Inhofe's "report" on climate science released

Titled “0ver 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” chief global-warming denier and Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe (and the minority ranking member of the Environment and Public Works committee) released this document at an interesting time — four days before Christmas while Congress is in recess. Hmm, I wonder if that has some unstated relevance…

“If the theory were really wrong, just one would be sufficient”.
~ Einstein's response to the Nazi publication “100 Scientists Against Einstein”

As ever, I'm grateful that someone else has already done the heavy lifting on this unfortunate Chrismas gift.

As a taxpayer, to start with, I am outraged that my taxes are used to support such truthiness and distortions.

As a human being, I am outraged that such deniers (Roadblock Republicans) are able to stand in the way toward moving the nation and the Globe toward a more sensible energy future.

And, as an analyst, I am outraged that such mediocrity is allowed to be pedaled as a “report” with the imprimateur of the US government and a US Senate Committee behind it.

A full throated examination of the mediocrity of this collection of misleading climate denier and climate skeptic and delayer material is beyond the ability of one single post.

But, after the fold, this posting provides just a taste of the reviews and examinations of just the first three of the “peer-reviewed studies” cited by James Inhofe and his staff-support for Global Warming Denial.

and he also makes this important point:

Determining the right “peer”

James Inhofe is determined to highlight that these are “peer reviewed” studies and papers. As the material above suggests, real scholarly review of the works in question (at least three, chosen at random, e.g, the first three in the list) shows that they do not stand up to the rigor of serious review. Thus, how did they make it through “peer” review? Perhaps the answer comes from how peer is defined. After all, when it comes to the accused murderer, who are his (or her) peers? Other citizens? Or murderers? Thus, who are global warming deniers' “peers” and how does a “peer-reviewed” publication like Energy and Environment determine reviewers? Would Jim Hansen be asked to review a piece submitted to E&E and would his review be given weight? Or, are the reviewers chosen from a select few fellow-travelers in global warming denier, skeptic, or delayer circles? Hmmm …

The disinformation put out by Inhofe and his fellow deniers needs to be thoroughly discredited, especially here in Oklahoma.

The Kos post, and the site it references, are a good place to start if you want to join the truth brigade.

I'll post more responses and resources as I get them.

In the meantime, you can help by supporting, however you can, the only Democrat with the balls to challenge Inhofe's re-election bid next year, Andrew Rice.