Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Inhofe Says Global Warming Media Hearing Exposed Alarmist
MediaBy Marc Morano and Matt DempseyDecember 08, 2006Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment &
Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the
media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should
not drive public policy.” The hearing’s purpose was to
examine the media’s presentation of climate science and
featured scientists and media experts.“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation
in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-
called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists
from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for
becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity,”
Senator James Inhofe said.“I was particularly interested in testimony by Dr. Daniel Schrag
of Harvard University, who believes that manmade emissions
are driving global warming. Dr. Schrag said the Kyoto Protocol
is not the right approach to take and agreed it would have
almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully
complied,” Inhofe added. Currently 13 of the 15 EU nations
are failing to meet the requirements of Kyoto.During his opening remarks, Senator Inhofe stated, “Rather
than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media
has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically
unfounded climate alarmism.” Senator Inhofe cited criticism
from believers in manmade global warming who have
slammed the media for presenting “a quasi-religious register
of doom, death [and] judgment” and compared the media’s
coverage to the “unreality of Hollywood films.”Scientists testifying at the hearing described how much of the
media has over-hyped the coverage of global warming and
used scare tactics to garner public attention. Paleoclimate
researcher Bob Carter of Australia’s James Cook University,
who has had over 100 papers published refereed scientific
journals, noted that “there is huge uncertainly in every aspect
of climate change.”“If you look at the ice core records, you will discover that yes,
changes in carbon dioxide are accompanied by changes in
temperature, but you will also discover that the change in
temperature precedes the change in carbon dioxide by several
hundred years to a thousand or so years. Reflect on that. And
reflect on when you last heard somebody say that they
thought lung cancer caused smoking. Because that is what
you are arguing if you argue on the glacial time scale that
changes in carbon dioxide cause temperature changes. It is
the other way around,” Carter testified.Carter also noted that the media promotes “Couldism,
mightism and perhapsism, fueled by computer modeling.”Carter explained, “If, could, may, might, probably, perhaps,
likely, expected, projected ...Wonderful words. So wonderful,
in fact, that environmental writers scatter them through their
articles on climate change like confetti. The reason is that – in
the absence of empirical evidence for damaging human-
caused climate change – public attention is best captured by
making assertions about “possible” change. And, of course,
using the output of computer models in support, virtually any
type of climatic hazard can be asserted as a possible future
change.”David Deming, a geophysicist from the University of
Oklahoma, testified that “Every natural disaster that occurs is
now linked [by the media] with global warming, no matter
how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the
public has become vastly misinformed on this and other
environmental issues.”Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute noted that
reporters are violating their own code of ethics with their one-
sided climate coverage. “It also violates the ethical code of the
Society of Professional Journalists which urges the media to
‘Support the open exchange of views, even views they find
repugnant.’ That code calls for reporters to “distinguish
between advocacy and news reporting.’” Gainor added.(For full text of remarks for other witnesses see: http://
epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266407 )
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
Inhofe Says Global Warming Media Hearing Exposed Alarmist
MediaBy Marc Morano and Matt DempseyDecember 08, 2006Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment &
Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the
media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should
not drive public policy.” The hearing’s purpose was to
examine the media’s presentation of climate science and
featured scientists and media experts.“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation
in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-
called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists
from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for
becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity,”
Senator James Inhofe said.“I was particularly interested in testimony by Dr. Daniel Schrag
of Harvard University, who believes that manmade emissions
are driving global warming. Dr. Schrag said the Kyoto Protocol
is not the right approach to take and agreed it would have
almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully
complied,” Inhofe added. Currently 13 of the 15 EU nations
are failing to meet the requirements of Kyoto.During his opening remarks, Senator Inhofe stated, “Rather
than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media
has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically
unfounded climate alarmism.” Senator Inhofe cited criticism
from believers in manmade global warming who have
slammed the media for presenting “a quasi-religious register
of doom, death [and] judgment” and compared the media’s
coverage to the “unreality of Hollywood films.”Scientists testifying at the hearing described how much of the
media has over-hyped the coverage of global warming and
used scare tactics to garner public attention. Paleoclimate
researcher Bob Carter of Australia’s James Cook University,
who has had over 100 papers published refereed scientific
journals, noted that “there is huge uncertainly in every aspect
of climate change.”“If you look at the ice core records, you will discover that yes,
changes in carbon dioxide are accompanied by changes in
temperature, but you will also discover that the change in
temperature precedes the change in carbon dioxide by several
hundred years to a thousand or so years. Reflect on that. And
reflect on when you last heard somebody say that they
thought lung cancer caused smoking. Because that is what
you are arguing if you argue on the glacial time scale that
changes in carbon dioxide cause temperature changes. It is
the other way around,” Carter testified.Carter also noted that the media promotes “Couldism,
mightism and perhapsism, fueled by computer modeling.”Carter explained, “If, could, may, might, probably, perhaps,
likely, expected, projected ...Wonderful words. So wonderful,
in fact, that environmental writers scatter them through their
articles on climate change like confetti. The reason is that – in
the absence of empirical evidence for damaging human-
caused climate change – public attention is best captured by
making assertions about “possible” change. And, of course,
using the output of computer models in support, virtually any
type of climatic hazard can be asserted as a possible future
change.”David Deming, a geophysicist from the University of
Oklahoma, testified that “Every natural disaster that occurs is
now linked [by the media] with global warming, no matter
how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the
public has become vastly misinformed on this and other
environmental issues.”Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute noted that
reporters are violating their own code of ethics with their one-
sided climate coverage. “It also violates the ethical code of the
Society of Professional Journalists which urges the media to
‘Support the open exchange of views, even views they find
repugnant.’ That code calls for reporters to “distinguish
between advocacy and news reporting.’” Gainor added.(For full text of remarks for other witnesses see: http://
epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266407 )
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
