? asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007?

Do you think the Senate alarmists will actually read this and take consideration that the world is not ending?



Please read it before commenting on it!

11 Answers

  • Rick
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Are you kidding? Do you believe the 'emotionally based liberal mind set' could comprehend facts? Even if they read the report they would 'filter it through their illogical minds' not even seeing words in front of them. To the Liberal it is all about self aggrandizement and lust for Power and Control over people they consider 'brainless' & incapable of self government. While it is true that their 'followers' are ignorant and seemingly 'brainless' - this may be why they see people as fools to be exploited.

    One of the Alarmists claim is CO2 drive climate = WRONG!

    Most intelligent people know the effects of El Nino & La Nina on weather = It's the Oceans that drive the Earth's Climates!

    Interesting web page:


    Note the Western Pacific being 15 - 18 degrees warmer than oceans at the SAME Lattitude. THIS DIFFERENCE IS HUGE - Alarmists are talking about 1-3 degree in air temperature.

    This indicates a 'hot spot' in the earth's lithophere = place that allows heat to come to the surface from earth's mantel.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • J S
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    You may be interested in some background on the source (Senator James M. Inhofe) below.

    There are no new findings, only a list of wildly exaggerated claims. Even a brief glance at the actual "report" reveals clearly that the a large percentage of the contributors are speaking off the cuff, making reckless comments far outside their field of expertise.

    This pretty much sums the situation up:



    The very fact that someone considers it worthwhile to put together a list of 'scientists' and 'engineers' who dispute the findings of the experts is intriguing. Doesn't it say much about how non-discriminating the general population must be in their understanding of science and its practitioners? How else could someone believe that such a list would be effective in swaying opinion? It would only work if people, in general, can't tell the difference between a climatologist and medical doctor, or a ecologist and an engineer in terms of their ability to say anything meaningful (Oh dear, sorry guys, there is that 'authority' thing coming up again).

    I have been arguing that education has failed us miserably in that people are no longer capable of general critical thinking - that is outside of their narrow specialties. And people do not know enough about science and technology to have a basis for making critical judgments. Inhofe can make his list and get by with it because too many people in the general public don't know how to tell the difference.

    It's funny too how people like Inhofe can scoff off scientists or anyone with a PhD when it suits them - arguing they are too theoretical or some such - yet rally round the titles when it is to their supposed advantage. Talk about having your cake and eating it at the same time.


    George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma

    Source(s): So why would the Republican minority leader Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works publish this list? Do you suppose it could have anything to do with him being given over $500,000 by the two industries most threatened by global warming? The top industries supporting James M. Inhofe are: 1 Oil & Gas $319,958 2 Electric Utilities $195,907 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C... You don't need a postgraduate degree in climatology to understand that math!
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Parwez cites the acid rain question in the UK but as an acquaintance of one of the activists in the field at the time all the members of his group were agreed that there would be a side effect.

    This was that there would be a local warming, firstly from the reduction in the particles present when cleaner burning took place. Secondly the sulphur dioxide reduction given that it is a greenhouse cooling gas so this would cause an even more significant warming.

    This effect was at the time regarded as beneficial as the talk was we were entering a new ice age. They were also agreed that any man made change was well below the variance in both temperature and gas composition levels that occur naturally.

    Incidentally all the figures for man made emissions when compared to natural ones appear to be man's gross emissions compared to natural, net ones as no natural CO2 emission measurements seem to be available only CO2 levels.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Inhofe's report did a good job of summarizing some of the facts. A great deal of peer-reviewed research was published in 2007 showing AGW will not be catastrophic. The science is convincing scientists to become skeptics. Even the Washington Post admits the number of skeptical scientists is growing.

    Some people may want to know what science is the most convincing. Inhofe's report indicates the paper by Steven Schwartz of the Brookhaven National Lab on climate sensitivity to rising CO2 may be the most influential. Someone described the paper as "overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus' in one fell swoop." You can read it here.


    Other influential science is the work being done by Anthony Watts to improve the quality of surface station data. He has surveyed 1/3 of US surface stations and found that 85% of them have a warm bias and do not meet the minimum standards of the NOAA. Up to 1/2 of the observed warming may not even be real but an artifact of these poorly sited stations.


    Another influential paper is the one by Petr Chylek from Los Alamitos National Lab showing that scientists had previously overestimated the cooling impact of aerosols and overestimated the warming impact of CO2 on the climate.

    You can read an abstract of Chylek's paper here:


    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The wait and see approach is okay for countries like Russia and USA. Since the percentage of coastline compared to their country is quite small. So if they get it wrong the consequences are far less serious.

    Unlike Island nations and low lying nations.

    I remember the discussion abouts acid rain in the 80's Britian said there was no such thing (because the winds from the north sea were taking our sulphur and dumping it on the scandivian countries - it was not our problem, until the evidence was overwhelming, the longer we in the UK carried on arguing the longer we were able to prosper economically because we were not having to pay for our pollution.)

    Lets say for arguments sake I am a scientist employed in making semi-conductor chips, for me and my company accepting global warming is bad, since it means the cost of production will go up, whilst places like India and China are outside the Kyoto agreement.

    My position would be lets wait until we have stronger evidence (because the status-co it more beneficial for me).

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Bob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It's not a US Senate report. Just more nonsense from Inhofe.

    Here's one example of a "prominent scientist". And his authoritative study.

    "Another "prominent scientist" is listed as "Chemist Frank Britton" who wrote his condemnation "in a July 28, 2007 article in the Pasadena Star." Letter to the editor/opinion piece, actually. At the end of his published piece (no longer available on the Star News web site but archived at http://accboards.com/forums/archive/index.php/thre... he lists his impressive credentials: Frank Britton has a degree in chemistry from Cal State L.A. "

    A letter to the editor from a guy with a degree n chemistry is "proof"? By the way, his "science" is flat wrong.

    Inhofe is getting VERY desperate. He may even lose his seat. They have a good opponent this time


    and he's become embarrassing. Even his Republican colleagues wince when he does stuff like this.

    When the Murrah Building was bombed on April 19, 1995, Inhofe was asked how many people worked in the building. He said, "It depends on how many federal workers played hookey today."

    Note that the "contact" is Mark Murano. Murano was on Rush Limbaugh's staff before he was hired by Inhofe. He's famous (infamous?) for writing a story that claimed Representative Murthas medals were fake.

    Real believable guys (not).

    So, no, it won't change a thing.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Here's a brief list of the, shall we say, inaccuracies, of Inhofe's little report.

    • It is not peer reviewed. Normally when a scientific study of this sort is undertaken, the author will attempt to publish it in the scientific literature, such as Naomi Oreskes did when she published her study in 2004. Of course, if one's intent is to deceive rather than to enlighten, this step is unnecessary.

    • It is deceitful. There are several names given on the list of scientists who are not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming theory. For example, in order to buffer his number, Inhofe included the names from economist Bjørn Lomborg's "Copenhagen Consensus," few of the authors have expressed doubt about AGW theory. Aside from this, several names on the list are repeated more than once. Some several times over. Even stranger, some names aren't even scientists. I noticed one name was that of a retired architect.

    • Finally, Inhofe's "400" make up a very small portion of the scientific community. There are millions of scientists around the world, it's laughable that the staffers Inhofe employs to surf the Internet looking for anyone with scientific credentials who has expressed skepticism of AGW were only able to come up with less than 400. There have been similar lists from Cdesign proponentists of scientists who supposedly support ID with larger numbers than this. Surely Inhofe could have done better.

    Of course, when you think about it, I suppose he couldn't. After all, his goal is deceive global warming skeptics, and he's doing that admirably well.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are over 3300 Scientists on the other side, those are 400 hand picked GOP Scientists.

    "NASA's chief climate scientist James Hansen says the space agency's backlash is part of a Bush administration effort aimed at those trying to sound the alarm on climate change. "

    He says the administration tried to silence him after he gave a speech last month with this warning: "We're getting very close to a tipping point in the climate system. If we don't get off our 'business as usual' scenario and begin to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get big climate changes."

    Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing.

    "One threat was relayed to me that there would be 'dire consequences -- not specified,'" he told ABC News."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The report is a fraud. In the first place, none of the scientists are "prominent." Most don't even have any training in climatology.

    The report is drawn from propaganda and minsinformation put out by special interests (mainly the oil companies) and introduced into the Congressional record by one of Bush's hard-line right wing senators.

    End of story.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Global warming is not limited to American warming. We have a better environmental standards than many countries worldwide. My point is that global warming is not a threat to America and does not affect climate catastrophes in other countries. So let focus on how to better improve American people's health care and housing issues.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.