James Inhofe

Today: George Waldenberger

In previous editions of the "Inhofe 400," we found some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical.

Today's "skeptic" falls into the latter category. He is meteorologist George Waldenberger.

In response to his inclusion on the list, George sent an email to Inhofe's staffers that began:

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".

Wow. He doesn't leave much to the imagination.

A few thoughts.

An interview with Andrew Rice, the Democrat challenging GOP Sen. James Inhofe

Andrew Rice. No national politician has done more to antagonize the environmental community than James Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma. As chair of the Senate Environment Committee in the last Congress, and now as its ranking minority member, he has waged war on environmental legislation and acted as a one-man firewall stopping efforts to address […]

Today: Christopher Castro

In previous editions of the "Inhofe 400," we found one skeptic whose only qualification for being a "climate expert" was to have written an op-ed and another who argues that climate change must not be happening because God would never allow it.

We also found some economists who don't seem to doubt that humans are causing the climate to change.

Today's "skeptic," Prof. Christopher L. Castro, is a bonafide atmospheric scientist, so he clearly has relevant expertise on his resume.

I emailed Prof. Castro about being on this list, and he replied:

Since I'm asked about this often, my "official" position on global warming is given in my series of lectures I present in NATS 101 (accessible via my website link). You are free to quote my position from that if you like.

I went on his website and found these quotes from this lecture (MS PowerPoint file, slides 3 and 4):

Today: Chris Allen

Today's member of the "Inhofe 400" truly epitomizes the expertise and credibility of the group of experts that the good senator has assembled to demonstrate the obvious flaws in the theory of human-induced global warming.

He is Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Chris says this about global warming:

My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that.

Today: Thomas Ring

Recently, Senator James Inhofe published a list of 400 "prominent scientists" who have recently voiced significant objections mainstream climate science. In response to this list, I recently blogged that many of those listed lacked qualifications (see also here).

I'm betting that Sen. Inhofe doesn't want you to actually read the list of skeptics, but just read the headline and accept their conclusion. Here at Grist, however, we don't do what the good senator wants us to do very often. So in the spirit of non-compliance, I'm going to institute a semi-regular series where I examine the qualifications of some of the "experts" on the Inhofe 400 list.

NYT’s Revkin gives Inhofe a pass

So Sen. James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe (R-Okla.) issues a report in which he claims:

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.

"Padded" would be an extremely generous description of this list of "prominent scientists." Some would use the word "laughable" (though not the N.Y. Times' Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

I'm not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as "prominent scientists," and many of those, like Freeman Dyson -- a theoretical physicist -- have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I'm not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.

Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list. Why? Because he apparently told CNN and the Washington Post:

These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don't account for anything like the technological progress we're going to experience ... None of the global warming discussions mention the word "nanotechnology." Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years ... I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far -- 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that's not going to happen.

And people say I'm a techno-optimist. So Kurzweil actually believes in climate science -- rather than the reverse, as Inhofe claims -- but thinks catastrophic global warming won't happen because of a techno-fix that stops emissions. If wishes were horses ... everyone would get trampled to death. In the real world, energy breakthroughs are very rare, as we've seen, and it's even rarer when they make a difference in under several decades.

Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe's list:

More bogus climate skepticism

Imagine my surprise upon reading a shocking entry on Sen. Inhofe's EPW blog: the scientific consensus on climate change is cracking!

That blog provides a long list of names of people who disagree with the consensus, and I have no doubt that many on this list are indeed skeptics. The question is: does their opinion matter? Should you revise your views about climate change accordingly?

Considering the source, I think we all know the answer to that. To understand why Inhofe's claims are fundamentally bogus, consider the following scenario: imagine a child is diagnosed with cancer. Who are his parents going to take him to in order to determine the best course of treatment?

Most people would take the child to a specialist. Not just someone with a PhD in a technical subject, but an actual medical doctor. And not just any medical doctor, but someone who was a specialist in cancer. And not just any specialist in cancer, but someone who was a specialist in pediatric cancer. And, if possible, not just any pediatric oncologist, but someone who specialized in that particular type of cancer.

Expertise matters. Not everyone's opinion is equally valid.

Boxer’s supporting the scaled-back energy bill; it will likely pass

She's the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She carries a lot of weight and many will no doubt follow her lead. This thing is going to pass. James Inhofe just said he thinks it'll probably get about 80 votes. Perhaps the only interesting remaining question is whether anybody (Sanders?) will oppose this thing out of protest.

Clinton and Sanders introduce amendments to strengthen the bill

The Lieberman-Warner markup in the Senate Environment Committee starts tomorrow, but already the action is hot and heavy. Word has it that Sen. James Inhofe is going to pull all manner of procedural shenanigans, which will probably slow things up enough to extend the markup into two days. If that doesn’t do it, there are […]