I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. Now you may well say, Inhofe talking nonsense is nothing particularly notable. But in this case he is talking about my particular hobbyhorse, the global cooling stuff. The NYT has an Opinion piece pointing out Inhofe's nonsense. Unsurprisingly, this has pissed him off, which is all to the good.
The main thing to notice about Inhofes cooling/warming stuff is the total lack of any references to the science - he sticks purely to the popular media. If you're interested in the newsweek 1975 article, there is more here (nb: I can't see any evidence from the article for Inhofes claims about headlines about food supply). But Inhofe's peons have been busy in the archives and have managed to find February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age: "Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." - if anyone can get me a copy of that, I'd be grateful. His next one March 27, 1933, the New York Times reported: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" seems a bit desperate, since even he hasn't managed to pretend that it predicts anything.
After that, he is down to the "60 prominent scientists" who wrote to the canadian PM. Foolishly, he includes a link to the article, which allows you immeadiately to see that they aren't :-)
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Nutjobs like Inhofe made me glad I moved to the UK. It's funny he has positioned himself as some sort of expert on global warming science, yet he represents the "Creationist" Republican anti-science fanatics of Oklahoma.
Posted by: Carl Christensen | October 12, 2006 5:03 PM
Even better! I have a personal copy of an episode of the 1970's TV show In Search Of... entitled The Coming Ice Age. It's hosted by by Leonard Nimoy. LEONARD NIMOY!!!
It must be True Science™!
[That *does* sound good. Do you have a transcript?
Slightly related... I have a vague memory from childhood of a kids show, a series, which sort of had some kind of encroaching glaciers in the background as a theme... maybe inside a space capsule of some sort? Does that mean anything to anyone... -W]
Posted by: NJ | October 12, 2006 5:20 PM
If Inhofe's gonna try to make hay arguing the premise that the media gets lots of stuff wrong, and therefore we should believe the opposite of whatever they say, he's going to end up standing in a very long line.
Posted by: John Fleck | October 12, 2006 6:16 PM
I have a vague recollection of a sci-fi juvie written by Andre Norton with a renewed ice age. Probably was out in the late 60s to early 70s. Alert Inhofe!
Does that count, too, as good science? :-)
Posted by: Ahcuah | October 12, 2006 7:24 PM
At the bottom of the page linked at "pissed him off" is a reference to a scientific endorsement of Inhofe's views by a David Deming, who does have some scientific legitmacy (albeit with a tilt toward matters of interest to petroleum geologists) and seems to have avoided endorsing any of Inhofe's specific views, but what really caught my eye was an event that sent Deming's career sideways six years ago.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | October 12, 2006 11:22 PM
I've been working on a little project actually looking up the articles to which Inhofe refers. Thanks to the amazing ProQuest database "Historical New York Times", I've found the NYT articles from 1895, 1933, 1952 & 1974 (not 1975 as Inhofe claims). As William suggests, none of these articles contain any predictive claims nor is there any suggestion of attribution to human influence (although there is several articles from 1975 that do explore do explore the role of aerosols 05/21/1975 and 09/14/1975, yet even these articles are equivocal).
The "alarmist' 1895 article appears on page 6. The "hysterical" 1952 artile is all of 50 words and appears on pg E8. The "catastrophist" 1974 article, "Climate Changes endager World's Food Output", appears on pg 35. Little did we know that the front page is not the place to create alarm; those commie NYT editors are secretly burying articles below the fold in the middle of the paper to raise public fears.
William, I've mailed pdfs of all four articles for you consdieration.
Posted by: Bob | October 13, 2006 10:46 AM
Please forgive my spelling and typos; I was making that post while trying to grade a stack of papers. Focus, Bob, focus.
Posted by: Bob | October 13, 2006 10:50 AM
Here is an "amazing" defense of Inhofe, one of the worst essays ever written. I hope someone writes a detailed reply to this garbage.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/15/EDGMQKEIS11.DTL
Posted by: Jim | October 16, 2006 10:07 PM