What's with the explosion of James ';Oil Man'; Inhofe questions today?

There have been at least a half dozen ';questions'; regarding James Inhofe's ';list of 650 skeptical scientists'; today.


http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/16/mo…





What the heck is causing this sudden rash of Inhofe questions? Did Rush Limbaugh talk about it today or something?What's with the explosion of James ';Oil Man'; Inhofe questions today?
He very well might have. Inhofe just updated his previous list of 400 Scientists yesterday, and it's been all the rage in the denialist blogosphere ever since.What's with the explosion of James ';Oil Man'; Inhofe questions today?
I seem to recall that in a previous question, you asked me for an ';Official'; source. I pointed out that ';Official'; and valid are not the same thing by pointing you to some good sources, but also including some links to some ';Inhofe blogs'; as you called them. As I said then, Inhofe does not impress me with his understanding of science, but he is as official as anyone else. I say the same thing about Al Gore.





Maybe we started something silly at that time.





I read your link (as I like to read other stuff you refer me to), and it reminds me of criticisms of the ';consensus report'; done by the IPCC. In both cases, political forces are trying to legitimize their recommendations by using names of scientists, and unsurprisingly, scientists tend to object to this.





BTW, Inhofe is a senator from OK, and is normally thought of as a friend of big oil. It is fair to point out bias here by calling him an ';oil man';. Bias however, cuts both ways. Even back in the 1990s when I was doing my graduate work, the climate scientists that I discussed AGW with, were mostly skeptical. One thing they did agree on; there is no consensus. This debate will continue until more and better data comes in.
Here are some quotes from his list that might answer you question:





“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.





Your bread and butter argument for AGW is that there is no science that does not support the AGW theory, and that there is an overwhelming consensus in support of the theory. This list is meant to show what a lie that is.





“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.





So if a scientist was a member of the doom and gloom club, it would be hard for them to reverse their positions without loosing their reputation.





As to why more scientist do not speak out, this quote is also revealing:





“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”





In other words, she could not speak up before because she was censored.





By the way, do you really want us to believe that such a prominent scientist became skeptical by reading right wing blogs?
You have already received some excellent responses to your question.


It appears to me that you already have your mind made up and will completely and conveniently ignore any facts or science.





I would like to throw a gauntlet down,(if you have any real interest in science).





Why do you not let this question go to a vote, instead of waiting for one of your 'ego stroking friends' to reply and pick as best answer?


If you do this little gesture, I may have a bit more respect for you and you may actually realize how misguided you really are( unlikely).


I know that this won't happen because it may deflate your over-exaggerated ego.





From what I have seen, I am sure that many people on this forum probably feel the same. I am just willing to push the limits somewhat, and take the chance of this answer being reported as some kind of abuse.


The fact is that I do not consider this as some pathetic point scoring game and could care less about some sort of a Y/A badge.





The challenge is there. The question is, are you adult enough to take the challenge?
';Bias however, cuts both ways. ';





Perfect example--Joe Romm of climateprogress. A hyper-partisan whose blog isn't something I would call a quality source. Though it is one that Dana seems to continually cite.





Not that I think Inhofe knows what he is talking about, but if Dana wishes to convince anyone, he would do well to cite more credible sources than Romm.
I see you are referring to my question, and you attacked the source just as i predicted..





but you know what? just because someone doesn't beleive in AGW doesn't make them an ';oil man';.





besides.. it is not him that makes the article, IT IS THE 650 WELL KNOWN SCIENTISTS (who are more ';masterful'; at science than you are, you smug impostor)





A full senate report on the hoax is brewing.... the gig is up!! Time for the brainwashed to be deprogrammed!!
As the solemn predictions of the doom and gloom movement fail the test of time more people start looking for truth instead of fiction and it is the skeptics as always that are the guardians of truth. It is called panic and guilt drive sales. For a clear explanation in short form of how the whole thing functions see the link below.








Neil Diamond and Johnny Cash Bother Loves traveling salvation show..





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgeWUKcu…








And for a longer and more detailed explanation of the way it is done I recommend the following.





http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/105/10561





To get the the most understanding you will need to watch the movie. The insight into how these things are managed is worth it as ist makes it much easier to spot them up front and not get victimized as the innocent victims of AGW have been.
Dana - I find it very hypocritical for those who deny AGW to cry out how politicized GW has become, but at the same time will cite Inhofe, the senator from Oklahoma, as a credible source.
I know those people from New Orleans are really interested in this question too, but they're busy shoveling snow this morning and don't have time.
He wants everyone to know the truth, unlike most environmentalist who are only in it for money.
i see plenty of inhofe attackers here, but how come no one is attacking any of the 650 experts in his report????????
Dunno but I wanted to let Martin know I meant to give him a thumbs up.
Inahole's too full of crap like some of his followers here on Y/A .
james inhofe is an anti-environmentalist, he didn't believe in global warming long before he even heard of it