James M. Inhofe

On 22 Jan 2015, the U.S. Senate voted 98-1 to approve a resolution stating that “it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.” The resolution was approved, and co-sponsored, by the most outspoken climate denier in the Senate, Jim Inhofe. So it's hard to take his book "The Greatest Hoax" very seriously. Rather, it appears to be just political posturing against Democratic Party initiatives.

I'd heard the claims and counter-claims about global warming​ over the past few years​, and each time I read something from the scientific community, I was convinced they were right​. And then I'd read something from the climate​ change​ deniers, and their argument would win me back over to their side. ​It was all very confusing. ​In an attempt to understand more, I actually ​enrolled in and ​completed ​two classes on climate change​, on​e​ on-line, and another​ at ​my local college. So​ when I came across Senator Inhofe's book "The Greatest Hoax", I felt I had a fair understanding of the science of global warming, ​and therefore was curious about his views as to why global warming was such a hoax.

​We hear the hoax statement periodically. Luminaries like Rush Limbaugh​​ and Sean Hannity make it​,​ but their radio and TV programs don't allow time to explain it. Another lesser luminary, recently elected Louisiana Congresswoman ​Lenar Whitney​​, also made the claim in her pre-election video, but her unfortunate explanation as to why global warming is a hoax was better left unsaid. Her explanation should have been embarrassing to her, and insulting to her ​constituents. ​​Her feeling was that any ten year-old can see that there's no global warming by​ simply taking a thermometer out​doors​. That explanation may have resonated within her District, but it shows that ​she has no understanding of what global warming is about. ​What ​the ​Congresswoman apparently fails to understand is that the term 'global warming' uses the word 'global' because it refer​s​ to the world-wide AVERAGE temperature​,​ ​looked at over a time scale of decades or longer. ​A record cold day, or a record hot day, in her city, state, or Country is irrelevant. It's the global average temperature over time that needs to be viewed. ​And this average temperature ​has been ​trending upward over our lifetime​, albeit slower over the past dozen years or so, but still ​is ​rising. And when looking at all the combinations of things that can cause ice ages and warming periods, (e.g., things such as solar radiation changes, variations in the earth's orbit, wobble of the earth's axis, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, volcanoes, soot and particulates in the air, ocean circulation changes, El Nino / La Nina cycles, albedo changes, etc.), the great majority of scientific studies show that increases in greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide being one, offers the only demonstrable explanation for the recent increasing trend in global temperature​since the Industrial Revolution. These current temperature changes do not match historical "natural" cooling or warming cycles. ​

​So my interest in the book was to understand Senator Inhofe's rationale for labeling global warming as the greatest hoax, and not to reread recycled political rhetoric. Simply repeating the same claims, over and over again, makes good propaganda, but doesn't stand up to critical analysis. Propaganda, whether ​in support of or denying global warming, is easy to swallow if it suits your pre-conceived notions and biases. But if you want more than propaganda, you really need to understand and study the science. And in that regard, I felt Senator Inhofe's book fell short. He makes many claims, but if you're looking for explanations for his claims, as I was, I suspect you may be disappointed.

​​His book is relatively short, only about 300 page​s, ​and only about half of those pages are devoted to his ​eight chapters. The other half is ​devoted to several Appendices​,​ ​​​References, ​Acknowledgments, etc.​ ​ The Appendices, I imagine​, ​were intended to help the reader come to the "right" conclusion, e.g., that global warming is a hoax. Appendix A, titled "What's in it for the United Nations?", tries to make the point that the UN is ​using global warming to ​try to build a global utopia​. Senator Inhofe takes the position that the UN hopes to take decision​-making away from independent and sovereign nations and ​transfer that power ​in​to the hands of the UN. ​Sounds scary, and a good reason to oppose the findings of the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC), but there's no evidence to support it.

​Over its history, the United Nations has ​managed to forge international cooperation and agreements without taking away the rights of individual nations. ​For example, the UN has ​played a role in protecting ​the oceans by preventing dumping of nuclear materials into the oceans, forging agreements to prevent pollution from ships, preventing depletion of threatened fish stocks through overfishing, etc. These were common sense agreements, not forced upon ​nations, but concluded through negotiations and cooperation. And as we've just seen with the recent (end of 2014) Ebola scare, health issues can have world wide impacts. The UN, through the World Health Organization (WHO), has fostered medical research and cooperation to fight HIV/AIDS, Ebola, polio, smallpox, and a number of health concerns. None of these initiatives cost us our national ​sovereignty. And regarding climate change, the recently concluded ​UN sponsored ​Conference of Parties ​(COP20) ​​in Lima, Peru ​dealing with climate change has been ​criticized by some for not being forceful enough. The most recent agreement has been characterized by some as a "choose your own adventure" ​approach ​toward combating climate change. ​In other words, instead of a top down (UN dictated) approach, as Senator Inhofe ​fearfully ​tells us is going to happen, the UN sponsored conference ​ended ​​in a voluntary agreement which ​invited nations to decide for themselves​ what policies and goals they may choose to adopt​ in reducing greenhouse gases​. ​ So in trying to determine whether there's a secret plot by the UN, or whether Senator Inhofe is simply flooding the airways with unsubstantiated scares, I lean toward the latter.

​Looking at the next Appendix, ​Appendix B, "Excerpts from Michael Crichton's Novel: State of Fear", ​this ​seemed the strangest section of the book. If Senator Inhofe's intent was to include these excerpts as proof of his claim that global warming is a hoax, it ​seemed to be a strange approach. I love Michael Crichton's books, and I enjoyed reading Crichton's book "State of Fear". ​Obviously, Senator Inhofe feels the same way, ​and had ​even invited Crichton testify before his Senate Committee discussing climate change. ​And while ​I agree that Crichton was talented and a really smart guy, ​we have to accept that his book is a novel, a good novel, but ​not peer-checked science. Go to the library or book store and you'll find ​that book in the Fiction section. I'm not sure why anyone would think that including excerpts from a novel should be ​convincing in support of a science concept. ​While ​Crighton ​did include some science data in his book, he also ​had the flexibility to "cherry pick" ​data as he saw fit to make ​his case ​in support of his novel​. ​As a matter of fact, in 2006, climate scientist and glaciologist Peter Doran, then at the University of Illinois,​ wrote an OpEd in the NY Times, and​ specifically mentioned that his scientific results had been misused by Crichton in his novel “State of Fear​". But Crichton could take those liberties - he was only writing a ​story, a work of fiction, not a scientific paper. ​No one would (or should) use his novel as a science text book​, and it seemed to be the weakest ​part of Senator Inhofe's book​.​

Appendix C "Climategate: The CRU Controversy" apparently was included to "prove" that climate scientists are conspiring behind the scenes to fake the data and prevent opposing voices from being heard. He states in his book that ​"​Climategate​"​ is the greatest scientific scandal of our time, and these stolen e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK vindicate his calling global warming a hoax. In this Appendix, Inhofe ​reprints portions of ​some of these pirated emails, and ​invites the reader to draw their own conclusion. I can only imagine what ​any selection of ​my old ​emails, taken out of context, would read like if obtained from ​my computer. The same is true for personal ​email exchanges taken ​from ​any organization, club, or individuals. They do appear damaging, as presented, but taken as a whole, ​are they as damaging as Senator Inhofe states? ​He challenges us to find out​ ​and wrote, "... the reader is encouraged to seek outside sources for broader review and context of the exposed emails and documents".

Perhaps he felt that no one would take him up on this, and simply take him at his word. Or perhaps he felt people would only check with conservative news outlets like those controlled by Rupert Murdoch, a vocal global warming denier. But I ​took him up on this​, and found that the ​independent ​scholarly and scientific reviews made by people who understood the technical details and the science​ dismissed this as a scandal. ​These independent reviews, while critical of several of the scientists​ for often appearing rude, dismissive, and acting like "jerks" when talking among themselves, ​were not conspiring among themselves to manipulate or fake ​any ​data.​ I won't list all the ​"Climategate" ​reviews I came across, but since I (we) were specifically challenged by Senator Infofe "... to seek outside sources for broader review and context of the exposed emails...", I'll note a few. ​In August, 2011, ​the National Science Foundation reported that they found no research misconduct. The U.S. EPA investigated the emails and simply considered it a case of candid discussion among scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. ​The University of East Anglia, where the email hacking occurred, examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, and found that the "... rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt". They also set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, which found no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU. The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published their own report and found the widespread criticisms of the CRU were misplaced, and academics should not have been criticized for making informal comments on academic papers. Penn State University completed an investigation, since one of their staff, Dr. Mann, was included in the email correspondence, and found there ​was no substance to the allegations against him. And the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted a review of the emails and found no evidence in the emails that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) inappropriately manipulated data. So the Appendices, if included to support Senator Inhofe's claims, fell short of their mark. ​

The rest of the book is broken down into eight chapters​, with the first two ​pretty much ​about himself​. Chapter 1 ​is titled "Why I fight", and Chapter 2​, titled "The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet" discusses how he earned th​at moniker​ ​for exposing ​"​the hoax​"​. ​Another chapter, titled "Skepticism Reigns", discuss​es how he and others are spreading skepticism ​and denial of climate change. Another chapter is devoted to "Climategate", already discussed​. ​​S​o​ the remaining four chapters, what I guess ​would be considered to be the "meat" of his book, ​have three key​ message​s:​​ ​(1) that ​everyone is in agreement that global warming is a hoax; (2) ​that ​he's got a number of scientists on his side, and ​(3) that the inevitable policy to address global warming, Cap and Trade, is a failed policy which will never be enacted, certainly not as long as he chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Senator Inhofe writes as if everyone reading the book "knows" that global warming is a hoax, so he doesn't really try to teach the science behind global warming. ​​Granted that Senator Inhofe is not a climate scientist, or a scientist of any kind, so it's not​ too​ surprising that ​t​he ​technical information is omitted. ​He simply begins his book by declaring that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC) "is totally refuted"; that Al Gore "is totally discredited"; that man-made global warming "has been totally debunked"; and that passing a global warming cap and trade "is totally futile"​. ​With that introduction, it was ​clear that Senator Inhofe didn't feel it was necessary to provide explanations as to why he considered global warming to be a hoax. He ​simply ​​states that global warming has already been shown to be "refuted" and "debunked". ​But simply repeating many of his own quotes on the subject, or repeating quotes of others​ hardly proves his point​.​
He does refer to a number of scientists, ​and provides some selected quotes from many, but that doesn't mean that they all go so far as to consider global warming to be a hoax. ​Unquestionably, several have argued that there are still unanswered questions, or take issue with certain aspects of the IPCC Reports on Global Warming. Several have their own specific areas of research, and believe that the effects ​of the their areas of research are equally important to​ the effects of​ carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But few if any climate scientists call global warming a hoax. For example, one of the scientists listed in Senator Inhofe's book, Israeli scientist Dr. Niv Shaviv, favors his field of study, solar intensity and cosmic rays, as being equally important to carbon dioxide in our warming trend. And another, Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, writes about her "stadium wave" theory and the affects of ocean temperature oscillations and cycles. There are others, such as Dr. Fred Singer​, who admittedly was a brilliant scientist with a most impressive resume. But on the downside, his free market ideology and commitment to small government has led him to oppose almost any political intervention into business interests. As Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway point out in their book “Merchants of Doubt”, in case after case, ​Dr. Singer and a handful of other scientists joined forces with think tanks and private corporations to challenge scientific evidence on a host of contemporary issues. Dr. Singer has reportedly stated, when criticizing the EPA's regulating second-hand smoke, "if we do not carefully delineate the government's role in regulating dangers, there's essentially no limit how much government can ultimately control our lives".​ ​Yet even he scoffs at those who claim that rising carbon dioxide levels do not cause temperatures to rise,​ or that the concentration​s​ of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ​are too small to have an​y​ effect​. So when looking at the full body of work of even these critical scientists, there's really very little to support the notion of global warming being a hoax.
The final key take-away I took from the book is Senator Inhofe's insistence that no Cap and Trade policy will ever pass in the Senate much less get out of his Senate Committee which oversees Environmental Protection. When opposing the Democratic Party proposal to implement Cap & Trade early in the Obama Presidency, he termed the proposal "the largest tax increase in history". But don't these politicians always say this about any proposals? Early in the Obama Administration, Rush Limbaugh referred to Obamacare as the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. In 2009, Speaker John Boehner referred to the 2009 Democratic budget resolution as the biggest tax increase in history. In June, 2012, Eric Cantor stated that the Democratic proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire would be the biggest tax increase in American history. In December, 2012 Speaker John Boehner called Obama’s proposed “millionaire tax” the biggest in history. See a pattern here? Even going back to Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, Senator Mitch McConnell called that the largest tax increase in history. McConnell also stated that the Clinton tax package wouldn't reduce the national debt, which also proved to be wrong.
And while Inhofe complains about huge costs associated with a Cap and Trade policy to fight carbon emissions, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office 2009 analysis calculated that it would be deficit neutral and any tax burden on individuals would be limited. Other studies, such as the March, 2009 Council on Foreign Relations Expert Roundup on “Cap and Trade’s Economic Impact” by Michael Levi found that the Cap and Trade legislation to limit carbon would have a small but positive effect on the U.S. economy. Which is how it has worked elsewhere when implemented. It's working in California which has its own program to limit carbon emissions, it's working in the European Union, and similar Cap and Trade initiatives to limit carbon are now being introduced around the world, including in China, Mexico, South Korea, etc.
So these political exaggerations of costs seem to be standard procedure to oppose legislation and rally voters against these bills. In addition, besides his claim of high costs, the Senator makes further claims in the book of how this policy would be a job killer, would hurt the economy, and would be ineffective. However, each of those claims have been refuted in practice. Historically, Cap and Trade was a policy introduced back in the Reagan Administration, and was a Republican Party policy. Before the term Cap and Trade was coined, the policy was simply known as emissions trading, which is a free market means of controlling pollutants. Reagan used the concept to phase out leaded gasoline, and it was President George H.W. Bush who proposed the use of Cap and Trade ​trade in 1989 to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants when combating acid rain. And the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 easily passed with bipartisan support in Congress. And while opponents of that measure, like Senator Inhofe today, suggested the program costs would be prohibitive, actual costs were five times less than predicted by opponents according to a January, 1990 study by E. H. Pechan & Assoc., Inc. study “Clean Air Act Legislation Cost Evaluation”.
These programs have been efficient, effective, and economic, popular during ​previous ​Republican administrations. In 2008, Presidential candidate John McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution by a Cap and Trade program, and Sarah Palin reiterated support for that program during the vice presidential debate. The 2008 Republican Party Platform call​ed​ for technology-driven, market-based solutions t​o reduce excess greenhouse gases ​and mitigate the impact of climate change. Yet in 2012, the Party Platform diametrically changed to oppose any Cap and Trade legislation to curtail greenhouse gasses. What caused this abrupt reversal in policy? ​Oil and Gas lobby contributions, which donated heavily to Senator Inhofe and the Republican Party, or was it simply a need to oppose Cap and Trade since it was now a Democratic Party policy? Both sound sound like ​l​ogical reasons to me.
So in summary, the book makes wonderful reading for people who have already bought into the global warming hoax theory, but there are many flaws in the argument, and like most political campaign adds, the claims don't really stand up to scrutiny.… (mehr)