Inhofe and warming ... again

By John Sutter

The Oklahoman put out an editorial today supporting U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe's increasingly marginalized stance that climate change isn't the result of human emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Inhofe says 650 scientists support his theories, which go against the global scientific community and United Nations reports. As Grist points out, Inhofe has a history of reshaping the climate change debate by tricking the media into ignoring sound science:

Deniers like Inhofe have a serious media problem -- an ever growing number of studies, real-world observations, and credible scientific bodies all point to human-caused emissions as the increasingly dominant cause of planetary warming and dangerous climate change.

What's a denier to do? The answer is simple: Repackage previously debunked disinformation, release it as a "new" so-called "Full Senate Report" full of hysterical headlines, push it through right-wing news outlets, and hope the traditional media bites. Why not? It worked before.

The Oklahoman (which, for point of disclosure, is my former employer) ends its editorial with a question:

With at least 58 Democratic senators, will Obama try to ratify the job-killing Kyoto global warming treaty?

He might, which makes it good to know Jim Inhofe will be waiting and ready.

Short-term data: Oklahoma City already warming

By John Sutter

Climate change is a long-term phenomenon that plays out over many years. One cold winter, for instance, doesn't mean much if winters are getting milder and shorter over the course of decades. The changes also aren't expected to be uniform -- a few places may actually get cooler, but overall the climate will warm.

Those ideas play out in some government data crunched by a group called Environment America and recently released as a report called "Feeling the Heat."

Oklahoma City, like many other places, has warmed between 2001 to 2007. On average, temperatures during that period were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than temps from 1971 to 2000. 2006 was the fourth hottest year in the city's history, according to the report, and that year was 2.2 degrees above the historical average.

Again, it's just a short-term look at a long-term trend. I still thought you all might find it interesting. Check out the report, and let me know what you think. Meanwhile, as temperatures drop this fall season, I'm sure we can expect some editorial cartoons in The Oklahoman poking fun at the idea of "global warming" when there's snow on the ground.

Videos: rumored Chesapeake buyout; green energy editorial

By John Sutter

The Oklahoman has a couple of videos up today on the energy sector. In the first, the paper reports on a rumor that one of Oklahoma City's huge natural gas companies -- Chesapeake Energy -- will soon be bought out by investors. One of the company's officials reportedly denied a possible takeover. Chesapeake's stocks have been plummeting in tandem with natural gas prices. For a little background, Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas producers in the country, but only about a third of the gas produced here is actually used in-state.

Here's the video:



Here's another, an editorial in which Ed Kelley ponders the effect the national credit crunch will have on Oklahoma's alternative fuels industry. Wind power needs to be a priority in Oklahoma, he says, adding that the state could be the second or third biggest producer of wind power in the country within a decade if things go well. Still, for a little perspective, only 7 percent of energy used in the United States comes from renewable sources. And of that renewable piece of the pie, only 5 percent is wind power.

Oklahoma is one of the country's top energy users per capita. It ranks 11th for per person energy consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration, which is an independent branch of the U.S. Department of Energy. I'd be interested to hear any energy-saving tips you all might have.

Check out the editorial video below, and let me know what you think. I find it interesting that the editorial doesn't mention climate change, which, aside from the economic possibilities of green power and pollution issues associated with fossil fuels, is the big reason scientists and activists promote alternatives.