In The News
Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears
Monday September 24, 2007
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant and a UN IPCC expert reviewer ridiculed the AP article.
“Rarely have I read such a collection of unsubstantiated and scare-mongering twaddle. Not only do real studies show no increase to rate of sea level change, the [AP] article gives reasons for concern that are nonsense,” Courtney told Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.
Understanding The Term
Saturday September 22, 2007
What does the term “structurally deficient” mean? That’s exactly the question Senator Inhofe asked Secretary Mary E. Peters, Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation, to address during this week’s Senate Environment and Public Works hearing examining the condition of our nation’s bridges. In the aftermath of catastrophic failure of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota , the term has caused significant confusion.
Secretary Peters explains in her prepared remarks before the EPW Committee that the term “structurally deficient” is a technical engineering term:
“The term ‘structurally deficient’ is a technical engineering term used to classify bridges according to serviceability, safety, and essentiality for public use. The fact that a bridge is classified as ‘structurally deficient’ does not mean that it is unsafe for use by the public. Since 1995 the percentage of travel taking place on roads that are considered “good” has increased from 39.8% to 44.2%.Overall, approximately 85% of travel takes place on pavement that is considered ‘acceptable.’”
Calvin L. Scovel, the Inspector General U.S. Department of Transportation, also addresses the question of what “structural deficient” in his prepared remarks before the Committee:
“The term ‘structurally deficient’ refers to bridges that have major deterioration, cracks, or other deficiencies in their structural components, including decks, girders, or foundations. Regular inspections that check for corrosion, decay, and other signs of deterioration are important tools for ensuring that bridges are safe. In some cases, structurally deficient bridges require repair of structural components, or even closure. But most bridges classified as structurally deficient can continue to serve traffic safely if they are properly inspected, the bridges’ maximum load ratings are properly calculated, and, when necessary, the proper maximum weight limits are posted.”
FACT: Of the 600,000 Bridges in the United States , only 2% are owned by the Federal Government, the rest are owned by the States (47%) and local government (51%). States are ultimately responsible for inspection of all public highway bridges within the state, except for the small number owned by the Federal government and Indian tribes; the bridge owners are responsible for actually completing the inspection. Most bridges, including all of those that are longer than 20ft and on the Federal-Aid system, are inspected at least every 2 years. The National Bridge Inspection Program also includes specific qualifications and a training program for bridge inspectors. Information collected from each inspection is transmitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and entered into the NBI database. This information is then used to assure bridge safety and to determine which bridges are eligible for funding. Each bridge in the National Bridge Inventory has both a sufficiency rating and a condition rating.
Sufficiency Ratings (from 0 – 100 with 0 being the worst) are used to illustrate the bridge’s overall capability. A bridge’s structural deficiency makes up 55% of the sufficiency rating. The sufficiency rating is based:
*55% on structural condition
*30% on ability to meet current traffic conditions
*15% on how essential it is for public use
Bridges with a sufficiency rating of less than 50 are eligible for replacement or rehabilitation and those with a sufficiency rating of less than 80 are eligible for rehabilitation. Highway Bridge Program funds are available for both activities.
Condition Ratings (from 0 – 9 with 0 being the worst) are used to determine whether a bridge is functionally obsolete and/or structurally deficient. Condition ratings are based on the condition of the bridge deck, superstructure, and piers. A bridge with a condition rating of 1 – 4 is considered functionally obsolete and/or structurally deficient.
There are two types of deficient bridges:
Structurally Deficient: a bridge which has deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load carrying capacity, or the waterway opening beneath the bridge is insufficient and causing significant traffic interruptions. A structurally deficient bridge is often weight limited, requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open, or is closed.
Functionally Obsolete: a bridge that has a deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearance or approach roadway alignment that does not meet current design standards. Functional obsolescence is the result of changing traffic demands and design standards rather than a degradation of the bridge itself.
Rural bridges are more often structurally deficient, while urban bridges are usually functionally obsolete due to increased traffic. About 28% of all bridges are deficient. If a bridge is both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, it is classified as structurally deficient. Approximately 72,000 bridges are considered structurally deficient and 81,000 are considered functionally obsolete. Of those bridges that are classified as structurally deficient, approximately 6,000 are on the National Highway System.
Putting the Bridge Crisis in Perspective
Although we must take very seriously the collapse of the I35 bridge in Minnesota by taking a much closer look at how bridges are funded and maintained, when we examine our nation’s infrastructure in its entirety, we will find that it is not just bridges but all aspects of our national highway system that needs attention. The investment needs for aging bridges are staggering, but we cannot let this overshadow the overwhelming needs on all aspects our nation’s highways.
Opening Statement: Hearing To Examine The Condition of Our Nation's Bridges
Thursday September 20, 2007
The catastrophic failure of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota was a tragedy for the families of the 13 victims as well as the people of Minnesota, and I hope a wake-up call for all of us. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we cannot afford to ignore it. We have been enjoying investments made 50 years ago and have not been giving enough attention to replacement, or even adequate maintenance, of the very infrastructure that has fueled unprecedented economic prosperity. As I have stated many times, the primary responsibility of government is to provide for the defense of the country and infrastructure. We have done an inadequate job maintaining and expanding our infrastructure.
I do have one concern that I would like to put on the table. Following the tragedy in Minnesota, many have rushed to call for dramatic increases in the amount of money we spend on bridges. While I appreciate that may be a natural response, I would suggest that as the committee of jurisdiction on this issue, we need to look at the entire picture before we make decisions on how to spend additional scarce resources. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that we do not need to devote more resources to bridges. In fact my home state leads the nation in structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. If anyone understands the need for increased attention on bridges, I do. But I believe when we examine the state of our infrastructure in its entirety, we will find that it is not just bridges but everything that needs attention. The investment needs for aging bridges are staggering, but we cannot let this overshadow the overwhelming needs on all aspects our nation’s highways.
INHOFE WELCOMES FREEMAN BEFORE EPW COMMITTEE
Wednesday September 19, 2007
"I was pleased to welcome Mr. Freeman before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today," Senator Inhofe said. "Mr. Freeman provided the EPW Committee valuable perspective regarding the challenges facing water infrastructure systems in Oklahoma and across the nation. He expressed the importance of the Revolving Loan Fund to Oklahoma’s communities and explained to the Committee the financial benefits municipalities get from using the SRF. He noted that Tulsa, OK will save $59 million over 5 years by using the SRF. He also emphasized the need to maintain a program free of too many extra requirements that make the program too complicated for towns, particularly small towns, to use.
Inhofe Welcomes Oklahoma Witnesses Before EPW Committee
Thursday September 6, 2007
Inhofe Opening Statement: Hearing on "An Examination of the Potential Human Health, Water Quality, and Other Impacts of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Industry"
Thursday September 6, 2007
We can have clean water and an active agriculture industry but we cannot have one at the expense of the other. I have been aggressive in assisting water systems comply with federal laws however, any effort to further regulate farms must consider the critical economic and employment benefits provided by the nation’s farms. In a 2000 study, the Department of Agriculture found that of the over 111,000 agriculture jobs in Oklahoma, 71 percent were related to livestock production. According to the USDA, total farm and farm-related employment in Oklahoma in 2002 was 343,636 jobs. Any legitimate concerns should be addressed without threatening the economic viability of Oklahoma's agriculture industry.
Global Warming "Consensus" Continues To Melt Away (Op-Ed, Senator Inhofe, Power Magazine)
Friday August 31, 2007
POWER MAGAZINE
BY SENATOR INHOFE
AUGUST 2007
We are witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming. In May, I released a report detailing scientists who were former believers in catastrophic man-made climate change but who have recently reversed themselves and are now skeptics.
I will also be releasing a list of the hundreds of scientists, many of them affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, who have spoken out recently to oppose climate alarmism. It is ironic that the media's climate hysteria grows louder as the latest scientific reports grow less and less alarming. Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates in half since 2001 and has reduced man's estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile, a separate UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks.
The New York Times is now debunking aspects of climate alarmism. An April 23, 2006, article in the Times by Andrew Revkin stated: "few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions). There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say." The Times is essentially conceding that no recent weather events are outside of natural climate variability. So all the climate doomsayers have to back up their claims of climate fears are unproven computer models. Of course, you can't prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 wrong today.
Climate models fallible
In fact, a prominent UN scientist questioned the reliability of such climate models. In a recent candid statement, IPCC scientist Dr. Jim Renwick—a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report—publicly admitted that the computer models that predict a coming catastrophe may not be so reliable after all. Renwick stated, "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well."
Let me repeat: a UN scientist admitted, "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable."
A leading scientific skeptic, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently took the critique of climate computer models one step further. Tennekes said in February 2007, "I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society."
Yet the media insist that there is a "consensus" on global warming and claim that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.
Numbers game
According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists were present. Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, and former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science.
Second opinion
Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.
Another question I frequently get asked is: Can you name a single peer-reviewed study to counter the scary climate computer model predictions of doom? I simply refer to the more than 100 scientific studies with more than 300 coauthors cited in the new book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by climate scientist Dr. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. The book details extensive research going back decades to reveal how solar activity is linked to Earth's natural temperature cycles. These peer-reviewed studies are just one component of the "inconvenient truth" that the mainstream media does not want to report. Fortunately, those interested in a rational scientific approach to climate can bypass the media and go to the committee web site at www.epw.senate.gov.
###
Related Links:
Cutting Emissions May Cost U.S. Economy Up to $1.8 TrillionSenators Propose $4500 Climate Tax on American Families
Global Warming "Consensus" Continues To Melt Away (Op-Ed By Senator Inhofe, Power Magazine)
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
# # #
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Wednesday August 29, 2007
Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new study in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Monday August 20, 2007
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.
Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’
Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Sunday August 12, 2007
Who would have thought that Newsweek would debunk its own embarrassing cover story a week later in the very next issue? This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism. [Note: It previously took Newsweek 31 years to admit its 1970's prediction of dire global cooling was completely wrong. See October 24, 2006 article: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age – (LINK)]
In this week's issue, Samuelson's writes: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as Newsweek did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."
