Jimmy Inhofe: HACK! or HACKER?

[FOTD]

What a Cherry pricker....


This is what the right wing does so well, create a fog of "confusion" to substitute some non issue and have the non issue discussed rather than the issue itself. They lose when the discussion is about actual facts, they win when they can provide the corporate media theatrical non issues to natter on about.
YOU WILL NOT SEE THIS IN TULSA WORLD NOR DAILY DISAPPOINTMENT!

Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"

http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125


"U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma, pictured here), a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.

In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.


...." They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious," Mann added.

The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."

This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.

Professor Davies called the stolen data "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.

According to Somerville, the comments in the emails "have nothing to do with the scientific case" for climate change.

It is "desperate" to launch this right before Copenhagen, Eric Steig, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, said on the call.

Sen. Inhofe, meanwhile, lauded the timing of the incident.

"The interesting part of this is it's happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn't be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their timing was good," he said.

Science Can't Silence Skeptics, Still

The fallout from the scandal is putting some of the world's leading climate scientists on the defensive and underlining the influence of skeptics, even as the case for human-caused warming gets stronger."


Obama will have a bombshell announcement at Copenhagen, of a cooperative agreement with India, China and US to make major reductions in carbon, if the World will match. A reworked "Kyoto" with the major emmitters onboard.
Then he can go on to Oslo in good grace.


Jimmy Inhofe is a clown.

[Breadburner]

[FOTD]

Such an intelligent response! You're the last of the mohicans TNF holdouts.... the others have all run into their fraidy holes.

FOTD: This is what the right wing does so well, create a fog of "confusion" to substitute some non issue and have the non issue discussed rather than the issue itself!

Thanks for the verification, sucker puncher!

[guido911]

Leave it to FOTDoosh NOT to give any context, much less objectivity, behind Inhofe wants to do and rest his entire credibility on a participant in this so-called "climategate". Here are some links discussing the contents of those e-mails that were released:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails

From the links:

Frist, love this passage from your "Mr. Mann":

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

    Dear Phil and Gabi,

    I've attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don't pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

It seems Penn State is investigating Mann:

http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf

Here's another from Tom Wigley re: ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization:

    Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Just read today that the CRU dumped all their original/raw data:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Yeah "Jimmy", there is nothing here to look at.

As to BB, come on, what Obama did was protocol. You know, the protocol that U.S. presidents are required to make sure foreign leaders' cups are on correctly.

[Breadburner]

[Hoss]

Yep, that's about as clear as most right-wing politics...

[Red Arrow]

Yep, that's about as clear as most right-wing politics...

[FOTD]

The fawker is a limelighter to boot!


Inhofe Trashes Military Generals Who Advocate For Clean Energy Legislation: They Crave 'The Limelight'

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/29/inhofe-trashes-generals/

In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn articulated a national security argument for passing clean energy legislation. "Continued over reliance on fossil fuels, or small, incremental steps, simply will not create the kind of future security and prosperity that the American people and our great Nation deserve," McGinn warned.

In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate environment committee, argued that McGinn and other generals who are advocating for clean energy reform (like Wesley Clark, Stephen Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, etc) are simply doing so because they crave "the limelight":

NYT: Senator Boxer is chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,on which you are the ranking Republican. She and her fellow Democrats have lately suggested that global warming could be a threat to national security by destabilizing developing countries.

INHOFE: That's the most ludicrous thing. They looked around and they found, I think, five generals to testify before the committee. Well, that's 5 generals out of 4,000 retired generals that say that. There are a lot of generals who don't like to be out of the limelight. They'd like to get back in.

Despite Inhofe's desire to trash the motivations of military generals who have a different view than he does about the impending climate crisis, the national security implications of climate change cannot be so easily dismissed. For at least the past two years, "military and intelligence experts have been issuing studies warning that climate change could put American military personnel and national security at risk. Increasingly violent storms, pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase the likelihood of military action."

It's not just military generals who are making this argument. Inhofe's former colleague, John Warner (who Inhofe acknowledged has had "a long and distinguished career in the military"), also understands the security implications of global warming:

WARNER: Leading military, intelligence, and security experts have publically spoken out that if left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. If we ignore these facts, we do so at the peril of our national security and increase the risk to those in uniform who serve our nation. It is for this reason that I firmly believe the U.S. must take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, Inhofe probably believes Warner is craving the limelight too. Apparently, everyone needs to take lessons from Inhofe about how to unassumingly fly below the radar.


GO TO THE PAGE AND READ THE COMMENTS!

[Hoss]

Your PS skills are faltering....  

[HazMatCFO]

Let Inhofe run an investigation and see if the peer reviewed reports are as rock solid as claimed. You should welcome an inquiry for it will only strengthen the case for man-made global warming if the experts are correct.

Why worry if you speak the truth? 

[we vs us]

Let Inhofe run an investigation and see if the peer reviewed reports are as rock solid as claimed. You should welcome an inquiry for it will only strengthen the case for man-made global warming if the experts are correct.

Why worry if you speak the truth? 

You know, I wouldn't mind an honest and impartial peer review either, but Inhofe and his bunch sure ain't the people to do it.  If you follow him at all you know how biased he is, and how much any sort of review with him in charge would be a sham. 

He's using this to score points, no more no less.  He doesn't want an honest inquiry.  He wants to demagogue the thing in front of a live audience.

[rwarn17588]

You know, I wouldn't mind an honest and impartial peer review either, but Inhofe and his bunch sure ain't the people to do it.  If you follow him at all you know how biased he is, and how much any sort of review with him in charge would be a sham. 

He's using this to score points, no more no less.  He doesn't want an honest inquiry.  He wants to demagogue the thing in front of a live audience.

+1. There are plenty of intelligent, deliberative skeptics out there would could analyze the data fairly and accurately. But Inhofe isn't one of them.

[FOTD]

Inhofe's Hoax: Senator Distorts Meteorological Study To Show Support For His Global Warming Denial

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/inhofe-mischaracterizes-meteorologial/

"Bottom line: Inhofe is inventing facts to justify his fictitious theory of climate change."

Senility setting in....

[Encoste09]

If He Had Not Gotten back together with kim Which I loved He realized he made mistakes in the past and grew up, she was his great love So I was happy for them, But if it had not worked out, something tells me Grace would have been his next conquest. What Do Guys Think?

[Conan71]

If He Had Not Gotten back together with kim Which I loved He realized he made mistakes in the past and grew up, she was his great love So I was happy for them, But if it had not worked out, something tells me Grace would have been his next conquest. What Do Guys Think?

Fat spleef anyone?