Who is more trustworthy on global warming? The National Academy of Sciences or Senator Inhofe?

There are so many issues with this Inhofe report.

The scientists are from many different fields, many of which have little to do with climate science (similar to the Oregon Petition).

400 scientists make up less than 1% of the total number of scientists in all of these fields. Geologists, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, meteorologists, etc....we're probably talking about millions of total scientists in these fields. 400 is a drop in the bucket. It's nothing.

The scientists only had to proclaim skepticism in one aspect of the AGW theory to be put into this report. They may very well think the theory as a whole is sound.

The report contains zero scientific evidence - just the opinions of this small number of skeptics.

It's a completely meaningless list. I don't care how many skeptical scientists there are on the planet, I want to see the data which explains why they're skeptical. Many cited political reasons rather than scientific ones. Are they scientists or politicians?

The NAS presents scientific evidence to support their conclusions. Inhofe presents a list of names.

I'll take the NAS.

Personally I don't believe any politician and don't see how anyone could. There is a reason why the phrase crooked as a politician was coined. But he was just relaying a message of scientist just like Al Gore. I used to bash Al Gore but that is partly because of the things he has said and how An Inconvenient Truth was just as political as it was scientific. He even started the movie out with "Hi I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next President of the United states" I mean come on what a douche bag, get over it. But he doesn't know anything he is just the messenger just like Inhofe. Also AGW is scientists opinions as well. Only time will tell who is right, so just sit back and relax and do your part. That's all you can do.

I read the transcript and he sounded quite reasonable to me. He is clearly saying that there is man-made global warming and we need to do something about it. Unfortunately the interviewer was doing his best to put words in Cicerone's mouth and make his own points, rather than actually interviewing, so the transcript is too much Humphrys and not enough Cicerone. You think it's a great revelation that the president of the National Academy of Sciences doesn't think we have the kind of evidence that says that "...we're going to fry"? I don't think you would ever find a careful scientist making such a claim in the first place. It's not frying that we're worried about, it's things like persistent drought, increased extreme weather, long-term sea level rise, decrease in ocean pH, etc. Things that will not fry us, but may very well cost us many trillions of dollars and millions of human lives. EDIT: Maxx, did you read a different transcript than the one you provided the link to, or are you just lying again? Give me a quote from the transcript where he says that we're not going to see ANY those things I mentioned. You can't because he obviously he didn't say it--and yet you're claiming he did. You remind of another denier that used to be on here, who called himself "I expel CO2..." he would debate things that he claimed people said, but which they never did. You either can't comprehend what people are saying, or else you choose to lie about what they've said. Either way you'd be better served by keeping quiet and trying to learn something.

The case for or against man made global warming I leave to the scientists.

The politics of Kyoto seems racist as it unfairly targets mostly White nations while giving Black and Asian nations a free pass.

I and most conservatives agree that we need stricter environmental laws, but for all nations equally. This way way we can still be equal trading partners.

There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.

Liberal "Kyoto Treaty types" always give the communist Chinese a free pass. China has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on their military and offensive space-based weapons but cannot afford Kyoto? I wonder if having the worlds largest army has anything to do with it?

I would trust Inhof more but don't formulate opinions simply because any group or individual has their own opinion. His article simply listed the comments from 400 skeptical scientists. It is not a matter of believing him. It is a matter of believing those that claim there is a consensus when clearly there isn't. And now I reached 10,000 points exactly. Muchos gracias for the chance to respond.

Inhofe is accurately communicating the fact the number of skeptical scientists is growing. As far as I know, the NAS has never taken a position on this topic. For you to act as if the NAS and Inhofe are in opposition is muddleheaded.

A great deal of peer-reviewed scientific research came out in 2007 showing that AGW will not be catastrophic. This is the reason scientists are changing their minds.

Will some of the scientists claim they were misunderstood? Possibly, but all of the names I recognized are people I know are skeptics. The quotes all seemed pretty clear. I do not think Inhofe has made any glaring mistakes here.

He quoted the Washington Post correctly when they said the number of skeptical scientists was growing.

Who is Senator Inahol ? Did he just become a scientist and cash in with the skeptics ? Politicians will go to any lengths and clutch at any straws.

Again Bob lies. He says the NAS says global warming is real and manmade. Here is the real quote from the NAS which you can find on their web site.

The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-term trends

So you see people like Bob need lies to back up their position because the truth doesn't cut it.

I would say that Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) is more trustworthy. His campaign contributors can rely on him to protect their interests. Of course, it's personal with Inhofe. It really burns him that NAS won't sign off on "Intelligent Design."

Them scientist fellers, they go by the evidence, you can never tell what they'll come up with and sometimes it's even bad news. Not reliable at all. I mean, anybody with principles just ain't a team player.

Inhofe is a complete idiot. i can't believe he's trying to brainwash people into thinking global warming is a hoax he also tried to pass legilation trying to make english the official language of the US. i don't even know how this guy got elected senator, he's a complete moron