The Greatest Hoax

The Greatest Hoax Americans Are Over Regulated And Over Taxed When Regulation Escalates, The Result Is An Increase In Regulators In Other Words, Bigger Government Is Required To Enforce The Greater Degree Of Regulation Bigger Government Means Bigger Budgets And Higher Taxes More Simply Doesn T Mean Better A Perfect Example Is The Entire Global Warming, Climate Change Issue, Which Is An Effort To Dramatically And Hugely Increase Regulation Of Each Of Our Lives And Business, And To Raise Our Cost Of Living And Taxes In The Greatest Hoax, Senator James Inhofe Will Reveal The Reasons Behind Those Perpetuating The Hoax Of Global Warming, Who Is Benefitting From The General Acceptance Of The Hoax And Why The Premise Statements Are Blatantly And Categorically False

Is a well-known author, some of his books are a fascination for readers like in the The Greatest Hoax book, this is one of the most wanted James M. Inhofe author readers around the world.

[Reading] ➾ The Greatest Hoax  By James M. Inhofe – Hookupgoldmilf.info
  • Hardcover
  • 305 pages
  • The Greatest Hoax
  • James M. Inhofe
  • English
  • 04 August 2017
  • 9781936488490

10 thoughts on “The Greatest Hoax

  1. says:

    On 22 Jan 2015, the U.S Senate voted 98 1 to approve a resolution stating that it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax The resolution was approved, and co sponsored, by the most outspoken climate denier in the Senate, Jim Inhofe So it s hard to take his book The Greatest Hoax very seriously Rather, it appears to be just political posturing against Democratic Party initiatives.I d heard the claims and counter claims about global warming over the past few years , and each time I read something from the scientific community, I was convinced they were right And then I d read something from the climate change deniers, and their argument would win me back over to their side It was all very confusing In an attempt to understand , I actually enrolled in and completed two classes on climate change , on e on line, and another at my local college So when I came across Senator Inhofe s book The Greatest Hoax , I felt I had a fair understanding of the science of global warming, and therefore was curious about his views as to why global warming was such a hoax We hear the hoax statement periodically Luminaries like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make it , but their radio and TV programs don t allow time to explain it Another lesser luminary, recently elected Louisiana Congresswoman Lenar Whitney , also made the claim in her pre election video, but her unfortunate explanation as to why global warming is a hoax was better left unsaid Her explanation should have been embarrassing to her, and insulting to her constituents Her feeling was that any ten year old can see that there s no global warming by simply taking a thermometer out doors That explanation may have resonated within her District, but it shows that she has no understanding of what global warming is about What the Congresswoman apparently fails to understand is that the term global warming uses the word global because it refer s to the world wide AVERAGE temperature , looked at over a time scale of decades or longer A record cold day, or a record hot day, in her city, state, or Country is irrelevant It s the global average temperature over time that needs to be viewed And this average temperature has been trending upward over our lifetime , albeit slower over the past dozen years or so, but still is rising And when looking at all the combinations of things that can cause ice ages and warming periods, e.g., things such as solar radiation changes, variations in the earth s orbit, wobble of the earth s axis, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, volcanoes, soot and particulates in the air, ocean circulation changes, El Nino La Nina cycles, albedo changes, etc , the great majority of scientific studies show that increases in greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide being one, offers the only demonstrable explanation for the recent increasing trend in global temperature since the Industrial Revolution These current temperature changes do not match historical natural cooling or warming cycles So my interest in the book was to understand Senator Inhofe s rationale for labeling global warming as the greatest hoax, and not to reread recycled political rhetoric Simply repeating the same claims, over and over again, makes good propaganda, but doesn t stand up to critical analysis Propaganda, whether in support of or denying global warming, is easy to swallow if it suits your pre conceived notions and biases But if you want than propaganda, you really need to understand and study the science And in that regard, I felt Senator Inhofe s book fell short He makes many claims, but if you re looking for explanations for his claims, as I was, I suspect you may be disappointed His book is relatively short, only about 300 page s, and only about half of those pages are devoted to his eight chapters The other half is devoted to several Appendices , References, Acknowledgments, etc The Appendices, I imagine , were intended to help the reader come to the right conclusion, e.g., that global warming is a hoax Appendix A, titled What s in it for the United Nations , tries to make the point that the UN is using global warming to try to build a global utopia Senator Inhofe takes the position that the UN hopes to take decision making away from independent and sovereign nations and transfer that power in to the hands of the UN Sounds scary, and a good reason to oppose the findings of the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change UN IPCC , but there s no evidence to support it Over its history, the United Nations has managed to forge international cooperation and agreements without taking away the rights of individual nations For example, the UN has played a role in protecting the oceans by preventing dumping of nuclear materials into the oceans, forging agreements to prevent pollution from ships, preventing depletion of threatened fish stocks through overfishing, etc These were common sense agreements, not forced upon nations, but concluded through negotiations and cooperation And as we ve just seen with the recent end of 2014 Ebola scare, health issues can have world wide impacts The UN, through the World Health Organization WHO , has fostered medical research and cooperation to fight HIV AIDS, Ebola, polio, smallpox, and a number of health concerns None of these initiatives cost us our national sovereignty And regarding climate change, the recently concluded UN sponsored Conference of Parties COP20 in Lima, Peru dealing with climate change has been criticized by some for not being forceful enough The most recent agreement has been characterized by some as a choose your own adventure approach toward combating climate change In other words, instead of a top down UN dictated approach, as Senator Inhofe fearfully tells us is going to happen, the UN sponsored conference ended in a voluntary agreement which invited nations to decide for themselves what policies and goals they may choose to adopt in reducing greenhouse gases So in trying to determine whether there s a secret plot by the UN, or whether Senator Inhofe is simply flooding the airways with unsubstantiated scares, I lean toward the latter Looking at the next Appendix, Appendix B, Excerpts from Michael Crichton s Novel State of Fear , this seemed the strangest section of the book If Senator Inhofe s intent was to include these excerpts as proof of his claim that global warming is a hoax, it seemed to be a strange approach I love Michael Crichton s books, and I enjoyed reading Crichton s book State of Fear Obviously, Senator Inhofe feels the same way, and had even invited Crichton testify before his Senate Committee discussing climate change And while I agree that Crichton was talented and a really smart guy, we have to accept that his book is a novel, a good novel, but not peer checked science Go to the library or book store and you ll find that book in the Fiction section I m not sure why anyone would think that including excerpts from a novel should be convincing in support of a science concept While Crighton did include some science data in his book, he also had the flexibility to cherry pick data as he saw fit to make his case in support of his novel As a matter of fact, in 2006, climate scientist and glaciologist Peter Doran, then at the University of Illinois, wrote an OpEd in the NY Times, and specifically mentioned that his scientific results had been misused by Crichton in his novel State of Fear But Crichton could take those liberties he was only writing a story, a work of fiction, not a scientific paper No one would or should use his novel as a science text book , and it seemed to be the weakest part of Senator Inhofe s book Appendix C Climategate The CRU Controversy apparently was included to prove that climate scientists are conspiring behind the scenes to fake the data and prevent opposing voices from being heard He states in his book that Climategate is the greatest scientific scandal of our time, and these stolen e mails from the Climate Research Unit CRU in the UK vindicate his calling global warming a hoax In this Appendix, Inhofe reprints portions of some of these pirated emails, and invites the reader to draw their own conclusion I can only imagine what any selection of my old emails, taken out of context, would read like if obtained from my computer The same is true for personal email exchanges taken from any organization, club, or individuals They do appear damaging, as presented, but taken as a whole, are they as damaging as Senator Inhofe states He challenges us to find out and wrote, the reader is encouraged to seek outside sources for broader review and context of the exposed emails and documents Perhaps he felt that no one would take him up on this, and simply take him at his word Or perhaps he felt people would only check with conservative news outlets like those controlled by Rupert Murdoch, a vocal global warming denier But I took him up on this , and found that the independent scholarly and scientific reviews made by people who understood the technical details and the science dismissed this as a scandal These independent reviews, while critical of several of the scientists for often appearing rude, dismissive, and acting like jerks when talking among themselves, were not conspiring among themselves to manipulate or fake any data I won t list all the Climategate reviews I came across, but since I we were specifically challenged by Senator Infofe to seek outside sources for broader review and context of the exposed emails , I ll note a few In August, 2011, the National Science Foundation reported that they found no research misconduct The U.S EPA investigated the emails and simply considered it a case of candid discussion among scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets The University of East Anglia, where the email hacking occurred, examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, and found that the rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt They also set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, which found no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published their own report and found the widespread criticisms of the CRU were misplaced, and academics should not have been criticized for making informal comments on academic papers Penn State University completed an investigation, since one of their staff, Dr Mann, was included in the email correspondence, and found there was no substance to the allegations against him And the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted a review of the emails and found no evidence in the emails that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA inappropriately manipulated data So the Appendices, if included to support Senator Inhofe s claims, fell short of their mark The rest of the book is broken down into eight chapters , with the first two pretty much about himself Chapter 1 is titled Why I fight , and Chapter 2 , titled The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet discusses how he earned th at moniker for exposing the hoax Another chapter, titled Skepticism Reigns , discuss es how he and others are spreading skepticism and denial of climate change Another chapter is devoted to Climategate , already discussed S o the remaining four chapters, what I guess would be considered to be the meat of his book, have three key message s 1 that everyone is in agreement that global warming is a hoax 2 that he s got a number of scientists on his side, and 3 that the inevitable policy to address global warming, Cap and Trade, is a failed policy which will never be enacted, certainly not as long as he chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.Senator Inhofe writes as if everyone reading the book knows that global warming is a hoax, so he doesn t really try to teach the science behind global warming Granted that Senator Inhofe is not a climate scientist, or a scientist of any kind, so it s not too surprising that t he technical information is omitted He simply begins his book by declaring that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change UN IPCC is totally refuted that Al Gore is totally discredited that man made global warming has been totally debunked and that passing a global warming cap and trade is totally futile With that introduction, it was clear that Senator Inhofe didn t feel it was necessary to provide explanations as to why he considered global warming to be a hoax He simply states that global warming has already been shown to be refuted and debunked But simply repeating many of his own quotes on the subject, or repeating quotes of others hardly proves his point He does refer to a number of scientists, and provides some selected quotes from many, but that doesn t mean that they all go so far as to consider global warming to be a hoax Unquestionably, several have argued that there are still unanswered questions, or take issue with certain aspects of the IPCC Reports on Global Warming Several have their own specific areas of research, and believe that the effects of the their areas of research are equally important to the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere But few if any climate scientists call global warming a hoax For example, one of the scientists listed in Senator Inhofe s book, Israeli scientist Dr Niv Shaviv, favors his field of study, solar intensity and cosmic rays, as being equally important to carbon dioxide in our warming trend And another, Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, writes about her stadium wave theory and the affects of ocean temperature oscillations and cycles There are others, such as Dr Fred Singer , who admittedly was a brilliant scientist with a most impressive resume But on the downside, his free market ideology and commitment to small government has led him to oppose almost any political intervention into business interests As Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway point out in their book Merchants of Doubt , in case after case, Dr Singer and a handful of other scientists joined forces with think tanks and private corporations to challenge scientific evidence on a host of contemporary issues Dr Singer has reportedly stated, when criticizing the EPA s regulating second hand smoke, if we do not carefully delineate the government s role in regulating dangers, there s essentially no limit how much government can ultimately control our lives Yet even he scoffs at those who claim that rising carbon dioxide levels do not cause temperatures to rise, or that the concentration s of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are too small to have an y effect So when looking at the full body of work of even these critical scientists, there s really very little to support the notion of global warming being a hoax.The final key take away I took from the book is Senator Inhofe s insistence that no Cap and Trade policy will ever pass in the Senate much less get out of his Senate Committee which oversees Environmental Protection When opposing the Democratic Party proposal to implement Cap Trade early in the Obama Presidency, he termed the proposal the largest tax increase in history But don t these politicians always say this about any proposals Early in the Obama Administration, Rush Limbaugh referred to Obamacare as the biggest tax increase in the history of the world In 2009, Speaker John Boehner referred to the 2009 Democratic budget resolution as the biggest tax increase in history In June, 2012, Eric Cantor stated that the Democratic proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire would be the biggest tax increase in American history In December, 2012 Speaker John Boehner called Obama s proposed millionaire tax the biggest in history See a pattern here Even going back to Clinton s 1993 tax increase, Senator Mitch McConnell called that the largest tax increase in history McConnell also stated that the Clinton tax package wouldn t reduce the national debt, which also proved to be wrong And while Inhofe complains about huge costs associated with a Cap and Trade policy to fight carbon emissions, the non partisan Congressional Budget Office 2009 analysis calculated that it would be deficit neutral and any tax burden on individuals would be limited Other studies, such as the March, 2009 Council on Foreign Relations Expert Roundup on Cap and Trade s Economic Impact by Michael Levi found that the Cap and Trade legislation to limit carbon would have a small but positive effect on the U.S economy Which is how it has worked elsewhere when implemented It s working in California which has its own program to limit carbon emissions, it s working in the European Union, and similar Cap and Trade initiatives to limit carbon are now being introduced around the world, including in China, Mexico, South Korea, etc So these political exaggerations of costs seem to be standard procedure to oppose legislation and rally voters against these bills In addition, besides his claim of high costs, the Senator makes further claims in the book of how this policy would be a job killer, would hurt the economy, and would be ineffective However, each of those claims have been refuted in practice Historically, Cap and Trade was a policy introduced back in the Reagan Administration, and was a Republican Party policy Before the term Cap and Trade was coined, the policy was simply known as emissions trading, which is a free market means of controlling pollutants Reagan used the concept to phase out leaded gasoline, and it was President George H.W Bush who proposed the use of Cap and Trade trade in 1989 to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from coal fired power plants when combating acid rain And the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 easily passed with bipartisan support in Congress And while opponents of that measure, like Senator Inhofe today, suggested the program costs would be prohibitive, actual costs were five times less than predicted by opponents according to a January, 1990 study by E H Pechan Assoc., Inc study Clean Air Act Legislation Cost Evaluation These programs have been efficient, effective, and economic, popular during previous Republican administrations In 2008, Presidential candidate John McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution by a Cap and Trade program, and Sarah Palin reiterated support for that program during the vice presidential debate The 2008 Republican Party Platform call ed for technology driven, market based solutions t o reduce excess greenhouse gases and mitigate the impact of climate change Yet in 2012, the Party Platform diametrically changed to oppose any Cap and Trade legislation to curtail greenhouse gasses What caused this abrupt reversal in policy Oil and Gas lobby contributions, which donated heavily to Senator Inhofe and the Republican Party, or was it simply a need to oppose Cap and Trade since it was now a Democratic Party policy Both sound sound like l ogical reasons to me So in summary, the book makes wonderful reading for people who have already bought into the global warming hoax theory, but there are many flaws in the argument, and like most political campaign adds, the claims don t really stand up to scrutiny.

  2. says:

    Well done exposing the anthropogenic global warming hoax Great documentation of the climategate e mails admitting the pro global warming scientists outright manipulation of the facts to suit their modus operandi Global warming cooling is a scam, climate change is an ongoing phenomenon and has to do with the sun, water vapour and ocean currents In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill.All these dangers are caused by human intervention and thus the realenemy, then, is humanity itselfhumanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government 1991 The First Global Revolution The Club of Rome

  3. says:

    This book is a well written overview of Global Warming Alarmism, not an advocacy book It s simply a report of what happened, about how the Obama Administration failed to pass Cap and Trade, even with a super majority in both houses of Congress.This book just documents recent history So why write it, when man made Global Warming is totally debunked As he says, Because the environmental activist extremists are not going away Man was he right The book is well written, and is, I think, the best overview of the issues surrounding Climate Alarmism It gives enough of the science, w citations, that one can see what s going on It shows some of the fraud that has gone on to promote this hoax, including Climategate As you read it, you will come to know Inhofe himself, you will learn what s at stake for you our children.My favorite section was the afterword What Global Warming Earmarks Have In Common Inhofe takes the unpopular side of the argument, he argues that the administration managed to use the earmark process to funnel billions of dollars into global warming advocacy, it will continue to do so When the House voluntarily abandoned earmarks last year, it basically surrendered its only weapon to counter the administration The complexity of Inhofe s argument convinces me that our popular understanding of the Congressional budgeting process is deficient He explains proves how 4.8 billion dollars are funneled to various groups, projects, etc without our knowledge or any accountability.Good read, very informative, very glad we have people like Senator Inhofe willing to take a stand fight.

  4. says:

    Details Sen Inhofe s dedicated work in stifling and exposing the environmentalist s biggest jab at capitalism, American exceptionalism, and at making the world a mediocre place Did not answer my core question as to what the rank and file believer thinks, and what motivates them to buy into the idea that we should regress, and tax ourselves into oblivion Oh, I know what Algore gets out of itit s the lame brained public, and undisciplines scientists and other apologists I don t get.

  5. says:

    I am going to give you the main points of his argument as to why climate change is a hoax climategate and the hockey stick graph Most of the book focuses on the politics of climate change policy.

  6. says:

    I gave this two stars because it IS instructive in a way that isn t intended by the author The book gives insight the same way _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ gives insight into the political life of Czarist Russia Bear with me as this post of mine comes back around to how you discover books.Although climate change is a well established fact that is supported by the vast majority of climatologists, this book states otherwise For reference, there is a policy statement at AAAS.org that supports climate change as a real thing But what you, the lay reader, need to know is not the science, but the opinion of those professionals whose job it is to pay attention to whether something is bullshit deliberate misinformation or not.This is known as the Demarcation Problem and it s the job of Philosophers of Science to maintain the border between Science and nonsense They have decided that denying climate change is nonsense pseudoscience But you don t know that because you can t find it easily Before online book ordering, you would not have found this book shelved under science at the library Barnes and Noble, yes, but the library tries to screen out harmful lies Today there is an online community dedicated to pushing fear, uncertainty, and doubt about science On the right, you find narratives about the evils of big government that steal your freedom On the left, you find narratives about the evils of big corporations that injure you physically with chemicals Funding is provided by those who profit from it through publication or sales.I needn t say to this audience, Support your local librarian There are critical functions libraries play that are about screening BS as much as promoting good reads Postscript begins My professional interest lies in watching communities of science interact I realized it was a problem when Chriton s _State of Fear_ was published in 2004 I found something in it I knew to be a deliberate lie that didn t affect the plot I was puzzled, so I went looking for the source I found it in the literature surrounding tobacco litigation although this particular factoid had nothing to do with tobacco I discovered certain energy companies hired some of the writers whose work for tobacco had just ended due to a court decision that uncovered their lies Jim Inhofe is a victim of persuasive lies and of course, campaign donations designed to allow energy companies to maintain their business as usual in the US End digression

  7. says:

    Republican senator

  8. says:

    I read this book in preparation for meeting with the Senator s staff to discuss an environmental topic I was surprised to find that the book hardly talks about the science of climate change at all The biggest scientific point of focus is the Climategate email scandal, which ended up being a mining exercise for taking quotes out of context.The majority of the book is devoted to the economic implications of the US taking on climate action without buy in from China and India and other emerging economies The Senator really nails his criticisms here, and if you re able to ignore the politically charged incendiary rhetoric, there s some very good information buried underneath It s much easier to get local or regional results aiming for adaptation preparing for climate , rather than mitigation cutting emissions.

  9. says:

    James Mountain Jim Inhofe es un pol tico estadounidense de Oklahoma Como miembro del Partido Republicano, actualmente sirve como senador senior para Oklahoma En el Congreso est entre las mayores voces negacionistas del cambio clim tico.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *