Global warming deniers, STAND UP and be counted!

The other day, the craven NEW YORK TIMES published a catty "bash Al Gore" op-ed comentary as a 'news' article, mocking and belittling former Vice President Gore for his urgency in wanting to confront and reverse global warming now.

"Yes, Mr. Gore may have most of the science on his side" was the general uptick of the Times op-ed masquerading as a 'news' article (we're paraphrasing here), "but WHO THE HELL DOES THAT LOSER THINK HE IS, trying to set the national agenda on ANYTHING?!"

Well, as we've said 1,000 times, the New York Times has become a craven den of liars and thieves, their agenda is almost in unanimous accord with the radical right-wing agenda of unlimited police state powers, no oversight by congress or anyone for those abuses of police powers; support for the unending and open-ended Iraq war, support for tax cut for wealthy in time of war; support for "outsourcing" US jobs and "offshoring" US taxes - the New York Times is even happy, in their undercurrent of support for the Bush-Cheney administration, to happily FORGET about all those chemical plants, power-plants, and nuclear-plants LEFT VULNERABLE by the Bush administration despite the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission Final Report.

SO- HOW does the Craven, Cowardly, treacherous, if not traitorous NEW YORK TIMES justify their continued support for the right-wing agenda, as for example mocking Vice President Gore's calls for massive, "Mahhatten Project" levels of effort to confront and reverse Global Warming?

answer- by following the Republican lead, giving MISLEADING "facts" and industry-group funded science AS MUCH, if not more, consideration than the massive body of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH in the science community!

Well, we're tired of blathering on about how the NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, FOX 'news', CNN, Time-Warner, the Washington Times, and other corporate media liars SUBJUGATE scientific research and fair and open debate, to INDUSTRY TALKING POINTS and VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT editorial policy.... so here it is, reactionary Republican Senator JAMES INHOFE's "list of hundreds!" of scientists who REJECT the overwhelming body of SCIENTIFIC evidence that humans are greatly accelerating the global-warming affects of carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases saturating the atmosphere.

=====================================


James Inhofe: The Senator for Suspect Science
27 Mar 07
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=327

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe got so beligerent with former Vice-President Al Gore at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works last week that new Chair Barbara Boxer had to cut him off (check out the video at the end of this post).

That, presumably, is because Senator Inhofe is accustomed to a different quality of input in testimony before this committee. When he was chair, he preferred likeminded lobbyists (Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute, testimony here)) and fiction writers (Michael Chrichton, testimony here) as witnesses to committee hearings.

Now, Inhofe is reduced to misleading committee members (and the public) with transparent political stunts. For example, at the 1:19 mark in Gore's testimony (realplayer file), Inhofe unveiled a chart, saying, "There are literally hundreds of scientists on this chart and all these scientists disagree with you [Gore]."

Well, that's just not true. Far from "literally hundreds" of names on the chart, we count 88, give or take a couple. At least one name is doubled and another (University of Alberta mathematician Dr. Gordon Swaters) has disavowed the deniers who, at one point, had tricked him into signing a Canadian petition looking for more global warming research.

As for their degree of expertise on climate change (or, in some cases, their demonstrated willingness to offer supportive opinions to the tobacco or energy industry), here's a selection of those "scientists" by which to judge.


August Auer (retired meteorologist, last published research in 10 years)
Nils Axel-Morner (retired, historical earthquake researcher)

Sallie Baliunas (affiliated with 9 organizations funded by ExxonMobil)

Tim Ball (retired geography professor, has not published any peer-reviewed research in over 10 years)

Jack Barrett (has not published any peer-reviewed research in 13 years)

Richard Courtney (coal union spokesperson)

Christopher Essex (mathematics professor, published one peer-reviewed research article on climate change 16 years ago)

Robert Essenhigh (researcher mainly on coal combustion)

Lee Gerhard (oil and gas geologist)

Vincent Gray (retired, coal researcher)

Howard Hayden (retired physicist. last peer-reviewed research published 12 years ago)

Zbigniew Jaworowski (retired atomic radiation researcher)

William Kininmonth (retired, has not published peer-reviewed research in over 30 years)

Hans Labohm (economist)

Douglas Leahey (retired oil and gas geologist)

Ross McKitrick (economist)

Alister McFarquhar (economist)

Patrick Michaels (affiliated with 11 organizations receiving funding from ExxonMobil)

Al Pekarek (oil exploration consultant)

Benny Peiser (3 peer-reviewed research articles, two in sports journal)

Ian Pilmer (studies ore deposits)

Paavo Siitam (no published peer-reviewed research)

Fred Singer (affiliated with 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil)

Gary Sharp (studies tuna)

Gordon E. Swaters (probably not very happy to be on this list)

George Taylor (meteorologist, published 3 peer-reviewed research articles in last 17 years)

Hendrik Tennekes (retired, has not published peer-reviewed research in over 15 years)

Gerrit van der Lingen (retired, published peer-reviewed research papers over 20 years ago)

David Wojick (coal industry consultant)