[asa] Latest Inhofe List Has Much in Common with Discovery Institute's List

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Dec 13 2008 - 23:17:42 EST

I was asked offline what I thought of Senator Inhofe's latest list of
"respected scientists".

  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Not surprisingly this is not much different from the Discovery
Institute's list of "dissenting" from Darwinism. See http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
  The dissenters from Darwin were short on biologists and the
dissenters from global warming are short on climatologists (they do
have a number of people who read teleprompters for a living, though).
There are key differences though. First of all, Inhofe cannot count.
There are a number of duplicates. When the duplicates removed the list
has 604 instead of more than 650. For comparison purposes the
Discovery Institute list has 751 names. The Inhofe list is involuntary
while the Discovery list is voluntary. If Inhoffe's staff think you
are climate skeptic then they will include you. George Waldenburger
asked to be taken off the previous list as follows:

> Marc, Matthew:
>
> Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-
> Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk
> the "Consensus".
>
> You quoted a newspaper article (that's main focus was scoring the
> accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing
> some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
>
> You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements.
> That's not a very respectable way of doing "research"

The article in question is here which will be relevant in just a second.
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/04/11/news/local/37ead791f2a7a221862572b90081ea59.txt

The current list still has him as follows:

> Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. "It has over the past 40 years.
> The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it
> all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of
> carbon dioxide part of this? And that's a subject that's up in the
> air," Waldenberger explained.

The newspaper precedes the quote as follows:

> Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn't
> really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,"
> Waldenberger said "It has over the past 40 years.

And the newspaper continues the quote as follows:

> But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water
> vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And
> that's why we're actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without
> water vapor in the air. So if you're talking about the greenhouse
> effect, that's very real, and we need it to survive.But as far as
> carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years,
> they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a
> degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred
> years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.

Another interesting thing about the two lists is who are in common.

1. Guillermo Gonzalez, former Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa
State University. Yeah, that Guillermo Gonzalez. Gonzalez signed the
Cornwall Alliance Open Letter which said, "Natural causes may account
for a large part, perhaps the majority, of the global warming in both
the last thirty and the last one hundred fifty years, which together
constitute an episode in the natural rising and falling cycles of
global average temperature. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases are probably a minor and possibly an
insignificant contributor to its causes,” the scientists declared.
“Reducing carbon dioxide emissions would have at most an insignificant
impact on the quantity and duration of global warming and would not
significantly reduce alleged harmful effects. Government-mandated
carbon dioxide emissions reductions not only would not significantly
curtail global warming or reduce its harmful effects but also would
cause greater harm than good to humanity–especially the poor–while
offering virtually no benefit to the rest of the world’s inhabitants,”

2. Robert Smith, Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha.
Smith was quoted in the UNO Gateway as follows: "[Smith] will present
an argument that water is the leading green house gas and global
warming is actually beneficial. The amount of carbon dioxide in
comparison to the amount of water that is affecting global warming is
minimal, Smith said. Ice ages are eminent and the next one will happen
in the next 2,000 years. "All models appeal to water changing the
temperature as the principle agent for increase in temperatures,"
Smith said. "I simply want to teach students how to think; and to
think properly, they need all the information."

3. James Wanliss, Associate Professor of Physics, Embry-Riddle
University. Wanliss was quoted by the Florida's News Journal as
follows: "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises
the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and
publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so
many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science,
apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus
science," Wanliss explained.

The next two University of Oklahoma profs are even more interesting.

4. Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of
Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. In an
article published by the Twin Cities Creation Science Association, he
wrote

> The predecessors of today's unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible's
> book of Genesis with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Now with the
> help of Al Gore and the United Nations they are trying to replace
> the Holy Bible's book of Revelation with the U.N.'s report
> Anthropogenic Global Warming. They tell us that man's use of fossil
> fuels results in too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which
> causes excessive warming and melting of polar ice caps. They say if
> we don't take drastic steps (trillions of dollars of taxes, year
> after year, after year), we will either roast to death, or drown in
> the rising seas. The plan is for the U.N. to take control of the
> world's economy and dictate what we can use for transportation
> (bikes?), what we can eat, where we can live, and what industries we
> must shut down. This whole scheme is a "Trojan Horse" for global s
> ocialism! ...
>
> For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming
> under the control of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can
> kill millions of people in his vain attempt to control it, by
> limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God control
> our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun!
> Amazing, even grade school children know this. The Sun's warming or
> cooling the earth varies with sunspot and Solar flairs [sic].
>
>

5. David Deming, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of
Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote:

> Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American
> culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As
> the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and
> elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

Deming wrote an op-ed on climate in this week's Washington Times.

> But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years
> of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever
> existed, it is now officially over.
>

The denialists like Deming made a big deal about early 2008 because of
the strong La Nina last Winter. This is now gone. Even with that slow
start 2008 will be warmer than any year in the 1970s. The NCDC put it
this way:

> October 2008 ranked as the second warmest October since records
> began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface
> temperatures, behind 2003. Temperatures were warmer than average
> across Asia, Australia, Europe, and northern Canada, prompting the
> October 2008 global land surface anomalies to be the warmest on
> record. The global average ocean surface temperature (SST) in
> October was the sixth warmest on record.

For January - October 2008, we had the 6th warmest land temperature,
the 10th warmest ocean temperature (which includes the residual La
Nina in January - March), and the 9th warmest overall.

What are we to conclude in all this? The same bad science that drives
YEC and ID also drives global warming denialism: the same opposition
to "consensus", the same politically motivated statements (c.v. the
statements concerning Obama and s ocialism above), the same lack of
domain experts, and the same obliviousness to the facts.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 13 23:20:56 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 13 2008 - 23:20:56 EST