On a July 28, 2003 senate floor speech, Senator John Inhofe suggested that global warming is “[t]he greatest hoax perpetuated on the American people.” This became an assertion on his January 4, 2005 “Climate Change Update” in which he relies partly on Michael Crichton’s fictional novel, State of Fear, in an attempt to debunk the reality of climate change. For critical analysis of this speech, click here and here.
I’ll leave the science itself aside for now. What I would like to point out is Inhofe’s clear lack of objectivity and respect for science on this subject. He has done what I most detest in debate: he has formed his opinion first, and then looked for the “science” to back him up. He was “happy to report” that Chrichton’s book was on the NY Times bestseller list. He judges from the “welcome success” of the book that the “real story” behind global warming is reaching the American public. He consideres man-made global warming to be “an article of religious faith,” and dismisses the “scientific consensus” as “alarmist.” Inhofe turns on its head the idea of people historically questioning (and murdering) scientists who reject a religious worldview:
This is, it seems to me, highly ironic: aren’t scientists supposed to be non-conforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it’s not hard to read between the lines: “skeptic” and “out of the mainstream” are thinly veiled code phrases, meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is, in short, a quack.
This is strangely out of synch with the reality that the idea of global warming was unpopular years ago, and only fairly recently have the “quacks” become the “mainstream” in terms of support within the scientific community. This is a case of people finally coming around, of advances in science supporting what the “quacks” have been saying all along. Inhofe has it backward.
More recently, Inhofe has responded with press releases to both Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and to the Discovery Channel’s special, “Global Warming: What You Need to Know,” hosted by Tom Brokaw. In the former release, Inhofe ignores the overall scope of the documentary, and instead picks at details. He refers to Dr. Michael Mann’s “now discredited ‘hockey stick,'” a record of past temperatures that has been controversial, but is far from discredited. Other independent studies have produced nearly identical results. Interestingly, in every Inhofe document I’ve read, Michael Mann is the only scientist he targets by name who supports the theory of global warming (everyone else in the non-skeptic scientific community is labeled as “alarmists” and purveyors of “bad science”). I’m not sure what to make of this.
In his release responding to Tom Brokaw and the Discovery Channel special, Inhofe challenges Brokaw’s objectivity because of his “reliance on scientists who openly endorsed Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and who are financially affiliated with left wing environmental groups.” Scientific American’s blog has this to say about that:
These few remaining skeptics, led by Senator James Inhofe, impugn Mr. Brokaw’s objectivity by noting in a press release that he nearly got a job in the Clinton cabinet and that two of the scientists he interviews actively supported John Kerry in the last presidential election. He also points to James Hansen’s article in our March 2004 issue as a confession of just such a manipulation. Unfortunately that confession seems to be missing from the actual article.
I would like to point out that while in office Inhofe has received over one million dollars in contributions from the energy and natural resources sector. Hm.
Science is very different from journalism. The American public has come to demand a certain level of objectivity in news reporting – it wants both sides of the story. The problem with this is that, in science, there often aren’t two sides. The earth really is round, and to give print space to, say, the Flat Earth Society, would be a waste. In science, the line between objectivity and subjectivity is in a different place than it is in journalism. The “we don’t know how this works” pile is separate from the “we know this for sure and we can prove it” pile. While there are still questions about the effects and severity of global warming, the fact that it is happening, and that human activity is a factor, goes in the “we can prove it” pile. It’s time to use what we know to take action.
James Inhofe is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Judging from the majority press releases, it’s pretty clear that the committee is hostile to the reality of global warming. However, digging a little deeper, one can see that the ‘majority’ does not necessarily mean ‘majority opinion.’ The following statements have been made by fellow committee members:
Along similar lines, in an effort to protect the public from the dangerous trend of global warming, I have actively supported initiatives to cap carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, and legislation to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation, industrial, and commercial sectors. ~Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI)
In their June 30 letter accepting the invitation to join the Dialogue, Lieberman and McCain wrote: “We believe it is important for legislators, business leaders and public interest organizations from the G8 and +5 nations to come together outside of formal negotiating structures to discuss a post-2012 International agreement to curb global warming.”
“It is with great pleasure we accept your kind invitation to join the Legislators Forum of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue,” they continued. “We will support the Forum’s efforts to generate productive ideas and exert a positive influence on the inter-governmental negotiations over a global response to climate change. We look forward to the Dialogue’s February 2007 meeting here in Washington D.C.” ~July 7, 2006 press release.
It is high time to stop relying on technicalities and finger pointing to avoid action on climate change. Science tells us we must begin to act soon if we are to have a chance of minimizing the growing effects of climate change. ~Excerpt from Senator Jim Jeffords’ (I-VT) reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Clean Air Act case regarding CO2 emissions.
As the ranking member of the Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety subcommittee, I have advocated for stronger clean air laws and have urged Congress to do something about global warming which stands as probably our greatest environmental challenge of the 21 st Century. ~Senator Tom Carper (D-DE).
Click here for a full list of committee members.
Three Taboos 
If you accept the only FACT that is proven in this debate, which is that that earth’s climate is cyclical in nature (ice age here, warm period there, etc), then the question is, why take action to stop cyclical change?
It was “warmer” globally in the 1100-1300 AD period of the planet than it is today, and pretty close to the same temperature as today in the 1930-1950s. Humans and animals have adapted to change and will continue to. Why restrict emissions that supposedly affect climate change when climate changes anyway? Restricitng emissions kills economies, especially in developing nations. I think people in Africa couldn’t care less about the earth getting a few degrees hotter if they had cheap power to run a damn air conditioner.
Even Kyoto supporters admit that reducing emissions to their mandated levels only will theoretically lower the global temperature by 0.005-0.01 degrees by 2050, while costing trillions to the global economy.
Accept climate change as a natural part of earth’s cyclical nature, and there’s no reason to destroy economies with mandated emission reductions.
Tim,
Thanks for visiting and commenting – much appreciated.
I actually was in the process of writing a post about the science of climate change, examining some of the arguments “for” and “against.” (This post, clearly, was about needing objectivity and openmindedness in the debate, not the actual science.) What I do know, off hand, is that the “cyclic nature of our climate” is not the only certainty in this debate. For example, the oft cited “medieval warm phase” is actually not proven to have been warmer than it is today. In fact, the current warming trend is unprecedented. One of the main arguments that it was warmer during the period you cited was the anecdotal evidence of grape harvests in England during that time:
“I’ve been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you don’t get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. I’ll examine each of these propositions in turn (but I’ll admit the logic of the last step escapes me).” For the whole article, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=medieval+warm+period
More on this in an upcoming post.
-“For example, the oft cited “medieval warm phase” is actually not proven to have been warmer than it is today”
Hockey stick discredited right there. If we cant prove the midieval warmperiod then what is the validity or point of the hockey stick graph? Considering it goes back further then the medival warm period.
-“usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003).” Thats called prejudice.
Quoted for irony “”What I would like to point out is Inhofe’s clear lack of objectivity and respect for science on this subject. He has done what I most detest in debate: he has formed his opinion first””
Finally, consensus is not science, science is not decided on consensus policy is, just ask Gallilao or Copernicus. And years ago global warming was unpopular because it was called global cooling. the looming iceage. Back then greenhouse gases were said to be blanketing the earth and not letting solar radiation in, therefor causeing dire cooling and a man made iceage. Now they just reverse the science and say that the same CO2is trapping the hot air and making us warmer. Ignoring the fact greenhouses work by not allowing convection.
Well, I’m glad to see (I think) that an ancient blog post is still seeing some traffic. That said, I nearly deleted the above comment out of sheer teacherly disgust with careless sentence structure and spelling, which makes the comment all the more difficult for readers to understand. I’m not perfect, but at least I use spell check and avoid sentence fragments. At any rate, I decided to leave it, more or less as “Exhibit A” in making the case that not taking care in writing leads me to believe that this person has, likewise, not taken care in reading.
That said, I cannot take credit for “disproving” the hockey stick climate model. There was a “Medieval warm period” (note spelling and the fact that warm period is two words, not one). This is known. People often assume that this warm period was warmer than it is today, and use this assumption to argue that, since it was once warmer in the past, we ought to throw up our hands and say, “it’s all a big cycle that we have no control over.” My point was that we shouldn’t make these assumptions. I’m not a scientist; therefore, whether or not one agrees with me, one shouldn’t give me credit for singlehandedly disproving the hockey stick model.
“Usual suspects” was more of a figure of speech, whereby the person I cited was perhaps somewhat sarcastically noting the very small pool of climate scientists who continue to debate anthropogenic climate change as a factor in global warming, and whose expertise is called upon in politically motivated debate. Note that sad’s comment referred to a cited quote, not my own words.
I suppose by irony, the comment refers to MY lack of objectivity. My position on anthropogenic climate change has been formed by research, quite a bit of it, actually. I don’t want to believe that human activity is changing the climate. I don’t want to believe that it isn’t. I want information.
Consensus is agreement. Of course it is not science. Likewise, science is not “decided on” anything. Science is science. Policy is political. Consensus among scientists is a factor in helping laypeople and policymakers judge the validity of a scientific argument (note I said a factor, not the determining factor). As a petty side note, and for those looking for accurate google results, it’s “Galileo.”
Actually, the “global cooling” concept is more popularly termed “global dimming,” an effect caused by smog and other particulates in the lower atmosphere, which serve (according to some) to actually mitigate the effects of global warming. It’s a factor in a very complicated system, but absolutely nothing has been reversed. You cannot “reverse” sound science. CO2 does indeed “trap hot air.” Might I suggest the tone of the above comment as “Exhibit B,” an example of too much hot air.