Exclusive Hot Air interview: Inhofe to release report blasting IPCC on Climategate

posted at 8:00 am on February 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Last night, I got an exclusive interview with Senator James Inhofe in his Senate office to discuss a new report his office will release today, ahead of an appearance by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at an Energy and Public Works Committee hearing. Jackson once dismissed the Climategate scandal of the East Anglia CRU as nothing more than a demonstration that some climate scientists “lack interpersonal skills.” An initial inquiry by the minority members of the EPW Committee comes to a much different conclusion — that the e-mails reveal unethical and potentially criminal activities within the IPCC:

  • Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
  • Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
  • Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
  • Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

The new report will also include in its findings the scandals of the bogus claims on Himalayan glacier retreat, Amazon rain forest damage, and African crop projections.  The latest scandal hit too late for this initial inquiry report, which was the withdrawal of IPCC claims on rising sea levels (via Watts Up With That):

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

The IPCC has insisted that their report consisted of solid, peer-reviewed science that was unassailable.  Over the last three months, we have seen repeated exposures of advocacy and unsupported student theses masquerading as science, as well as evidence of conspiracies to silence skeptics and ruin their careers.  This paper was the first ever retracted from Nature Geoscience in three years of publication.

Most of you know I’m on vacation for a few days, but I’m still in DC, and I jumped at the chance to get the interview with Inhofe. I should add that just before our interview last night, two administrators from the EPA arrived at Inhofe’s Senate office just before me. Inhofe later told me that the pair informed him that they wanted to proceed full steam ahead with their endangerment finding and the enforcement efforts they had planned. Inhofe expressed surprise that the EPA hadn’t reconsidered its position after the exposure of the IPCC’s incompetence and potential fraud — and he plans to demand answers from Jackson today.

Inhofe will have the report at his website later today, so be sure to download it when you can.  Meanwhile, here is my exclusive interview with one of the men who have warned for years — since at least 2005, according to numerous quotes provided by Inhofe’s office — that the IPCC was promulgating a religious belief more than a science.  In the second half of the interview, Inhofe discusses the aims of the AGW movement, which has less to do with changing the weather than with expanding government control of private property and enterprise.

Update: Pajamas Media has an exclusive early look at the report. (via Drudge)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Nice scoop.

(BTW,

Jackson once dismissed the Climategate scandal of the East Anglia CRU as nothing more than a demonstration that some climate scientists “lack interpersonal skills.”

Yeah. Sure. And I suppose Lizzie Borden lacked interpersonal skills, too.)

apostic on February 23, 2010 at 8:04 AM

When Inhofe gets to be committee chair (soon, I hope), I’d love to be in the gallery during his hearings.

BottomLine5 on February 23, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Global warming exists! I know. Two weeks ago, DC was in the midst of a snowstorm. Today that snow is melting. I require $3B in federal funds to study the impact of snow melting in my backyard.

highhopes on February 23, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Die AGW acolytes, die.

Or at least be reduced to being just another group of nutters gathered ’round Stonehenge once or twice a year.

Doorgunner on February 23, 2010 at 8:13 AM

Yesssssssssssssssssss.

/napoleon_dynamite

selias on February 23, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

Never has someone so succinctly described the scientific process!

/liberal

gwelf on February 23, 2010 at 8:17 AM

I should add that just before our interview last night, two administrators from the EPA arrived at Inhofe’s Senate office just before me. Inhofe later told me that the pair informed him that they wanted to proceed full steam ahead with their endangerment finding and the enforcement efforts they had planned.

Of course they do!

Those are their instructions from the highest authority and that’s exactly what they’ll do in order to advance EPA regulations, along with legislation that requires the support of that fraudulent science!

GoldenEagle4444 on February 23, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Global warming exists! I know. Two weeks ago, DC was in the midst of a snowstorm. Today that snow is melting. I require $3B in federal funds to study the impact of snow melting in my backyard.

highhopes on February 23, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Don’t give them any ideas…I’m sure they have already paid for the study for the recent ice melt. ( :

yoda on February 23, 2010 at 8:19 AM

WSJ has a piece up indicating EPA will delay its emissions roolz (but only for a yr and betcha it is to help GM somehow lol!)

ginaswo on February 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Inhofe expressed surprise that the EPA hadn’t reconsidered its position after the exposure of the IPCC’s incompetence and potential fraud — and he plans to demand answers from Jackson today.

The reflexive reaction of idealogues and religious zealots, when confronted with their minions’ incompetence, corruption and fraud is to double down. As his redistributive programs come increasingly under fire, doubling down is what we’ll see from Obama, our socialist community organizer in chief.

petefrt on February 23, 2010 at 8:22 AM

As much as we’d like to hope, getting the current DOJ to investigate the Gorelites stands as good a chance as getting the ethics panel to investigate any Dem (Rangel for example) or charge the NBPP with anything.

Robert17 on February 23, 2010 at 8:23 AM

Those are their instructions from the highest authority and that’s exactly what they’ll do in order to advance EPA regulations, along with legislation that requires the support of that fraudulent science!

GoldenEagle4444 on February 23, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Too much has been invested in the global warming religion for the EPA to go quietly when their god has been proven a false idol. Too many “professionals” careers are tied up in the mythology of global warming. Too many studies would be proven fact-free or full faulty assumptions. In short, asking the EPA to come clean about global warming is like asking Oprah to give up pie- it just isn’t going to happen.

highhopes on February 23, 2010 at 8:24 AM

Inhofe is the MAN!!!!

He might get goodies for his state but he’s about as close to cajones as the GOP has had since Jesse Helms!!!

Plus, as a bonus the LIBS hayyyyyyyte him!!

PappyD61 on February 23, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Jackson once dismissed the Climategate scandal of the East Anglia CRU as nothing more than a demonstration that some climate scientists “lack interpersonal skills.”

Having been at more than one EPA awards dinner with various climate scientists over the course of my career, I can say unequivocally that this is true. They have no interpersonal skills. Or table manners, for that matter.

DaydreamBeliever on February 23, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Nice scoop,Capt’n Ed!:)

canopfor on February 23, 2010 at 8:26 AM

Well done, Ed!

I say we give the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Congressional Gold Medal, Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, Grammy, Tony, Lombardi Trophy, a pallet of Crackerjacks and a roll of scratch off lottery tickets to the person who leaked those CRU emails.

trubble on February 23, 2010 at 8:28 AM

I expect this to be a troll free thread.

lack interpersonal skills Is this to be the new euphemism for fraud? As in, Charles Ponzi was senteced to 5 years in prison for lacking interpersonal skills. Or Barack Hussein Obama committed a lack of interpersonal skills on America during the 2008 presidential campaign.

rbj on February 23, 2010 at 8:28 AM

And one other thing…… Inhofe considers it a badge of honor that the Libs hate him. He ain’t skeerd!!

The only negative?….. He’s in his 70′s and too old to run for the White House!!

PappyD61 on February 23, 2010 at 8:28 AM

As much as we’d like to hope, getting the current DOJ to investigate the Gorelites stands as good a chance as getting the ethics panel to investigate any Dem (Rangel for example) or charge the NBPP with anything.

Robert17 on February 23, 2010 at 8:23 AM

While it is clear that Gore and his crowd are guilty of fraud, the bigger more imporant mission is to de-bunk all the work done by East Anglia CRU. All told, the amount of money invested in this ponzi scheme makes Enron or Bernie Madoff’s crimes look like penny poker. The organization has been discredited but the “work” done is still being used by global warming advocates to draft legislation.

highhopes on February 23, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Sorry for the all bold earlier…..little letter keys on iPhone.

:-)

PappyD61 on February 23, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Good job Senator Inhofe … since the majority of the EPA decisions are based on the IPCC’s junk science, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Of course, being who they are, they’ll just try to impose their agenda on the country anyway. Science matters not.

darwin on February 23, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Taking a page out of the Liberal playbook,
when do these GW FraudHustling Scientist
Scammers,get their very own personal Parole
Officer!!(sarc).

canopfor on February 23, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Jackson once dismissed the Climategate scandal of the East Anglia CRU as nothing more than a demonstration that some climate scientists “lack interpersonal skills.”

Such hogwash. As far as interpersonal skills, they sounded just like most people would when speaking to those they felt comfortable around. It’s the part where they obstructed the peer review process and admitted to fudging data, obstructing the FOI process, and hampering science in the name of a political agenda that is the problem. The attempts to dismiss the CRU email archive as “boys being boys” is a pathetic attempt at dismissing something of substance.

Tonus on February 23, 2010 at 8:38 AM

“Most of you know I’m on vacation for a few days, but I’m still in DC, and I jumped at the chance to get the interview with Inhofe.”

Warning! Warning! There is a consensus that people who hang out in D.C. for long periods of time end up catching suspicious pathological contaminations known to effect ones ability to maintain practical reasoning.

Peer reviewed case studies are still pending.

Great interview Ed!

Rovin on February 23, 2010 at 8:39 AM

In light of this newest development how long before Al Gore is dragged in by his carbon credit to explain his previous testimony before congress? I can’t wait for him to be asked to give back not only the NPP but the $$$$ too.

milwife88 on February 23, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Expect the EPA and other associated Communists, enviro-Nazi’s and climate nuts to go after water vapor next.

These people will not stop until they get what they want. It’s us or them.

darwin on February 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM

In light of this newest development how long before Al Gore is dragged in by his carbon credit to explain his previous testimony before congress? I can’t wait for him to be asked to give back not only the NPP but the $$$$ too.

milwife88 on February 23, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I rather see a “Toyota-like” recall of his Oscar and Nobel prizes—both awarded under fabricated data and faulty mechanisms.

Rovin on February 23, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Great reporting Ed. Imagine where we’d be if the Phil Jones emails remained unknown. Now EPA regulators will be exposed as “facts be damned” ideologues. What a party, when the economy is choking, democrats apply a tourniquet to the neck.

Mark30339 on February 23, 2010 at 8:51 AM

This is awesome. If this ‘advocacy’ about ‘Global Warming’ er, uh, ‘Climate Change’ is to be stopped by these pathetic zealots then there must be penalties applied to those who fraudulently submitted thier data (or lack of it). Millions of dollars has gone into this sham and I, for one, want to know where it went and what it was used for. Barring any sustainable/verifiable defense by these scientists advocates then there needs to be some very severe penalties.

Dick Turpin on February 23, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Warning! Warning! There is a consensus that people who hang out in D.C. for long periods of time end up catching suspicious pathological contaminations known to effect ones ability to maintain practical reasoning.

Rovin on February 23, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Rovin:The Results of Pathological Contaminations,
is this abomination!!!:)
===================================================

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/04/25/an-ugly-baby/

canopfor on February 23, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Yeah. Sure. And I suppose Lizzie Borden lacked interpersonal skills, too.)

Naww, she had Self-Esteem and Parental Authoritarian Issues ;)

JamesLee on February 23, 2010 at 8:53 AM

I would make it a point to drag Goracle’s sorry rear end up to Capital Hill and make him answer claims that his movie is a bogus bunch of false crap.

And I would make him bring that Nobel Prize with him as well, so that a rep from the Nobel committee can be there to formally request it back…..as well as the money that came with it!

pilamaye on February 23, 2010 at 8:57 AM

I have one word to describe Inhofe- PATRIOT!!!!!!

adamsmith on February 23, 2010 at 8:59 AM

I want to know what Bill Nye’s take is on this.

NY Conservative on February 23, 2010 at 8:59 AM

unethical and potentially criminal activities within the IPCC

That’s not a description of activities with a UN agency, that’s a job requirement!

evilned on February 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Peer reviewed case studies are still pending.

Great interview Ed!

Rovin on February 23, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Just grab a story from a partisan advocacy magazine.

rbj on February 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM

pilamaye on February 23, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Wooooohoo!

DRUDGE: SENATOR CALLS FOR ‘CRIMINAL’ GLOBAL WARMING INVESTIGATION; WANTS GORE RECALLED TO EXPLAIN PRIOR TESTIMONY…

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

petefrt on February 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Somebody needs to set up an organization where we can accumulate the expertise, money and legal talent to start the class-action lawsuits. Targeted action with maximum exposure. Go after a Gore, a Jackson, an EPA official, etc.

Tie them up in court and paper work. Blog them into the sunlight. Sue them into paralysis.

Any volunteers?

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Oh duh Ed. I’m sorry I just sent this story to tips.

note to self *scroll down past the OOTD* for stuff.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Requisite question: where’s the trolls? Group peer review?

Here oaky, oaky. Here oaky, oaky…

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Any predictions on how long the green movement will stay mainstream? I’m sick to death of this crap.

citrus on February 23, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

Holy rainforests Batman! This is really, really going to start hurting now. When one paper gets retracted, it then throws subsequent papers and research that are related or substantiated by that paper into greater doubt.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:07 AM

I should add that just before our interview last night, two administrators from the EPA arrived at Inhofe’s Senate office just before me. Inhofe later told me that the pair informed him that they wanted to proceed full steam ahead with their endangerment finding and the enforcement efforts they had planned.

If this administration proceeds and electricity rates necessarily skyrocket, look for even more people to demonstrate in the streets. Just because the U.S. media hasn’t reported the Climategate scandal doesn’t mean American’s don’t know what’s going on. Hows that Hope and Change workin’ out for ya?

Ordinary1 on February 23, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Any volunteers?

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Yoop: Yes,I’ll supply the rope,and trap door hinges!!:)

canopfor on February 23, 2010 at 9:10 AM

This paper was the first ever retracted from Nature Geoscience in three years of publication.

Can you hear that? Listen closely….That’s the sound of the “scientific reputation” and “editorial board reputation” going down the toilet at that journal. This editorial board of reviewers are now going to start eating each other. Put that on your CV—a retracted paper–that’s like a big, fat scarlet letter in the scientific community.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Requisite question: where’s the trolls? Group peer review?

Here oaky, oaky. Here oaky, oaky…

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Well, it looks like none of them stayed up all night to post in the morning, so it appears we have at least 2-3 hours before they even get out of bed.

uknowmorethanme on February 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Ed, I’m so glad you are all over this like stink on …..well, you get the picture.

+10, for vacation. Now go have a beer and let AP have the wheel for a bit.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:12 AM

If I were Inhofe, I would have my staff assembling a report detailing all the lies in the IPCC AR4 report.

I doubt our climategate liar in chief will get right on it.

tarpon on February 23, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Good job Senator Inhofe … since the majority of the EPA decisions are based on the IPCC’s junk science, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

darwin on February 23, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Since when does the EPA let facts get in the way?

hawksruleva on February 23, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Yoop: Yes,I’ll supply the rope,and trap door hinges!!:)

canopfor on February 23, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Well, remember, innocent until proven guil…

Oh, to hell with that. Chase them into the rising sea!

[OT: canopfor, BIL update?]

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:20 AM

PubMed provides us with a ‘paleontological’ record of articles published in 4,348 journals with a known impact factor (IF). Of the 9,398,715 articles published between 1950 and 2004, 596 were retracted. This wave of retraction hits high-impact journals significantly harder than lower-impact journals (Fig 1A), suggesting that high-impact journals are either more prone to publishing flawed manuscripts or scrutinized much more rigorously than low-impact journals.

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n5/full/7400970.html

If you look at the proportion of retracted to published articles, 0.0006% are retracted. That’s equivalent of 1 article retracted in 15,770 articles published. That, my friends, is stunning.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Our analysis indicates that although highimpact
journals tend to have fewer undetected
flawed articles than their lower-impact
peers, even the most vigilant journals potentially
host papers that should be retracted
.
However, the positive relationship between
visibility of research and post-publication
scrutiny suggests that the technical and sociological
progress in information dissemination—
the internet, omnipresent electronic
publishing and the open access initiative—
inadvertently improves the self-correction
of science by making scientific publications
more visible and accessible
.

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n5/pdf/7400970.pdf

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Holy rainforests Batman! This is really, really going to start hurting now. When one paper gets retracted, it then throws subsequent papers and research that are related or substantiated by that paper into greater doubt.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Would be interesting to know how many subsequent peer-reviewed and published papers have used the withdrawn paper as an integral reference.

Anybody done that search yet?

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:27 AM

SEN Inhofe–I commend you for pursuing this. I would encourage you to summon Michael Mann before the Senate as well as the editorial boards of the journals that he has published in and openly inquire whether these journals will consider retracting work that was based upon faulty data and misled the public.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Inhofe for President!

Or wait. Would it drive the moonbats crazier if he was Secretary of the Interior?

misterpeasea on February 23, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Would be interesting to know how many subsequent peer-reviewed and published papers have used the withdrawn paper as an integral reference.

Anybody done that search yet?

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:27 AM

tried to through pubmed but searching for the article returns 0 citations–same w/ google scholar. Not only retracted, but down the memory hole?

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM

pilamaye on February 23, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Wooooohoo!

DRUDGE: SENATOR CALLS FOR ‘CRIMINAL’ GLOBAL WARMING INVESTIGATION; WANTS GORE RECALLED TO EXPLAIN PRIOR TESTIMONY…

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

petefrt on February 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Inhofe is taking the fight to THEM. Way to go. Since Gore won’t debate anyone, drag his fraudulent ass before Congress in front of everyone.

Dongemaharu on February 23, 2010 at 9:33 AM

I don’t care if Al Gore comes on TV and says “Hey, I was just joking, it’s all a scam, suckers” there still would be true believers.

I was talking with a co-worker yesterday and AGW came up. I said that the fluctuations of the 22 year sunspot cycle probably had an impact. She didn’t know what that was, but said that we were responsible for the warming and that “there were too many people.” (That certainly sent a shiver down my back).

I said something about the Medieval Warm Period. She had never heard of it. Little Ice Age? Not a clue. The effect of volcanic eruptions on climate, such as the year without a summer (1815-1816)? Nothing. I told her to google those phrases and see what she thought. She parroted again that there were “too many people.” Since I have to work with this person, I didn’t answer my usual answer: “If you think there are too many people and some should die, you go first.”

Scary. These people are zombie-like scary.

Sarah2053 on February 23, 2010 at 9:39 AM

If you look at the proportion of retracted to published articles, 0.0006% are retracted. That’s equivalent of 1 article retracted in 15,770 articles published. That, my friends, is stunning.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Note this comment in that study:

“We estimate the number of articles published between 1950 and 2004 that ought to be retracted to be more than 100,000 under the more pessimistic scenario (tau = 0.1; red, Fig 1C), and greater than 10,000 under the most optimistic scenario (tau = 1; green, Fig 1C).”

The problem grows when the papers that were retracted, along with those that ‘ought to be retracted’, are used as references and material evidence in later papers, that aren’t retracted either. The errors propagate.

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:41 AM

The problem grows when the papers that were retracted, along with those that ‘ought to be retracted’, are used as references and material evidence in later papers, that aren’t retracted either. The errors propagate.

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Hence the retraction rate ought to be at worst 1%, and at best 0.1%. If that is the case, then the rate of retraction ought be, at a minimum, of 177 times higher to 1666 times higher than it currently is, at worst.

This is abysmal.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Good job, Ed. This is just one reason why you are the blogger of the year. You are a true citizen reporter. The MSM can learn something from guys like you. Honest reporting seems to be a thing of the past on the networks, and you are right that the British media (especially the Telegraph) have done a good job exposing the scam, and even the far leftist Guardian gets it, but ABCCBSNBCCNN doesn’t.

Great interview, and thanks again for taking time from your much deserved vacation to produce this.

simkeith on February 23, 2010 at 9:50 AM

I wish you all the best in your pursuit of these climate fraudsters Mr. Inhofe, but the true “Deniers” (the Democrats) will never let your investigation move forward because their culpability in this matter will be exposed. And as for Algore, I relish the day I get to see him in the dock under cross examination trying to explain himself and his incredible wealth he has garnered perpetuating this fraud.

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on February 23, 2010 at 9:54 AM

good job BOY! (Blogger Of the Year I mean…)

+2

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:55 AM

This will officially be the biggest I told you so in the world!11!

abobo on February 23, 2010 at 9:56 AM

I’d like for Algore to meet the police on the steps of the Capitol after his testimony and go right into the clink.

Justice.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Good start. Next he should go after Al Gore and his disciples with fraud charges.

MADgirl91 on February 23, 2010 at 10:00 AM

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Yep I want to see a bunch of environmentalist wackos(socialists in disguise) doin the perp walk and hear the sweet sound of cell doors clanking shut.
Starting with Al Gorp, anyone in the EPA that pushes this crap regulation today after AGW has shown to be non-existant, and followed closely by the minnow protectors in Calif and snail darter lovers.

If I ever see a damn snail darter I swear I will scoop it up and eat the dang thing, and those stupid minnows…. cat food!

dhunter on February 23, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Great interview. A lot of us remember the global cooling of the 70s, but few remember the warming scare of the 50s. Frank Capra made a pretty amusing propaganda short with a guy MST3K fans will recognize. And before that, there were cooling and warming scares going back to the NY Times ice age scare of 1895. A century of bad science and worse reporting.

Even better – I started collecting global cooling articles two years ago. When the wheels come completely off the warming bus, it will just switch again – oopsie, we were wrong, it’s actually cooling we need to be afraid of and it’s happening now!!1!

Warming or cooling, the solution is always the same: more government.

Laura on February 23, 2010 at 10:12 AM

AGW is totally real. The sea level here rose by several feet in just the last few hours! This came right after it dropped by a few feet last night. These kind of extremes don’t just happen. It has to be AGW. It just has to be.

John Deaux on February 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM

AGW is totally real. The sea level here rose by several feet in just the last few hours! This came right after it dropped by a few feet last night. These kind of extremes don’t just happen. It has to be AGW. It just has to be.

John Deaux on February 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Let me guess….won’t you feel safer if your bank account is liberated of $3,000 annually as a means to prevent further “climate changes” such as these?//

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Where are the John Edwards type lawyers linin up on the right to take Al Gorp and these faux scientists to the cleaners.
I want to see that big bag of ignorant hot air tied up in court for the rest of his miserable life and see him die slowly and broke for the fraud he almost perpetrated upon the world!

dhunter on February 23, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Great job, Ed, and thanks for the effort to get this interview out in public. Thanks to Sen. Inhofe (my senator)for his tireless efforts all these years to get this information out against great odds and never giving up. The people of this country owe him a a debt of gratitude for sticking with this. Just imagine how lonely it must have been for him to be the only voice out there trying to warn us all about this hoax. He has been vilified by the press and others. Now he has been vindicated, but the Obama administration and the press have their hands over their eyes and ears singing “la-la-la-la”. I think he would make an awesome president if not for his age, but that has not ever been his priority. He has truly been a servant to his country, and many kudoes to him.

silvernana on February 23, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Let me guess….won’t you feel safer if your bank account is liberated of $3,000 annually as a means to prevent further “climate changes” such as these?//

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 10:18 AM

No, not my money, yours. My money is best spent flying around educating people about AGW and encouraging governments to spend you money to fix it.

P.S. In hindsight, I probably should have used a /sarc tag.

John Deaux on February 23, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Climategate? What’s that?

Best regards,
U.S. Media

PattyJ on February 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM

This could be the final nail in the coffin.

Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” showed what would happen if sea levels rose 20 FEET, where about half of Florida disappears underwater. But 20 feet is 609 cm, meaning that even if one believed the IPCC’s maximum value of 59 cm by the end of the century (90 years from now), at that rate it would take 929 years for Al Gore’s disaster scenario to be realized. Since 929 years AGO the world was in the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings named Greenland, and the climate then got COLDER, what would prevent it from getting colder again?

If the report in Nature Geoscience really was based on data over the last 22,000 years, what does that have to do with human CO2 emissions, which have only increased dramatically over the past 150 years? Or are there long-term fluctuations in sea level that human beings can do nothing about? Did the IPCC take some natural trend and try to blame it on CO2 emissions from those “greedy” coal, oil, and gas companies?

Satellite measurements have shown that sea levels are rising at about 0.2 cm per year, and the rate is slowing down. At that rate, by 2100 the rise would be 0.2 x 90 = 18 cm (about 7.1 inches), or the LOW end of the IPCC range. So the IPCC predicted that the sea level rise over the next 90 years would be somewhere between the status quo and more than triple, based on a Nature Geoscience report that said the rate could go down by 60% or more than quadruple, which itself is based on errors. Isn’t this nothing but guesswork?

This could be the final nail in the coffin of the AGW scare, because people worry more about homes being flooded by a raging sea than about the world getting a little warmer. But if the sea-level rise prediction is flawed, then the coast is clear! Why should people spend colossal fortunes on carbon credits and compressing soda-pop gas to bury it underground? Why not spend a tiny fraction of the money over the next century to build a 7-inch high seawall wherever it’s needed?

Steve Z on February 23, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Al Gore needs to pay for this. This movie has been shown in many schools and the kids of this nation scared to death because of this fraud. They’ve all been brainwashed for so many years, I don’t know how you undo the damage.

silvernana on February 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM

“Most of you know I’m on vacation for a few days, but I’m still in DC, and I jumped at the chance to get the interview with Inhofe.”
Warning! Warning! There is a consensus that people who hang out in D.C. for long periods of time end up catching suspicious pathological contaminations known to effect ones ability to maintain practical reasoning.

Peer reviewed case studies are still pending.

Great interview Ed!

Rovin on February 23, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Get out of Washington! Scott Brown got the bug. We can’t take a chance that the body snatchers will get you too!

petunia on February 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Time for Tea Party demonstrations to sweep the nation against the EPA and the administration’s policy to necessarily cause the cost of energy to skyrocket.

Ordinary1 on February 23, 2010 at 10:44 AM

good job BOY! (Blogger Of the Year I mean…)

+2

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Ed iZ da BOY!

petunia on February 23, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Do not bow to the majority leader this time Senator. Force and investigation, and do not let this Obama radical plant off the hook this time. Tell her to PROVE their findings and if she pulls out ANYTHING from the IPCC or East Anglia call her a fraud and tell her you will see to it she is FIRED!

Tell her that the EPA will be de-funded, and if need be shut down. It is an unnecessary department that is a TOTAL waste of taxpayer money, and places NEEDLESS regulation on business that is stopping growth and hiring.

AND TURN THE WATER BACK ON FOR THE CALIF. FARMERS! Obama is trying to control the food supply and this is just a small part of the start of it.

patriotparty1 on February 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Why not spend a tiny fraction of the money over the next century to build a 7-inch high seawall wherever it’s needed?

Steve Z on February 23, 2010 at 10:34 AM

the 2-inch delta smelt will just have to evolve some jumpin’ skillz to migrate inland…..//

Change.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Ed, you are definitely doing the work the MSM (or lamestream media) won’t. Thank You!

Ordinary1 on February 23, 2010 at 10:52 AM

This could be the final nail in the coffin of the AGW scare, because people worry more about homes being flooded by a raging sea than about the world getting a little warmer. But if the sea-level rise prediction is flawed, then the coast is clear! Why should people spend colossal fortunes on carbon credits and compressing soda-pop gas to bury it underground? Why not spend a tiny fraction of the money over the next century to build a 7-inch high seawall wherever it’s needed?

Steve Z on February 23, 2010 at 10:34 AM

I have been asking this exact question! Why are they willing to spend so much that will do so little to help? Very little would be changed by even stopping all CO2 production! Very very little! But the damage to so many economies would be tremendous! Why weren’t they concerned about deciding whether to relocate people and protect coastlines?

Even the fixes they suggest were fraudulent designed to make them money. They had nothing to do with protecting people or adjusting to a new environment.

petunia on February 23, 2010 at 10:52 AM

AND TURN THE WATER BACK ON FOR THE CALIF. FARMERS!

patriotparty1 on February 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM

There’s another story that is barely being reported. Fox has done some, but that is a story, along with the EPA attempted Cap & Trade end around, that should be front and center consistently, yet it’s not. hmmmm.

Ordinary1 on February 23, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Yeeehaaaaw! Go get ‘em Inhofe! If there’s anything we can do (pressure our local guys) let us know through Ed and AP.

Weight of Glory on February 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM

If there’s anything we can do (pressure our local guys) let us know through Ed and AP.

Weight of Glory on February 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM

email Inhofe directly and support him. Encourage your own senators to get behind his efforts.

Continue to out the House folks that voted for Cap n’ Trade last year–there’s like 218 of them.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 11:00 AM

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/23/inhofe-calls-for-investigation-of-researcher-michael-mann/

I can’t recall if Ed’s interview touched on this point but ol’ Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame is, ummmmmm, having a bad day today….Mike Riggs has it at the Daily Caller.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 11:06 AM

A FOIL investigation needs to be filed against Gore as well. He filed w/the SEC to trade stock of his Carbon Companies. To do this he would have had to submit legitimate claims of Global Warming. Apparently those claims were Fraudulent and False. Therefore he lied to the SEC for which is a criminal offense and must be brought up on charges for lying to the SEC.

What Gore has done is NO different than what Bernie Madoff did!

xler8bmw on February 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM

We all know that an Obama justice department is not going after the conman AlGore but why can’t state AGs do it?

jukin on February 23, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I want to see Algore testify before Congress…

d1carter on February 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM

This could be the final nail in the coffin of the AGW scare, because people worry more about homes being flooded by a raging sea than about the world getting a little warmer

Not likely. “Getting a little warmer” can have major consequences to the life on this planet, especially if weather patterns shift significantly (and there is evidence of that happening presently). As evidence mounts showing a man-made component to the present warming, concern will increase.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Wow! Inhofe says this whole thing is a way for the UN to have perpetual funding without relying on the US…

Inhofe says that if not for talk radio and bloggers this would not have ever seen the light… great job Ed!

d1carter on February 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Nice Ed!

That was like whipped cream and strawberries.

BL@KBIRD on February 23, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I want the GOP to get control of at least one house of Congress just so Lisa Jackson spends every day of the rest of her life under subpoena.

Stimulus, health insurance reform, none of this matters as much as wrenching the heads off the carbon fraudsters and defecating down their necks.

Note that this doesn’t mean I don’t think there’s real climate science to be done, just that the current bunch of shills and their political enablers need the ‘pour encourager les autres’ treatment.

JEM on February 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2