Sen. James Inhofe Shows Real Data to CNN's Global Warming Alarmist Miles O'Brien

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

With NBC and ABC hyping the global climate change news in recent days, CNN jumped on the bandwagon on Wednesday’s American Morning. Miles O’Brien interviewed one of the leading climate change skeptics, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. After his previous combative interview, O’Brien attempted to disprove Inhofe’s skepticism with sound bites from various climate change believers.

Inhofe slammed O’Brien for cherry picking data to verify his theory exclaiming: "Now you won’t get the [fourth assessment from the IPCC] from scientists probably until May or June. But this summary is all you’re going to look at."

Miles O’Brien then cited the United Nations report with "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists." The Senator shot back about the Oregon Petition, signed by 17,800 scientists, who said that the increase in the earth’s temperature is part of a natural trend.

Senator Inhofe quoted to O’Brien, who once claimed that "skeptical scientists are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry,"a French geophysicist. This geophysicists said, "the cause of global warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by money."

The entire transcript is below.

M. O'BRIEN: "And now 'Melting Point.' We begin our special ongoing focus on global warming, and we begin with a shift in the political climate. Just listen to the president in the State of the Union speech last week."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "America's on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "That was a first. And now the White House is promising action on global warming. We wonder what one of the leading contrarians on the issue is thinking, and so we invited him on the program. He joins us now from Capitol Hill, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. He is the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator, good to have you back on the program."

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: "Hey, Miles. The last time I was on the program I was the chairman. Not anymore."

M. O'BRIEN: "I know. Things change. Things change in an instant."

INHOFE: "Yes, but they change back, too. Remember that."

M. O'BRIEN: "That is true, too. That is very true. And we're there to watch it every step of the way. Let's talk about the science, first. We've got a big report coming out, this United Nations report, 2,500 of the world's leading scientists. It's being called a smoking gun report with a link between humans and global warming. Let's listen to what one of the leading scientists has to say about it."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES HANSEN, DIR., GODDARD INST. FOR SPACE STUDIES: "The human link is crystal clear. There's no question, the increase from 280 to 380 parts per million in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "That's James Hansen, one of the leading climate scientists. He says it's crystal clear. What do you say?"

INHOFE: "I'd say that that's James Hansen, who is paid $250,000 by the Heinz Foundation. I think he'd say almost anything you ask him to say."

M. O'BRIEN: "He's -- Senator, he's speaking for 2,500 of the world's leading scientists."

INHOFE: "Oh. Then why is he the guy speaking? Let me tell you what you're going to get. You're wrong in this respect, Miles. What you're going to get on Friday is not the fourth assessment of the IPCC. You're going to get the summary for policymakers. Now, you won't get the report from scientists probably until May or June. But this summary is all you're going to look at. You're never going to talk about anything else. And that's -- and let me just read to you to show you that I'm right on this thing. On page four, it says, 'Changes in scientific work to ensure consistency with the summary for policymakers will ensure.' These are politicians, these aren't scientists."

M. O'BRIEN: "No, no, no. They are scientists, sir. It's 2,500..."

(CROSSTALK)

INHOFE: "The policymakers? The policymakers -- that's a summary, Miles."

M. O'BRIEN: "But this report, this summary, which is for policymakers, is drafted by scientists. They're meeting in Paris right now, and these are leading scientists who make these claims and now say there is a certainty of this human connection. Do you still reject that certainty?"

INHOFE: "Oh, definitely. I was on a program yesterday with Art Robinson. He was one of the scientists in the Oregon petition, 17,800 scientists, that said that, yes, we understand that we are going through a warming period, but it's not due to manmade gases. And this is ten years after they came out with their report, and nobody ever talks about that. The recent findings up in Canada, when 60 scientists told the prime minister, Harper, if we had known ten years ago what we know today about science, we would never have asked you to sign on to the Kyoto. So..."

(CROSSTALK)

M. O'BRIEN: "Right. There were many scientists who unwittingly became a part of that. Let's move on, though. Let's talk a little bit about... "

INHOFE: "Well, no. No, we can't move on, because if you're talking about the science, the science is not settled. Let's move on."

M. O'BRIEN: "All right. Let's move on now. Let's talk about the debate a little bit. It's interesting to see how corporations are acting right now. I know you saw this past week, right before the State of the Union Address, some real corporate heavyweights -- General Electric, Alcoa, British Petroleum, Duke Power, one of the -- I think it's the number three or four coal user in the country -- all signing on and publicly stating that they would like to accept, would prefer that there be caps on emissions of these climate-changing gases. Let's listen to what the head of Duke Power had to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM ROGERS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, DUKE ENERGY: "Our businesses and the national economy can grow, prosper, and compete successfully in a greenhouse gas-constrained world."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "It sounds like corporate America is ready to accept caps."

INHOFE: "Hey, let me, let me work into that -- it just takes me a second here -- my favorite quote of all the people who were on the side of saying manmade gas caused global warming was a socialist in France. He's a geophysicist named Claude Allegre (ph).He's a member of both the French and American Academy of Sciences. He says, 'The cause of global warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by' -- and listen to this now, Miles -- 'money.' Now, who do you think these guys are in corporate America? I would direct anyone who thinks that this is coming from their heart to read last Friday's Wall Street Journal, where they take each of the corporations you just mentioned and talked about how they can make money if we have to do away with coal gasification. Coal is responsible for over 50 percent of our energy in America. These companies have nuclear, they have hydroelectric, they have wind, they have -- and it's to their financial advantage to do away with it. Now who is paying for this?"

M. O'BRIEN: "Well, let's talk about that. That's an interesting point, because what you often hear -- and I've heard you say it, too -- that in putting these caps on, it would hurt the economy. What you're saying is, there's a good business here. These cooperation's can make some money by accepting these caps and developing new technologies. Why not go that route?"

INHOFE: "Well, if you go that route -- if you do away with 50 percent of our electricity in America, then those individuals who are generating less electricity by using some other means are going to jump in there and try to do it. The cost to the American people, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Wharton econometrics survey, would be astronomical. And these people all have money that they can make. Sure, if I were on the board of directors of GE, that's making solar equipment and wind turbines, I'd probably say, let's jump on this bandwagon and do away with coal-generated electricity. We'll make a fortune."

M. O'BRIEN: "All right. Let's talk a little bit about what's going on in the halls of Congress right now. Yesterday, the committee -- and now you're the ranking member of it -- sort of took, if you will, the temperature of the Senate, heard from some senators on this issue, and one of them you heard from was Senator John McCain. He spoke to me the day after the State of the Union. Let's listen to what he's saying right now about this."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: "This is one of the serious issues of our -- of, of the history of humanity. We've got to start reducing these greenhouse gas emissions before our planet is inalterably heated. And the consequences of that are catastrophic."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "All right. The senator is expressing some sentiment that is, is out there. You've got Democrats in control of both sides of Congress right now. It seems very likely there will be some legislation making its way, maybe by this summer. The question to you, sir, is, if that happens, will you filibuster?"

INHOFE: "You know, I'm not sure about filibustering. I don't know what's going to happen with this. I would say this: The last time we had the McCain bill -- and I love John McCain, but Miles, you have to keep in mind, I've said before -- not on your program -- I belong to the most exclusive club in Washington. That is the United States senators who are not running for president. So I don't have any other agenda other than trying to get to the truth. Now, the truth now is that we have changed the committee structure. It's not me, it's Barbara Boxer who is running the Environment of Public Works Committee. She had the hearing yesterday. I don't know whether you got my part of the hearing or not. I had 12 minutes to speak, and I did. Several other members did also. But, you know, let's look at it and see. The last time the McCain bill was up, we defeated it, 60-38. It wasn't close, 60-38."

M. O'BRIEN: "All right."

INHOFE: "But because of what it would cost the people in America, the people that are watching this today..."

M. O'BRIEN: "You just got through saying there is money to be made in this, so there is an inconsistency there. Finally, sir, you're a very religious man. I know that. And I..."

INHOFE: "A what? I'm sorry?"

M. O'BRIEN: "You're a religious man. And I've noted, I've noted with great interest on that same week that corporate America was coming forward, evangelicals coming forward saying something has to be done."

INHOFE: "Not at all. Not at all true."

M. O'BRIEN: "Listen to a leading evangelical for just a moment."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. RICHARD CIZIK, VP FOR GOVT. AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOC. OF EVANGELICALS: "I think it's a fundamental issue here, a defining public policy issue which says for scientists it's the Earth. For evangelicals, it's the creation. And we have a biblical duty as evangelical Christians. That comes straight from the Bible."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

M. O'BRIEN: "What do you say to that, Senator?"

INHOFE: "One of the problems, there's one individual. His name is Richard Cizik..."

M. O'BRIEN: "That was him. That was him."

INHOFE: "I know that. He's the guy that's out there -- and you talk about making money. There's a guy that's on the cutting edge, being sponsored by all these environmentalist groups to try to break into the National Association of Evangelicals. They have rejected him and what he has said. He's speaking on his own, not for evangelicals."


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Does O'Brien try to pass hims

Does O'Brien try to pass himself off as an objective journalist?  Is he this combative with GW-ists?  Somehow I doubt it.

Inhofe is pure gold

Inhofe is pure gold. He kicked the crap out of that liberal idiot spewer. I sure would enjoy things more if this happened 95% of the time instead of 5%.

Gosh that was great to hear a republican respond and destroy the liberal idiot with their own tried and true talking points slammed back in their face and ground in with gusto.

 I think we're going to wind up with a case of the liberal corpo haters lovingly coddling any corpo statement that says "let's do it".

 In 29 years or maybe 56 the libs will realize that they left out of the equation their most favey whine ever, "follow the money". Another lying ***t idiot I'd love to kick the crapout of. Now when there's money to be made, "there's an inconsistency there", (since the American people won't have to pay for it ?)

Really, WTF did " there's an inconsistency there" mean to the moron interviewer in his mind ? What a buffoon. I'd just like to pound them. That's all it comes down to for me.

The profit from creating all the new crap while closing the coal fired would be paid for with taxes and energy rates, you moronic jackoff reporter. That's the inconsistency in your insane head talking,you beanbrained doofus freak.

Chicken Little

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!   Update: The earth is on fire! The earth is on fire!

Facts! Facts! Ohhhhhhh, that

Facts! Facts! Ohhhhhhh, that burns! - A liberal vampire

lol Mica

lol Mica,

I was so mad I had to read it 3 times before it got it.

The Oregon Petition is often

The Oregon Petition is often cited as a document "proving that 18.000 scientists have signed this document saying there is no such thing as global warming"

Unfortunately, the term "scientists" is used very loosely. The petition did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

You and the Lord knows how ma

You and the Lord knows how many other leftists have been trying to debunk that petition for ten years.  The only real way to debunk it is to go through it name by name and ask the respondents where they stand on this issue today.  Attempts to do just this have been made, and just as quickly dropped when the responses received indicated that (1) a great many of the signatories were real people with real scientific credentials, and I don't mean just Bachelor's Degrees.   Almost all had at least MS and most had Phd in the physical sciences or in Anthropology adn its related fields.  i.e. students of ancient human history.  If they were not scientists, then YOU are the King of England. and (2) They actually knew what they were signing when they signed it.

Then there are the two Liepzig declarations [Wikipedia is a biased source on this topic, guess which side] and the open letter by Canadian scientists to PM Harper.  These have fewer signatories, all of whom are well known and some of whom also appear on the Seitz petition.

Now, it has been over ten years since that petition was first circulated.  Some of the people who originally signed it have since passed on.  Some more of the peole who signed it have changed their minds on the subject and would not sign it again.  More people who did not sign it originally would sign it today were it circulated again.  I am one of this last group. I received this petition and did not sign it originally, because although I have a degree in Physics and advanced degrees, I have not practiced in the field in over 10 years at that time.  But, once trained as a scientists, you never forget how to think that way.  Those opinions were real, whether you like it or not, and this pixie dust the government is spreading about a "consensus" is just a ploy to grab power.  The ONLY things there is a consensus about is that it has been getting very gradually and monotonically warmer since 1967 until 2005 and a total of about 0.6 degree C since 1850. CO2 has been monotonically increasing in the atmosphere since 1850.  All the mechanisms, cause-effect relationships etc., are still debated.  Many prominent scientists on both sides of the debate still believe we don't understand how all this works.

Simple questions again

1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?

2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?

3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes in 2006?

4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?

5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.

6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?

7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?

8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.

9) Why aren't the Leftists screaming for more nuclear power generation; you know, the power source that supplies 78.5% of France's needs, a nation that doesn't even have a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste? 

10) Why did I spend much time earlier this month chipping away a layer of ice from my truck here in San Antonio?  I thought this global warming thing was supposed to make such events more rare, not more common...

11) Twenty years ago, we were told again and again that the effects of global warming would be very noticeable right about....now.  Let's see here...we are still occasionally getting snow where there isn't supposed to be any, record lows are getting set somewhere in the country every given day, and the world's record high still stands after well over 80 years.  When is this thing supposed to happen, if it is supposed to happen?

Why are you so eager to destroy the world's most advanced economy on a hunch?  Are you extremely angry that there are people who are content all around you (and thus you HAVE to make them ALL as miserable as you are), or is it acute self-loathing and guilt?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???" - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Moonbat Repelant

Unsane - Have any of these Moonbats ever tried to answer your questions?

Seems to me they scatter like rats when Facts get brought up. ;-)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley

Only one made an attempt, if

Only one made an attempt, if you can call it that.  Word gaming, obfuscating the issue, and representing the Xinhua News Agency points of view gets you nowhere when trying to answer these questions. 

Moonbats don't like to answer questions.  Hence, I keep asking them.  It's like showing a vampire a cross...

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Inhofe makes me proud to be a

Inhofe makes me proud to be an Okie. Never realized our senator was so bright...

Dittos atheist. Inhofe gives

Dittos atheist. Inhofe gives us okies someone to look out for us in DC. Everyone should have a senator like him.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Awesome job by James Inhofe.

Awesome job by James Inhofe. Pathetic job by Miles O'Brien. James has facts and substance. Miles just says "All right" in response to James and then jumps to something else. And the things Miles jumps to are silly. Miles simply quotes George Bush and John McCain and then says see your own party believes in this. As if 2 is the whole party. And quoting one evangelical minister. You can easily find many who disagree, like D. James Kennedy. But what absurd logic anyway. And the MSM, since they lack facts and empirical data, resort to this all the time. As if we should take our stance on issues based on what someone of a similar religion or party to us says. Miles had no idea how to respond to Inhofe's excellent answers.

Reminds me of how Bill Clinton pathetically said he thinks abortion is okay because his pastor in Arkansas said it was. Aside from the absurdity that there are numerous pastors who would say otherwise, what kind of reason is that to formulate your opinion on abortion? How about examining the issue and coming to your own conclusions? But Billy boy knew he had no substance for being pro-abortion so he used this as a ridiculous excuse.

And don't you love how Miles said to James, "...and now say there is a certainty of that human connection. Do you still reject that certainty?" He doesn't say, "Do you disagree with them that it's a certainty?" Rather he says because these particular scientists (or policy makers!) say it's a certainty therefore it must be. And then phrases his question accordingly. What a total doofus!

Do they really think that cle

Do they really believe that cleaning up America is going to save the entire planet? Hey, I am all for cleaner air to breathe, I hate the smells--but to save the planet? See? This is what you get from people who have no hope of heaven and a new earth to come. Frantic lunatics...

Excellent post! We don't hav

Excellent post! We don't have to worry about global warming because the Rapture will take care of everything for us!

We don't have to worry about

We don't have to worry about global warming because we aren't causing most of it.  We could not prevent it if we tried.  Eventually, global COOLING will become a problem.  We aren't likely to be able to do much about that either when it comes, as geologic history says it surely shall.

Look at it this way:   Eventually, the Sun will exhaust its hydrogen fuel.  When that happens the entire discussion will be moot if man has not already found some other place to live outside this solar system.  Why aren't you out agitating to promote the colonization of space by humans?  If averting natural calamities is really your agenda, that woudl be your cup of tea.

Stephen Hawkings was recent

Stephen Hawkings was recently out there telling the world that we should colonize Mars or some such thing. His reasoning is that our world will be uninhabitable because of global wamring.... as if Mars was habitable. I know the guy is a genius and all, but come on! Someone must have overfilled his pockets with a lot of dough to get him to say something so retarded like that.

Hawking is an interesting min

Hawking is an interesting mind but I think he is dead wrong on this one.  One of the theoretical solar futures is a sun that, as it exhausts its hydrogen fuel, begins to burn the helium ash that has filled its core.  When this happens, it expands into a red giant whose surface will lie somewhere between the orbits of earth and Mars.  Obviously, the earth will cease to exist if that happens.  Other solar futures include white dwarf or black hole status and nova.  If the sun goes Nova, there will be no safe haven for life within this solar system.  The time when this happens is also subject to conjecture.  Some heliologists believe the sun will burn more or less as it is for 5 billion more years.  There are others who think this time is only  2, 1.5 or even 0.5 billion years.

NL207..I really doubt that Ha

NL207..I really doubt that Hawking was refering to global warming in his comments..unless someone has a link to prove otherwise. I'm sure he was talking about the life span of our sun...humm 5 billion years.. I need to re-examine my investments!

Mandrake, I didn't have the

Mandrake, I didn't have the actual Hawking quote to work from.  I suspect you are right because I don't think Stephen Hawking is buying the AGW story, but without a citation, I am not going out on a limb about that.  It's better to say I don't know.

So what kind of scotch have you had lately?

blarsen, and where is your &q

blarsen, and where is your "excellent" rebuttal to my last post to you?  How's that 50% rationale working out for you, cat got your tong?

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful to the Ignorant"

I didn't know cats used tongs

I didn't know cats used tongs.

...sorry.

They have to use tongs, since

They have to use tongs.

They don't have thumbs.    ;^)

Hahahahahahaha

I think the cat cut blarsen's tongue out all together...hahahahahah, what an idiotic remark...they don't come any dumber than that. And now, back to balbozo at the Democrat's apologylooza.

If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!

GAT, notice how he still refu

GAT, notice how he still refuses to address the original question and mock my spelling. Sooo, as intelligent as this conversationalist is, I believe I will end it.....now (he's WAY over my head). I should have known better, I already know this is a Trool {sic}!

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful to those too lazy to learn"

Why do dumb clucks like you h

Why do dumb clucks like you have to launch into some snide remarks about a branch of Christianity when discussing the totally unproven hypothosis that while nature has little or nothing to do with variations in climate, man-kind does.

What? You can't conceive that unless someone has been brainwashed into agreeing with your particular unthinking fanaticism, then they must be this cartoon version of how you stereotype people of faith.

Pretty un-nuanced, judgmental and black/white way of looking at the world there, doncha think?


A "progressive" = a liberal = a socialist = a commie in drag =
laughably wrong about life, the universe and everything.

Zealots Collide

How entertaining!  One religious zealot meets another.  To Debra, her god is the God of the Bible, while blarsen's god is The Almighty Nanny State.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

now he's worried

Sen. Inhofe seems to be standing in the way of the free-market.

Why choose to oppose businesses attempting to make a profit now?

"The cost to the America

"The cost to the American people, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Wharton econometrics survey, would be astronomical."

Pretty good reason to me. My electric bill is high enough, thank you.

but why

But why not oppose petroleum subsidies or any other corporate welfare?

Some of us have. For decade

Some of us have. For decades. Before it was "cool." Corporate welfare is really old news, why not focus (or at least comment...) on a new bipartisan scandal??
JMR

On misdirected fear

Why do you fear corporations more than government?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

O'Brien must really be smarti

O'Brien must really be smarting over how hard he got spanked in this interview. Way to go Inhofe. Why isn't he running for President?

Do you folks realize that o

Do you folks realize that of all the Co2 in the atmosphere, only 2 percent of it is attributable to man?

Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.

And if we could just shut u

And if we could just shut up Algore, we could cut that in half!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley

Get Teddy Kennedy to shut u

Get Teddy Kennedy to shut up and humans would be carbon neutral! YEAH!!! Go Humans!

Just heard there might be som

Just heard there might be some fireworks on Larry King. A show I rarely watch. Tuned in for the last 10 mins. Heidi Cullen and Richard Lindzen. Among others.

Going on memory here.

Heidi Cullen. The science is there. The science is conclusive. Man has changed the environment.

Richard Lindzen. That's very interesting as Ms Cullen has not bothered to say what the science is or what it says.

Lindzen: The temperture increases are within the normal rate of change.

Kings people. 90% of scientist and they're saying this with a 99.99%  level of confidence. Lindzen. Are your sure? Are you willing to make a wager on it? Their egghead... Well...

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Adding to this. Though I'm no

Adding to this. Though I'm not a climatologist. In a science with so many variables, I for one would be impressed with a 90.00% level of confidence. The significant level. A claim of 99.99% raises my skepticism.

I also remember. Which Kings people didn't seem to realize. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) There are two types of scientific errors. Type one. Rejection of a true hypothesis. And type 2, acceptance of a false hypothesis. From my memory of research and statistics. Statics can help us avoid making a type 1 error. But I recall no statistical test that ensures avoidance of a type 2 error. Consequently. We keep doing the research. Over and over again.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

The hardest error in science to fix is the 'accepted' theory err

The hardest error in science to fix is the 'accepted' theory error.

That is the error that kept the earth flat, the sun moving about the earth, the bleeders in control of medicine and the witch doctors in charge of healing.

When a person comes along and challenges this type of error they are almost always hung out to dry.

If Einstein's peers had prevailed, we'd still be trying to figure out the atom.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.

FYI>>> History Chann

FYI>>>

History Channel ran great hour in past couple weeks on businesses capturing CO2 etc piping it off to another facility and using it as a resource.  Much more interesting and worth seeing solutions already in effect.

Cspan run footage from Conference of Mayors and Cities intelligent discussion on climate.  Many smart things heard, if only for conserving(more efficiently using) natural resources.   Interesting graph about near or much more than twenty times the energy a building needs is in same time frame just naturally arriving on building face from the sun. 

Producer of "Inconvenient Truth"  does do public service of taking on message of compact flouresent bulbs replacing incandesant bulbs and is about to start a nation wide ad campaign to push such an easy way to greatly save oil and coal as well as other natural resources needed to produce energy.

With the world being "fl

With the world being "flatter," now, I am still glad our President has set human rights and freedom around the world as higher priority than his opposition.  Still smarting at Democrats across the board as well as specifically Obama in past election cycle basically arguing for civil rights and freedom for all ONLY in our own back yards.  I never heard Martin Luther King's words used so exclusively.

Yep started watching it. Real

Yep started watching it. Realized it was a lot of BS. Turned it off.

If you think changing light bulbs will be a big help. Please go for it. Have fun with it.

Hope your day is as good as mine.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

uc

Many of the libs believe incandescent bulbs cause health problems, headaches and something else I forget. They have a whole set of groups routing after that. The other ones whine they often have mercury in them, and are destroyers of the enviroment, and poisonous,apoison hazard for children and homeowners. The blinking of them can cause eppileptic children to go into siezures. The bad UVB rays that they emit can give you skin cancer.

 Good luck with the little curly killer bulbs.

A lot of this I probably agre

A lot of this I probably agree with Inhofe about, or at least the reasoning behind it, but I can't stand behind his statement that the Weather Channel wants to further the theory because otherwise no one would watch their channel, that they'd have nothing left to scare people with.

Even without global warming there's PLENTY left to work with! Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and without global warming to increase them, they become harder and harder to predict!

True, but they wouldn't have

True, but they wouldn't have to leave out global warming, they'd merely have to cover it in an even-handed way.  Their ratings might just go up...

If you've watched the weather

If you've watched the weather channel lately it's all about scaring the pee out of you that you could be a victim of any number of climate calamities thanks to global wamring. Global warming is their golden ticket to get viewers to watch. That's why they push it so much. It's all about drama.

BTW, our world's climate doesn't get harder and harder to predict. As a rule climate is ever changing and chaotic. If anything, we are getting better and better at accurately predicting the weather.

yeah steviep831,bal meant he'smad the WC was exposed

yeah steviep831, bal meant he's mad the Weather Channel was exposed for it's hype, when just like bal said so many for so long sit around with the weather channel on watching for hours. ( not really, but I thought I'd be a liar once for bal, instead of watching his main lib counterpointlie get slapped down so easily )

ahh? balboa, "global wa

ahh?

balboa,

 "global warming to increase them, they become harder and harder to predict"      

 Did I miss the big huricane season?

 Did we have another Katrina???  Or was it a mild season last year?  It was! It was a mild season! Oh I know one season doesn't prove anything, unless it's a big huricane, then it's that pesky global warming .

Hey if co2 emmissions are steadily increasing and causing global warming, why is the hottest year on record still 1998?     Why aren't tempatures steadily increasing with it?  Did co2 emmissions drop the last couple of years? Or have places like the EU and china increase emmissions by 14% since Kyoto?

The sun is not set by a thermostat.....

Ra, no response to that is good for the future

Ra, no progessive open minded person who is seeking the truth for the future safety of mankind need respond to those biased and inconsequential, unscientific and out of the mainstream consensus remarks designed to create controversy. Sometimes silence is the best way to get along. You need to learn that.

btw- are you a scientist ? I didn't think so. nuff said. Now balboa can nancy off for his starbucks latte'.

Lindzen say  "a few ten

Lindzen say  "a few tenths of a degree change ... None of it in the last eight years..."   A blatant statement of fact repeatedly glossed over by the alarmists as they peddle their wares to the unwary.  I am sure that Throatwaobbler will continue to reject this fact as well since he is a true believer.

I love Heidi Cullen's views about Al Gore's balogna.  She, supposedly an objective scientist, buys into this crap about 20 foot sea level increases in the next 90 years.   Since the end of the last ice age the sea levels rose 400 feet but it has taken over 12,000 years for that to occur.

Though the IPCC report isn't

Though the IPCC report isn't out. I keep hearing their projections of sea level rise will be a lot less than 20 feet. Measured in inches rather than feet.

Also found this on Larry King. In a meeting with Boxer and Inhofe.

INHOFE: ... because I've got to get one last sentence in here, if at all possible. And that is they talk about the IPCC assessment -- fourth assessment. It's not coming out on Friday. That is the summary for policymakers. These are not scientists. These are the politicians. These are the ones who really want to believe that they, the United Nations -- they started this whole thing with the IPCC -- this is -- and let me read page four. This is probably the most significant part of what you're going to see on Friday.

It says: "Changes in scientific work to ensure consistency with the summary for policymakers will occur." In other words, forget about the science, let's make the policymakers happy.

I had run into the same thing about IPCC retaining the right to alter the scientific papers to match the policy.

Will the Union of Concerned Scientist send an open letter of concern to them? Will the senate or house have committee meeting on this?

I'm waiting to see. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for their false indignation.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

danbo I'm listening to Dr. Fr

danbo I'm listening to Dr. Fred Singer right now on KSFO...

He had the gall to point out that sea levels have risen 400 feet since the end of the last Ice Age -- 18,000 years ago.

It's inevitable. It has nothing to do with us. And when the next Ice Age comes, sea levels will drop again.


A "progressive" = a liberal = a socialist = a commie in drag =
laughably wrong about life, the universe and everything.

Yep. Rising sea levels are no

Yep. Rising sea levels are nothing new. To enter Italy's Blue grotto, cave. You ride a boat in through a window the emperor Nero had cut high on the wall to let light in. The blue glow is the light entering through the original entrance, deep under water.

Interesting point from Lindzen. You all have the link. My bold.

Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

danbo the masses of trolling libs will never know

danbo the masses of trolling libs will never know.

 We can expect them to enter and screech that official world respected top of the creamy crop scientists have spoken and only religious oil zealouts that want armageddon will argue.

news:

 Pew Research 1 million dollar advocacy contributor >gave UCS represented by>the fat dark bags under her eyes whining lib spokesperson leader from the Union of Concerned Scientists at the Waxman attack Bush and print science fraud on your own Waxman flyer hearing.

 Yeah,mustache weasel had a fraudulent claimon his hearing flyer. LOL It came out in the inquisition into Bush silencing AGW truthers.

SP Thanks for the link to the

SP Thanks for the link to the hearing. I listened to part of it. Liked the admission the the antarctic has been cooling for a while. (Some one tell the people at NBC.) They do have a we think we know why. But a we think does not mean they're correct.

I for one hope to point out the BS every chance i get.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

You're welcome danbo

You're welcome danbo. How did you like that gay sounding bald needs a tooth job skinny weasel, who also said that "we think that that cooling is going to reverse."

Did you hear that ? I mean how ****'in precious was that ? Oh,the BIGGEST chunk of ice in the entire world is cooling, but you "think" that is going to reverse.

 Man, it's so many lies and obfuscations, it's absolutely amazing to me these people aren't thrown out on their rear ends.

Yeah, he went on about the ozone layer I think concerning that cooling, and something else I don't recall, but boy oh brother, he slipped in right before he was done that we think that is going to reverse....

LOL - It was a great hearing, and Issa did a darn good job,and I sure wish he had more time. Even Christopher Shayes reamed(after it came out) " Well, you're not a scientist, what I don't get is you saying, "I'm not a geological scientist", leaving us with the impression that you are some kind of scientist, but you aren't a scientist, are you ? Not at all,you aren't a scientist !" ( The 10 year leader of the gov research chimed in again he's a political scientist  - and Shayes ripped right over that )

 I enjoyed it. It made the insane democrats look even more insane to me. They're a bunch of lying kuckoo "wordmeisters" ,and it was great to see the somewhat moderate Shayes rip into them with their own shrieking crap about "being a scientist".

 The " this is already settled" line over and over from dems, and now we have to find out what were going to do to fix it. God, what a waste of time that was. Kinda scarey that the congress even does crap like that. I have very little confidence in the democrats. I think Bin Laden himself could tell them something, and if it fit their mentally twisted code of absolutisms they'ed buy it, no matter what it was.

Look at the bright side. Ther

Look at the bright side. There will be plenty of reminders for the American people as to why they voted them out in the first place.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I like that exchange between

I like that exchange between Nye and Lindzen.  Nye is full of BS and was making statements that were factually untrue, so Lindzen calls him on it, and the moderator [King] cuts them off to sweep it under the rug.

I also like the balogna Boxer had to say about the Oregon petition.  She dismissed it with the claim that a majority of its signers were deluded and didn't know what they were signing.  She has no data whatever to support that claim and nobody was allowed to call her on that either.  Everyone that I know who received that petition and signed knew exactly what they were signing.  I received it and declined to sign it even though I agreed with its principle positions.

What do you expect. Nye is wi

What do you expect. Nye is with the Union Of Concerned Scientist. He was out of his league. He's so sure yet is only willing to wager a cup of coffee.

But even Nye looked better than Cullen. As Lindzen pointed out.

Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about. This is a problem with so many facets, that the notion that scientists are in lox, that bonnet is silly.
(This is a transcript. I heard this part. I beleve the lox was Lock step.)

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Yep after "8"  yea

Yep after "8"  years of runaway increases in CO2. No temperture increase. Lowering temps even. That's some greenhouse gas.

I think I pointed out before. I'm picking up, there are indications that the final IPCC report may claim the temperture increases over the last 100-140 years has been 0.8 degrees rather than 0.6. The recent tempertures have not been changed rather they're lowering the older tempertures like around 1900 and they're raising the tempertures for the 40's to 70's to make it look like it didn't cool so much.

Al Gore must have found some uncounted tempertures from a ballot box in Florida. And rejected some tempertures because they weren't post marked.

Was it Stalin that said. "The future is known. The only the past is in doubt."  

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Tampering with data, especial

Tampering with data, especially data that has been published for more than fifty years, is the last refuge of liars, not to mention a gross breach of scientific ethics.  This is despicable.  My take on this is the politicians and AGW alarmists haven't made their case, they know they haven't made their case, and now, ethics be damned, they are going to lie about the situation top make their case.

Do you have any idea what justification they are using for "adjusting" these old measurements?

What I read on this was over

What I read on this was over at Climateaudit. (There seems to be a website problem there right now. they may be changing servers.) They were picking it apart last time I could get in. I hope it's wrong. But there are indications as changes in the published climate history charts. etc.Climteaudit was trying to make sense of it. But there's lots of secrets here. (I think the press is more likely to report battle plans in Iraq than this.)

I think the record 98 data was included in their last report. So that should not be part of the reason.

We still have about 4 months. So hopefully honerable heads may prevail. But it's now in the hands of politicians.

I point this out in case we do see a claim to growing warming. Look deeper into the data. 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

"He was one of the scientists

"He was one of the scientists in the Oregon petition, 17,800 scientists, that said that, yes, we understand that we are going through a warming period, but it's not due to manmade gases."

Wow, sad that a GOP senator has to rely on a decade old document signed by Ginger Spice. Whatever keeps the oil money flowing, right seantor?

Blasphemy

Right.  Just as my opinions are automatically invalidated because I come from a state that produces much of the nation's oil.

But let's not forget that the motives of the scientists guiltwobbler worships like some people do gods or saints can NEVER EVER be questioned under ANY circumstances, nor can their sources of funding.  If anyone ever does, guiltwobbler will personally, violently, and publicly beat him/her to death for blaspheming guiltwobbler's religion. 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

You relay on MBH98 for your o

You relay on MBH98 for your opinions!  Why, that paper is 9 years old!  Sad that you have to rely on a decade old document to prop up your demented arguments.  Whatever keeps the Government grant money flowing, right Wobbler?

And before it slips my mind, have you learnned anything about heat transfer yet?  Can you explain how a greenhouse actually works?  Or are you still just a little two-bit hack pretending to be a scientist?

It is completely irrel;evant

It is completely irrel;evant how a greenhouse works. The term "greenhouse effetc" is a metaphor, and not a sicentifically precise one. What is your point? Scientists are trying to scrae people with the term "greenhouse"? Wow.

And you act as if MBH98 is the only paper that supports AGW. Pick up a journal of cliamte science sometime and see for yourself.

Oh, was Ginger Spice a co-author on MBH98? LOL.

No, they mislead people as to

No, they mislead people as to the magnitude of effects of CO2 or any other "greenhouse" gas.

short lesson:  There are only three ways heat may be transferred.  They differ in mechanism and efficiency.  The most efficient heat transfer mechanism is convection.  Convection is the transport of heat stored in moving matter.  As the matter moves, it transports the heat energy that it contains.  The Gulfstream current is an example of convection.  The second most efficient form of heat transfer is conduction.  Heat energy is transferred from one body of matter to another by direct contact.  This is how your toungue got stuck on the metal pole in the middle of winter.  The third and LEAST efficient, by orders of magnitude, means of heat transfer is by radiation.  Black box radiators give off energy proprtional to the fourth power of their temperature in degrees kelvin as memory serves me. The coefficient is tiny. 

A green house operates in all three ways.  The walls and roof of the greenhouse block convection.  Air currents cannot transoport heat in or out of the greenhouse.  A greenhouse is made of glass.  Glass is not a particularly good conductor of heat  or electricity.  Funny how good conductors of electricity are also good conductors of heat, isn't it?  Maybe because electron transfer is the principle heat transfer vehicle?  And finally, the glass of a greenhouse serves to trap infrared radiation.  Sunlight is allowed through as higher wavelength radiation, some is absorbed internally, and when emitted as IR, is blocked by the glass.

Back to atmospheric greenhouse gases.  They don't prevent convection, now do they?  And they don't prevent conduction either, do they?   The ONLY thing they do is is scatter infrared radiation, and some of them are better at it than others.  It turns out that the efficiencey of IR scattering is dependent on the type of chemical bonds in the gas molecule.  The best IR resonator amongst the common gases is the Carbon-Hydrogen bond.  Too bad CO2 doesn't have any of these. 

This is the deception.  Everyone is familiar with the strong effects of greenhouses.  Atmospheric greenhouse gases have virtually nothing in common with this effect.  The metaphor is a gross exaggeration and is  therefore, utterly invalid, just like Al Gores gross exaggerations of global warming.

I love to poke at MBH98, MBH99, and Mann's latest foray into inverse regression analysis because it is so obvious he has overanalyzed the data.  Its been cherry picked to give the resulst he has goten.  If just one species, the bristlecone pine, is removed from the analysis, the result change drastically.

Again, I know this. GHGs make

Again, I know this. GHGs make the earth 30^C warmer. Greenhouses are not 30^C wamrer than the outside temperature, so the metaphor actually impies a smaller effect than greenhouses have. Yet it's a scare tactic in your mind.

Stop obsessing over Mann and read the dozens of other rewconstructions.

Religious zealotry

To guiltwobbler, ANYTHING that does not support his religion is irrelevant. 

Tell me, guiltwobbler: does your idea of a sexual fantasy consist of standing on the throat of one who dares question the idea that global warming is man-made (or happening) until they at long last stop breathing?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

The term "greenhouse e

The term "greenhouse effetc" is a metaphor, and not a sicentifically precise one.

The term "dickhead" is a metaphor, and while not a scientifically precise one, it is the consensus of opinion of all of us here who wade through your tripe for prose.


A "progressive" = a liberal = a socialist = a commie in drag =
laughably wrong about life, the universe and everything.