--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's a detailed response to your silly U.N. report allegedly proving > catastrophic man-made global warming: > UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over > Man-Made Global Warming Claims December 10, 2008
<Chuckle> That report... [here's the link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 http://snipurl.com/7r6ec ...was apparently released today {December 10, 2008] by the familiar fringe wingnut global warming denier Marc Morano and paid-off-by-Big-Oil Republican Sen James Inhofe touted as an update of their so-called "2007's blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists." Before I begin, here's a key misleading quote from Inhofe's report: "The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers." That's *blatantly false*: >From the IPCC: The IPCC's technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent "review editors" who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors. For example, see [2]. ...Experts from more than 130 countries are contributing to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents. To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather than waiting until the document is sent out for review... The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert reviewers—more than 2,500 for the entire AR4—who include scientists, industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of perspectives. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html http://snipurl.com/7r69y +++++++++++ Since the debunking of today's release hasn't had time to fully develop, let's look at who was behind their 2007 report: --Sen. James "Hoax" Inhofe, the Archbishop of Denial, and his alter boy Marc Morano (formerly of the Exxon funded Media Research Center), today released a report through the Environment and Public Works minority website, with the headline: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 - Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" Looking through Inhofe's list of disputers we find a large number of familiar names. Here's an interactive ExxonSecrets map of the 35 plus we have already data on: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1154 These individuals have been linked through the years with: Competitive Enterprise Institute Tech Central Station - set up by Exxon's operatives at DCI Group Heartland Institute Cato Institute Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow Frasier Institute The Annapolis Center The George Marshall Institute ...and numerous other Exxon-funded groups who have together received millions of dollars since 1998 from the corporation. ==== More on Inhofe's 2007 so-called "report" As discussed at Energy Smart in Inhofian Reporting: Peerless Work, http://www.bpsdb.orgSenator James M. Inhofe (R-Exxon) certainly has staff who understand how to play the media and influence game. On the eve of the Senate recess for Christmas, out went a truthiness (disingenuous, misleading, etc) "report" about "over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called `consensus' on man-made global warming'." While Energy Smart (and others) provided ample material about how ridiculous this report is, Mark Johnson at The Daily Green has made the effort to go through the report, "prominent scientist" by "prominent scientist" to underscore the significant (lack of) qualifications of the 413 listed in this `cut-and-paste' report. Like any conspiracy theory, the sheer magnitude of the effort lends it a first-blush air of credibility. And, like any conspiracy theory, it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. No. Even cursory study, as so many of us discovered at first blush, but the more indepth look underlines the utter absurdity of the so-called "report". * Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.) * 84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries. * 49 are retired * 44 are television weathermen * 20 are economists * 70 have no apparent expertise in climate science * Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it. Now, we might want to laugh at the utter absurdity of it all if it weren't about such an important issue. We spend far too much time playing "whack-a-mole" with the deniers/skeptics/delayers rather than concentrating on the serious discussion of how best to deal with the challenges before us. http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/debunking-inhofes-413/
