Senator James Inhofe is definitely against global warming propaganda. That much is obvious from simply the title of the first pretty page of this article which says (quote) a SKEPTIC's guide to Debunking global warming. Emphasis on "skeptic." In this article, Inhofe vibrantly clues readers in on the "lies" that the media has fed them for over a century.In the first few pages, Inhofe criticizes the "hockey stick" graph and current computer models and simulators for creating unnecessary hype. He then goes on to criticize the media for going along with it; noting all the misconceived predictions of the past 100 years that have not come true. He restates his media-directed theory at least three times in these first eight/nine pages, saying that "Symbolism does not solve a climate crisis."Among the media Inhofe criticizes were mostly Times magazine, 60 minutes, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". He claims that these were highly biased media and politically founded gigs mainly meant to cause fear among the general readers/viewers. He spends almost 2 whole pages ranting about how wrong Al Gore was to say the things he did in "The Inconvenient Truth", without ever actually watching the film himself.On the last page-and-a-half of the portion of the article we were assigned to read, Inhofe directs his attention to the claims of polar bear endangerment and the criticism of both alarmism and skepticism of global warming advocates. First, he notes again how untruthful the media has been; how they don't check their sources and are unbalanced in their biased research. Then he goes on to say that polar bears are doing just fine, and that global warming really isn't affecting them. Inhofe's main point to this article, in my view, is not simply how global warming isn't occurring, but how terrible the present-day media is; on the 16th page, all he does is continue to point fingers, as he has been throughout the article.
One of the versions of the "Hockey Stick" graph, which notes how for 900 or so years the climate has stayed relatively constant, except for in the 20th century, where it spikes upwards. This graph has apparently been disproved.
Senator James Inhofe; extreme skeptic of global warming.And now for my personal views of the topic. Well...on one hand, I agree with Inhofe about the unreliability of the media. It's pretty untrustworthy, so i think. What with all its jumping to conclusions without the whole story, blowing things out of proportion, and lack of responsible sources. Occasionally, though, they do hit something true; unfortunately, this is usually an incredibly sad true life-story of someone who died or something like that. but, even then, they usually mess something up.On the original topic of global warming....I don't think he understood that those predictions of the past scientists were meant for very long-term ideas. He seemed to expect it to happen quickly, which in terms of climate, can't really happen. I'm not ure about global warming really, but i do know that pollution and whatnot is something that can and should be stopped, no matter what people think the reasons are or what the consequences will be.
Comments