Climate Change: Inhofe is Wrong

The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works committee gave us an early Christmas present. On December 20th, 2007, the shocking headline “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” appeared on their website.(1) It goes on to say “these scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.” This breaking news contradicts everything we’ve heard about the scientific consensus about climate change, yet it didn’t show up on the radar of the major news organizations. Something is amiss, here.

What is the source of this revolutionary scientific news? What great mind produced this important gem of human knowledge? I was eager to find out, as this new data would be powerfully transforming if true. As I tracked down the original text of the document, my skepticism grew. The report was not an official report of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (EPW). Nor was it the product of any scientific institution. The report was published by the EPW minority (read: Republican) senators. The ranking minority member is none other than James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

The validity of this new evidence disintegrates the closer one gets to the details. The headline promises Earth-shattering new revelations. The complete report (which is billed as “Senate report”, with no mention that this report is not endorsed buy the whole Senate, nor even the entire EPW committee), includes an introduction that is nothing short of propaganda.(2) It is not afraid to toot its own horn, calling itself a “blockbuster Senate report." This masterpiece of political communication has three layers of obfuscation. The headline promises the world, and the writers must have assumed that most people would not read beyond it. For those who read a little deeper, they have a tailored propaganda introduction. Though the headline and the intro are intentionally misleading, they are nothing compared to the body of the report.

The report consists of a list of more than 400 scientists, including their names, their specialties, and their supposed contrarian quotes.(3) At first glance, it appears to be very thorough and convincing. It was designed to be persuasive to those who are not inclined to dig deeper. On the list are scientists who were part of the UN IPCC. It is an impressive display of quote mining, cherry picking, and appeals to authority.

When it comes to global warming denial, there are three basic approaches. You can either a.) claim that global warming is not really happening; or b.) admit that it is happening, but it is not caused by humans; or c.) admit that it is happening, it is caused by humans, but it is no big deal. There are several flavors of the above, but you cannot make all three claims at the same time. They are contradictory. Nonetheless, the report tries to throw all three denials together to get their 400 scientists. It cannot advocate a single conclusion, because the various claims contradict each other.

The scientists on the list did not volunteer to be included. They did not come out and say “count me in this list of global warming deniers”. It appears that the Republicans scoured the Internet for every possible quote that could be construed in some way as being different from the scientific consensus about global warming. It will be interesting to see if any of these scientists demand to be taken off the list once they find out they are on it. When you limit the list to those who actually agree with Inhofe's position, the list is much, much shorter. When you remove those who frankly are not experts in the field, it is shorter still. When you eliminate those who are in the pockets of the oil industry... well, this starts to look like a bogus list.

The list contains many gems that, standing alone, would not support Inhofe’s contrarian claims. B. P. Radhakrishna, a scientist from India, does not deny that global warming is happening, nor that it is human caused, nor that it is a big deal. He just believes that the efforts recommended by the United Nations may not be effective in bringing down carbon emissions.(4) In effect, he thinks the UN recommendations are not strong enough. Yet he is included on a list published by politicians who want to block all efforts to fight global warming.

Both Dr. John Maunder and Dr. John T. Everett would fall into the “global warming is no big deal” category. “when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher,”(5) the report reassures us, and Everett says “Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing.” Remember the headline? These scientists were supposed to contradict the man-caused global warming claims. Yet these scientists are saying no such thing.

Other entries in the list include claims that are demonstrably false. Those that claim that there is no warming are refuted by the scientific measurements, and by those who are actually making the measurements in the field. While I am open to all contrary views, they are not entitled to their own facts. No number of PhDs can change the evidence, no matter what they say.

Inhofe does not understand how science works. His list contains no real data, and I suspect he would not know what real data looks like. Contrast this approach with the United Nations assessment that Inhofe hates so much. The IPCC Fourth Assessment, published in 2007, deals with “The Physical Science Basis” for climate change.(6) The report is thorough, technical, and compelling. Rather than rely on quote mining and name dropping, it presents the actual scientific evidence. It is well sourced, for those interested in seeing the raw data. Nobody would claim that it is perfect, but perfection is an unattainable goal. As far as evidence goes, the IPCC report blows the Inhofe report out of the water. Like it or not, global warming is real, and human responsibility for it is a “near-certainty.”(7)

As scientific evidence goes, the Inhofe report is garbage. As political communication goes, it is effective. It has become a meme among reactionary websites. Most of them never get past the headline, and print the misleading banner unedited and unchallenged. One regressive rag gave a single sentence for response: “After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.”(8) Inhofe knew that he was preaching to the choir. His target audience wasn’t going to read the whole report anyway.

There is a reason the major news networks didn’t pick up on this report. James Inhofe is well known as a kook. He is a man on a mission. He believes that global warming is “the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state.”(9) He has made up his mind about the subject, and rejects all contrary evidence. Why? I believe it is because his regressive conservatism is incompatible with the political issues raised by global warming. Rather than reassess his political ideology, he prefers to deny that the problem exists at all.

James Inhofe has long been an embarrassment to Oklahoma. His denial of climate change has made him not only a national embarrassment, but an international one. As a locked-in incumbent, it is virtually impossible to unseat him. No opposing candidate has seriously challenged him. Oklahomans will have to live with him for a while, but we can take heart that he no longer holds the EPW chair. As the current chair, California’s Barbara Boxer, told Inhofe when he was trying to berate Al Gore, “You’re not making the rules.”(10)

© 2007 Bryan Lower

Feedback: