warming continues to be a fault line in this country and across the world. There are, on the one hand, those who believe, like Al Gore, that the earth is warming to a catastrophic degree, that it is caused by man’s overuse of carbon-based energy, and if we don’t hurry and do something about it we will face the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, biblical flooding, and increased tornadoes and hurricanes. Their holy grail is the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which they cite as confirmation of their theories.

In a recent interview with Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), we discussed his recent book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, in which he documents his personal journey of discovery on this issue—from his early days in politics, as the mayor of Tulsa, to his time as a congressman—from his years in the insurance and oil businesses, and seeing firsthand the heavy hand of the federal government.

In what way is global warming a hoax? Inhofe said, “…I’m talking about, George Soros, Michael Moore, the Al Gore Hollywood elites, and all that. These are people who really want to believe this, and they have unlimited funds that they pour into campaigns. They brag about having ‘defeated’ people, that they’re able to do, and that’s how they got so much political power. That is where the hoax comes in, because they’re perpetrating a hoax, and that hoax is that catastrophic global warming is taking place in the world now, and it’s due to manmade gases—CO2, carbon, methane, that type of thing—and what they want to do is just shut down this machine called America.”

Inhofe has led the battle in the Senate to block cap-and-trade legislation after it had passed the House. Cap-and-trade is supposed to be a market-based plan to reduce pollution, and in this case CO2, with the goal of halting or slowing global warming. He has had quiet support in the Senate, but he was the one willing to be hammered by the media and his Senate colleagues for not toeing the line and agreeing that this is settled science and necessary for the preservation of earth as we know it.

In a recent article in American Thinker by Randall Hoven, a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who, following a three-year stint in the U.S. Navy, worked at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory from 1979 to 1982, has laid out the most recent scientific findings on global warming. He uses data from NASA/GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) data going back to 1880, and the Hadley Center from Great Britain which goes back with the data to 1875.

In short, both temperature data sets (NASA and Hadley Center) show:

1.      Minimal global warming over the last 130 to 160 years: about half a degree Celsius per century.

2.      No statistically significant global warming in the last 14 to 17 years.

3.      Global cooling in the last 9 to 13 years.

In addition, Hoven cites the same data to shatter another myth, the melting of the Arctic ice. “While Northern Hemisphere winter sea ice extent was shrinking over much of the time that satellite measurements have been available (since 1979), the trend over the last eight years has been growth. There has been no statistically significant shrinkage of winter sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere for 13 years (since 1999).”

Adds Hoven, “Southern Hemisphere winter sea ice extent has grown over all the 32 years that satellites have been measuring it. And that growth is statistically significant.”

But James Hansen, who heads up GISS, sees it quite differently. “[g]lobal warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening.” Hansen, in a New York Times column in May, called the situation “apocalyptic” and faulted President Obama for failing to “provide the leadership needed to change the world’s course.”

However, in late March of this year, a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts joined a growing list of scientists who now publicly reject the global warming theory that says, with a high degree of certainty, man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change. They all signed an open letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, criticizing the agency for its role in advocating this theory as proven science, while ignoring or neglecting empirical evidence contradicting the conventional view.

The group who signed the letter includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. They argue that NASA, and specifically GISS, rely too heavily on climate models that have not been borne out over time.

“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated,” they wrote, “especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Another figure lauded by Sen. Inhofe is Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic. He spoke in May at The Heartland Institute conference in Chicago, where he stated that the global warming alarmists “have succeeded in establishing the religion of environmentalism as the official religion of Western society—a religion that demands a radical transformation of Western civilization. Skeptics must continue the ideological battles. As he has stated previously, the purpose of this entire issue is to control human behavior—human liberty.”

As with every issue, there will always be conflicting opinions, and in many cases, conflicting facts. So in the end, each person has to decide for him or herself whether or not they choose to believe that man-made global warming is real, and if so, what can and should be done about it.

To those who believe, or in some cases claim to know it is occurring, what is the optimum average global temperature we should be seeking? Could a planet that is another degree or two warmer mean less need for heating fuel, and a higher yield in food crops? Are we certain that carbon dioxide is the culprit, and is it realistic to think we can tweak that average global temperature by reducing its output; and at what cost in terms of dollars, and in terms of the surrendering of our sovereignty to a United Nations bureaucracy that is largely hostile to U.S. interests?

Now that thousands of scientists dissent from the alarmist point of view, and former hardcore believers have abandoned the theory, can the remaining scientists still claim there is a consensus that man-made global warming exists, and that we must take drastic measures to prevent the potential catastrophic impact of said warming? And should the media still label the skeptics as “deniers,” as in Holocaust deniers?

In The Greatest Hoax, Inhofe states, “I believe that many globalist elites have worked within the United Nations to expand its responsibility to an alarming degree. Now, instead of facilitating international cooperation, I believe the UN’s primary institutional goal—in practice, if not in word—is to actively build a global utopia. The UN believes that it can—with enough power and influence—determine what is best for the world by reaching agreements by majority agreement, or better yet—consensus—among all of the member states participating at the United Nations.”

Also in the book, Inhofe publishes verbatim more than 100 of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, resulting in what came to be known as “ClimateGate.”

If it wasn’t clear that the global warming theory was in trouble when the ClimateGate scandal erupted in 2009, showing the corruption in academia willing to “hide the decline” and suppress scientific studies and views that didn’t conform to those of the “warmists,” then it should have been when they largely dropped the term “global warming” and replaced it with “climate change.” Who, after all, could disagree with the notion that the climate is changing? It has been changing since the beginning of time. One would have to be positively anti-science to make such a suggestion, a term thrown around a lot by the Left to describe the Republicans who ran for president this year.

When Republicans won control of the U.S. Senate in 2002, Sen. Inhofe became chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. His view was that the committee’s work would rely on the most objective science available, and that it would take into consideration the costs to businesses and consumers.

Sen. Inhofe also sits on the Senate Armed Services and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. In our interview in May, we discussed not only his book, but also issues related to his work on the other above-mentioned committees. Following are excerpts from that interview. You can listen to the entire interview or read the transcript here:

INHOFE: With the first of his four budgets, I knew he was going to start disarming America, so I went to Afghanistan. I knew that I’d get national attention by responding to it. That was the budget, you’ll remember, he did away with our only fifth generation fighter, the F-22; did away with our lift capability, the C-17; did away with our Future Combat System; did away with our ground-based interceptors in Poland, which is about the only thing we have to stop something coming in to the eastern United States from Iran. It just got worse and worse—now, it’s projected, from his budgets, we’ll lose another half trillion dollars from the defense budget, and then another half trillion dollars if we can’t stop what they call “sequestration.”  I won’t try to go into that. Just take my word for it: This guy is disarming America.

INHOFE: …Remember that, even before he was elected President, he said, “I’m absolutely committed to closing Gitmo”—that’s Guantanamo Bay. Now, Guantanamo Bay is a state-of-the-art place. It’s the only place we can put these combatants, other than sending them back—and then they’re turned loose to go back into the battle. We have refused to let him do that, legislatively, so he has refused to put any new people in there in the last four years.  Now, getting back to Osama bin Laden, what was the information that led to his demise? It all came from interrogations at Gitmo! Consequently, if Obama had been successful in closing Gitmo, very likely that wouldn’t have happened. So there he is over there, taking credit for something that the Navy SEALs did a great job on—but they used the information they got from Gitmo. That’s the type of thing we deal with with him that’s very, very frustrating.

INHOFE: You can have your plans for when you’re going to withdraw, but you don’t tell the enemy that you’re going to withdraw—and when you’re going to withdraw. That’s the one thing that almost everyone agrees that [Obama] should not have done.

INHOFE: I look at what the most egregious things this President has done are. Number one—and not necessarily in this order—is what he’s doing to the military… Secondly, there’s what he’s doing to energy, domestic energy. Here we have—and everyone knows this, now—the largest recoverable reserves of coal, oil, and gas of any country in the world. We could be completely independent from the Middle East in a matter of months, not years, if we would just export our own. But he won’t allow us to drill. He says exploration and production has increased during his three-and-a-half years as President. Yes—that’s all on private land, which he can’t stop. On public land, it’s actually been reduced by 17% in spite of all the new finds. The third area would be what he’s done with the budget. A lot of people don’t realize that the President is the guy who designs the budget—not the parties, not the House or the Senate. It’s the President, and what he has done, in his four budgets, is give us $5.3 trillion in deficit.

INHOFE: He’s killing business, industry—and, of course, the crown jewel of all his regulations is none other than cap-and-trade. We all remember the cap-and-trade legislation that came after Kyoto was never submitted for ratification, and the cost of cap-and-trade is now—and, again, no one refutes this—between $300 and $400 billion a year. For those who are skeptics, Roger, who are listening to us, who don’t believe that I’ve been right for the last ten years—and I’ve been lonely, I have to admit, but I’ve been right—even Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, an Obama administrator, when I asked the question, on the record, live on TV, “If we were to pass cap-and-trade either by regulation or legislation, would that reduce greenhouse gases?” admitted, “No.” Because this isn’t where the problem is. It’s in India, in China, in Mexico, and other places where they don’t have any restrictions. So even if I’m wrong on this, you would be charging the American people a tax of $300 or $400 billion, and you don’t get anything for it. So that’s the critical thing: They’ve given up now—we’ve defeated—the first bills out of the chute, the McCain-Lieberman bill of ’03, then of ’05. We defeated those bills, so now the President is trying to do it with regulations, which would cost even more than just the $300 or $400 billion a year.

ARONOFF: Let me jump in here. I want to ask you what the agenda is. First of all, with this idea that there’s a consensus among all scientists—you have shown, numerous times, that there are many who formerly were in that camp who have left it, and now are, basically, pure skeptics. But the agenda—do you think it is the transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor? A system of global taxation? You quoted, in your book, Jacques Chirac, in 2001, saying that Kyoto was the first component of an “authentic global governance.”

INHOFE: Exactly. If you will remember, at that time, three of the leaders in France—a guy named Claude Allegre, Roger, was leading all the marches down there on global warming and the end of the world coming, and he has totally turned around. He is a scientist, and he said, “No, it’s really not true after all.” David Bellamy: Same thing in the U.K. A guy named Nir Shaviv in Israel—these are scientists that were on the other side. Once they started coming back over—and I have to say that, on several speeches—if anyone wants to come to my website, it’s, you can see the speeches I’ve given. Way back—we’re talking about several years ago, back in about ’03 and ’04—scientists started coming to me, saying, “They’re cooking the science. The U.N. is cooking the science.” Clearly, most of the scientists now are on the other side of this issue.

INHOFE: The Secretary of Defense came out and said that global warming was a national security issue. Well, he had to say that because his boss is Obama. [The Secretary] talked about droughts, yet right now, we know—and no one questions the fact—that the most severe drought we had was in 1935, when 80% of the country was covered by that, when this last one we had was only 25%. They talk about sea levels rising, but the Journal of Geophysical Research says there hasn’t been any statistically significant rise in sea levels over the past 100 years. So all these things they’re saying happened, they’re all part of Al Gore’s science fiction movie, and they’ve all been discredited. What I want them to do is at least pull up the website of my book—

INHOFE: We hear a lot about the drive-by media. They’ve been clearly on that side. It’s kind of interesting, though: The same media there is the same media that is giving Obama a pass on all of his spending, all the things he’s doing to the military, what he’s doing to energy in America. They’re clearly on his side, but in spite of that, through a combination of talk radio, Fox News, and a handful of stations that are now wanting their ratings to quit plummeting, the media is catching on, and is being a little bit more honest. It was clearly driven by the media, and that media was driven by the mentality that is trying to take individual initiative away from America.•



Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs:

This AIM Report is based on a recent interview I conducted with Sen. James Inhofe for AIM’s BlogTalkRadio show, Take AIM, and his powerful book, The Greatest Hoax. As many of you know, Accuracy in Media, and its founder Reed Irvine, have long been very skeptical of global warming. We commend Sen. Inhofe for his courage, wisdom and persistence in practically single-handedly resisting the forces in the media, and in Congress, who insist that the U.S. line up with the U.N. and adopt the draconian steps required to engage in this budget busting, business destroying endeavor that would impinge on our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. Among the latest developments was the letter signed by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts who are critical of the current NASA Administrator for his misuse of scientific data.

Late May into early June have been tough times for President Obama and his efforts to keep his re-election strategy on track. Many of his previously loyal backers, both in politics and in the media, have suddenly turned into skeptics and critics of his policies and failed to support him publicly. One of those issues has been his attacks on Bain Capital, the private equity firm where presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney worked for most of his business career. Cory Booker, the Democratic mayor of Newark, NJ, called Obama’s attacks “nauseating.” Former president Bill Clinton said that Romney had a “sterling” career at Bain; all while Obama and the DNC were out to portray Bain, and the private equity business in general, as “vultures.”

In another instance, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. John Kerrey (D-MA) were both critical of intelligence leaks coming from the administration. The leaks described how the Obama administration had engaged in cyber-attacks against Iran since early in the Obama administration, and the senators’ concern was that this could help justify similar attacks on the U.S. The question on everyone’s mind is whether or not these leaks, and leaks about a “kill list” from which Obama personally approved drone-strike targets, were done for political gain, at the expense of national security.

Liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in a much talked about column, cited a Times editorial that blasted Obama for his involvement in the kill list, writing that “A unilateral campaign of death is untenable.” And Dowd had her own set of issues with Obama. She wrote in the same column that “The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters.”

Added Dowd, “The legendary speaker who drew campaign crowds in the tens of thousands and inspired a dispirited nation ended up nonchalantly delegating to a pork-happy Congress, disdaining the bully pulpit, neglecting to do any L.B.J.-style grunt work with Congress and the American public, and ceding control of his narrative.•

For Accuracy in Media                                         Roger Aronoff

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • K33j88

    The Greatest Hoax is a must read on my list——-maybe I should send it to my liberal friends.

  • Jpd1

     Science. 1971 Jul 9;173(3992):138-41.
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: effects of large increases on global climate.
    Rasool SI, Schneider SH.
    AbstractEffects on the global
    temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities
    in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that,
    although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase
    the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes
    with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however,
    the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface
    temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the
    backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with
    increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees
    K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature
    decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an
    ice age.

  • C. Roy

    When all the technical data is in, Algore & Co. will have been proven wrong. It would be a mistake to assume, however, that the liberals will then throw up their hands and say: “OK, you got me. Game over.”

  •  whatever said and done,it is a fact, over a period,  this planet, now looks ,not that comfortable with the   living beings in  existence ,compared to  earlier period. May be the population or not, but the needs  or aspirations  are so  disproportionate that the resources of this beautiful planet is getting depleted day by day.  Any kind of   man made  effort to fulfill man’s ever  increasing ambition or   to balance the shortfall only disturbs the  ecosystem.Certainly,  global warming is a product  of man. 

  • Rispb7

    Awe, Roger tried to cite his resources, but failed miserably….

  • jpd1,
    I was reading this and I thought it sounded a lot like Schneider’s worry in the 70’s which climate change denier’s constantly obsess about, and then i looked at the top and saw that it was.
    His assumptions were wrong, but it was a valid question at the time. Climate scientists showed, and he quickly acknowledged, that he underestimated the climate sensitivity and over estimated the effects of aerorols. These factors are now much better understood, and interestingly the current production of aerosols has increased probably causing a short term limitng effect on global warmming due to CO2. Which unfortunately will decrease as cleaner technologies come into use more in China, India and other parts of the developing world.

  • tonyduncan

    just like all the deniers who, for the past 5 years have been saying the arctic was in recovery from the huge ice loss in 2007. Find me ONE denier blogger who said arctic ice was going to DECREASE over the past 5 years. But NOW that the arctic completely demolished the 2007 record theese same people are starting to say the AMO is in a warm phase and the arctic may lose some more ice but in a few years it will start getting back to normal.
    I am a sceptic, and did not beleive the alarmists who said the ice was going to break the record. I predicted 4.9 million KM, but then in August i changed to 4.4 because it was losing so much. But the record was actually 3.6 million, which only the most extreme “alarmists’ had predicted. there is NO technical data that is proving ACC wrong. There are only areas of uncertainty, and contrary to this article i know of no climate scientists in the last few years who hav changed their views to thinking that Global warming is not happening.

  • bob570

    The best way to end this debate, with the average person, is simply show them a graft of Earth’s temperatures for the last 3000, or 6000 years to the present. In the graft from 3000 to present we’re barely at the average. In the 6000 to present we’re below average. How do you think Greet men were able to run around in their mini skirts, without serious problems anyway?

  • rick

    As soon as you see a taxing program associated with a problem you can be certain that it is about money and not the problem. Pass regulations to solve a problem – no new taxes needed.

  • Maria Diggi

    It is an abomination to us God’s name and twist what the
    Bible says just to benefit Oil moguls who have filled the pockets of the

    He has forgotten that the in the New Testament it has been
    prophesied that in the end times there will be wars and catastrophes.

    To say that the climatic disasters are the act of God just
    because they were anticipated by God is to make Him responsible and it is a lie and a sacrilege and leads to say that wars are an act of God. God did
    anticipate both wars and catastrophe based on His knowledge of man’s sinfulness and what he can bring about. Man manufactures armaments not God! Man develops conflict and wage war. In the same way man who was created to be the master of the earth to care for it and to maintain it, has been viciously exploiting and destroying parts of it, by creating harmful gas to spoil the atmosphere. Man is in deed responsible for global warming.

  • 4TimesAYear

    Guess what? It refreezes every winter. Seems some people forget we have seasons and it can vary a great deal from year to year. We’ve only had satellite data for a very short time – starting when we were coming out of a cold cycle. Question: What is “normal” ice cover for the Arctic? You don’t know and neither does anyone else. Climate changes. Period. The deniers are those that think it hasn’t happened (w/o us) in the past.
    No data proving “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” wrong?
    You “know of no climate scientists who have changed their views to thinking global warming isn’t happening” – no, because if you put it that way, no one will deny warming – what we deny is catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. And you’d better do a little more research on that one – there are plenty who’ve changed their minds.

  • tonyduncan

    4times a year.
    frist off I appreciate that you spent two years carefully thinking your response.

    and yes, the arctic does refreeze every winter and it pretty much goes back to a similar extent, though the thickness is an order of magnitude less than 30 years ago.
    your question of what is “normal” ice cover is meaningless and typical denier rhetoric.
    there are “ranges” of extent over a period of time. SIE is probably the lowest it has been in 1500 years. Scientists are a creative and smart lot as a whole and they have developed ingenious ways to figure stuff like that out with varying degrees of accuracy.
    and it is deniers that make foolish statements that people who are concerned about the most CO2 in the atmosphere in 3 million years think climate doesn’t change naturally.
    Yes a very impressive list you posted there.
    Let’s look at any one of them or any particular issue that “proves” ACC wrong.
    I have argued (since almost none actually are interested in actual dialogue) about these issues with over hundred of your kind. I hope that you can offer some information or perspective that is better than theirs.
    Now I am an actual skeptic. and I do not accept information unless it fits with mu general understanding of physics and science in general.
    I absolutely do think that ere are climate alarmists who exaggerate the consequences as afar as our current knowledge is concerned.
    they, fortunately have no impact on policy,
    “however climate deniers control the republican party which has paralyzed any legislation or treaty’s on the issue and have thereby stalled much global action for even reasonable economically sound policy

  • 4TimesAYear
  • 4TimesAYear
  • 4TimesAYear

    Just what percent of the total amount of CO2 do you think we produce anyway?

  • 4TimesAYear

    Btw, you don’t need to be a snot

  • tonyduncan

    saying the ice freezes in winter in my book puts snottiness in your corner first. As well as meaningless “you don’t know” what normal ice is

  • tonyduncan

    about 3%, can you link to a different scientifically valid number?

  • Guest

    very good. I said he was alarmist WHEN he made those initial statements. There are others as well. Just because there is extreme on one side does not validate extremist who deny serious possible consequences

  • tonyduncan

    very good. I said he was alarmist WHEN he made those initial statements. There are others as well. Just because there is extreme on one side does not validate extremist who deny serious possible problems

  • tonyduncan

    Forster quote. accurate. unlikely 4°C climate sensitivity. No ship jumping there.
    Whitehouse from GWPF denialist fake science group
    Curry jumped ship long ago. She is opportunist.
    Annan says more than 2°C likely. right in the mainstream of what climate scientists think now.
    Storch is a rather wily scientist who makes silly statements like quoted above.
    If this is the best you can do for people jumping ship. (which deniers have been saying for the 5 years I have been following this) your argument is in horrible shape..
    2 of the people quoted completely support current theory, 2 have not been part of the “ship” in many years and 5th is odd bird with conflicting positions for many years.

  • 4TimesAYear

    You don’t know what “normal” is. Nobody does.

  • 4TimesAYear

    Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, says “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and was one of the firstscientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown.”

    Geologist Bruno Wiskel
    of the University of Alberta once set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the Kyoto Protocol but recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award-winning scientists, “believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of

    Atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson,
    the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” Formerly of NASA, she has authored more than 190 studies.

    Mathematician and engineer Dr. David Evans devoted six years to carbon accounting, building an award winning model for the Australian Greenhouse
    Office. He wrote FullCAM that measures
    Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in the land use change and forestry sector. Evans became a skeptic in 2007.

    Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed one of the “Fathers of Meteorology,” became a leading global warming skeptic in the last few years before passing away in 2008.

    Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.”

    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, a professor of earth sciences at Flinders University, says: “I started with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself.”

    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas
    of The University of Auckland, N.Z., converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic.

    Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, says warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel
    deceived by science and scientists.”

    Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, says “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the
    atmosphere, not the other way around …”

    Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden
    notes, “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined.”

    Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been

  • 4TimesAYear

    And that miniscule 3% outweighs all other climate drivers? What conclusive *scientific* evidence do you have that that 3% is more important than the other 97%, cycles, sun, etc?

  • tonyduncan

    you wouldn’t be using the “argument form authority” fallacy would you?
    Please post the links to their scientific papers that undermine current theory in ACC.
    I have no idea aha these people are basing these arguments on. and until I have something concrete, aha they say is meaningless.
    after all millions still believe Obama was born in Kenya.

    AND I am quite sure you have no idea what, the critiques of their views are, if they HAVE published anything about the issue.
    please stick to facts

  • tonyduncan

    what conclusive evidence do I have that it is more important? that is silly the whole 100% is what is important. the fact that we are ADDING to the total is what makes it a climate driver that is starting to overwhelm the other drivers. the fact that we have been in La niña influenced, extremely low solar and high aerosol, from pollution and volcanic activity means we should shave been in a much colder period the last decade. that is stropping empirical evidence of the effect

  • 4TimesAYear

    No, I’m not using “argument from authority” – you said: “If this is the best you can do for people jumping ship. (which deniers have been saying for the 5 years I have been following this) your argument is in horrible shape.”
    I was merely providing the proof.

  • tonyduncan

    you provided no evidence nor proof of people “jumping ship”for the time period that has any value. you just provide quotes from them, with no indication of when they said these things.
    if it isn’t from the last 5 years I am not interested. I have seen no one climate scientist jump ship since I have been actively studying this issue.
    first of all, you ignore your embarrassing first attempt. those people are all climate scientist (except for the silly one from GWPF.

    and as I said their views are meaningless unless they are backed up by actual valid scientific reasons for doing so. THAT is argument from authority, unless of course you are agreeing with me and think their protestations are meaningless without actual valid science to back them up. In which case, I apologize and you are NOT making an argument from authority

  • 4TimesAYear
  • tonyduncan

    Lovelock was full of shit when he made his ridiculous claims about the devastation of earth back then, and he is somewhat less full of shit by admitting it now. He is right that a there is a lot of uncertainty in certain areas, but he has never been a climate scientist and his views, while certainly not denying ACC, are not worth much more than someone like Dyson.
    what is your point? If you can show me real climate scientists who in the last 5 years have presented research that suggests CO2 is not the major driver of climate change now and in the foreseeable future, I will be VERY interested to see that and read their analysis.

  • 4TimesAYear

    The onus is on you to prove that it’s CO2 doing it.

  • tonyduncan

    Well, since there is NO climate scientist who contends that CO2 is NOT a factor in global temps, I refer you to the Roy Spencer who is sick of those that deny CO2 since it is a trace bass and can have no effect.

    So for ANY risk, you don’t think action should be taken until there is absolute proof?
    we have “proof” that CO2 causes warming. We have “proof” that CO2 levels are the highest in 2 million years. We have “proof” of energy imbalance. We have “proof” of arctic ice drastic decline. we have “proof” of ocean temps rising. We have “proof” of sea level rise. We have “proof” that night temps increasing. We have “proof” that pliocene with similar CO2 was 3-4° hotter than current temps. we have “proof” that current temps have gone from coldest of holocene to close to hottest in less than 200 years.
    we have “proof” that afar 30 years highly motivated ideologies have been unable to come up with anything close to a theory that explains climate WITHOUT CO2 being a major factor.
    I have “proof” that after 5 years of reading denier blogs that they are still full of outright lies distortions and ridiculous assertions .
    I have “proof” that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and other experts from many disparate fields continue to show research that supports ACC theory in almost all respects. Not just statements that are quoted on blogs, but actual real scientific research. As you are well aware, in spite of your attempts to portray it otherwise there base been no “jumping ship” by climate scientists in the last 5 years. Pretty much the only argument deniers have right now is the “pause in land warming the last 17 years. but there are explanations that make very good scientific sense, that have evidence to beck them up, and are nothing like the “epicycles” of failing theory.
    you can wait for your “Pearl Harbor” proof to convince, I would prefer to at least take some action in case you are wrong and all the real scientists are correct.