--- 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.BlogsContentRecord_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
