Inhofe Sees Momentum Shift in Global Warming

In a recent long post on Global Warming I stated that each global warming post would begin with 5 critical questions:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

Cybercast News Service recently produced a column about how Senator Inhofe is seeing a shift in the momentum of the global warming debate favoring skeptics. The column states:

Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

Momentum is shifting away from scientific theories bolstering "anthropocentric" (human-centered) models of global warming and toward skeptics who do not see a link between human activity and rising temperatures, Inhofe told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

It goes on to state that the momentum shift is so significant that we are seeing a migration in the scientific community toward skepticism:

"Politicians who are using this to run for office are panicking because the scientists have totally reversed themselves on this issue," he asserted.

Inhofe provided a handout giving examples of what he called "scientific reversals."

Recent organized efforts bolstored by scientific facts show that at the very least the issue is far from settled. With such high visibility and new theories surfacing, can it be that many scientists are realizing that their legacy is on the line and will be recorded for people to reference for centuries. The consensus bandwagon is starting to look less appealing.

Senator Inhofe continues to be a point guard against the global warming alarmists. Today he got a crack at Al Gore when the former VP testified to Congress on the issue. Inhofe had an opening statement prepared to give to Al Gore that can be read here. Here are a few highlights with my emphasis:

It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.

First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus” linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree.

Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period.

He referred to the some supporters hinting that Gore may be harming his own cause with his alarmism. Inhofe points out that it is no wonder Gore has refused to debate those who have challenged him including the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus and Lord Monckton of Benchley. Inhofe gives his reason for Gore's fear of debate:

When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night.

That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing.

Pretty impressive for a tough liberal New York crowd. Gore wants to whistle past the graveyard with his claims that the issue is "beyond dispute". We need more debates and we need them made public. My five questions would be a good structure for the debate. I doubt they will, though.