WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, is questioning the scientific basis behind the recently released Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report by the eight-nation Arctic Council. The report was subject to a hearing today by the Senate Science Commerce Committee.

“Alarmists continue to pursue doomsday scenarios about global warming, but without releasing the basis for their claims. The recently released Arctic Climate Impact Assessment follows that tactic. This overview report, which contains no footnotes nor citations, and is exceedingly stingy with the caveats typically accompanying credible scientific studies, is already being criticized by scientists across the globe despite the attempt to lend it credence by a hearing of the Commerce Committee today. I am confident that the report will not sway additional votes in the Senate for an economy killing climate change bill,” Senator Inhofe said.

According to a story in The Guardian newspaper dated November 9, a team of scientists condemned claims of climate catastrophe as "fatally flawed" in their report.

“Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report that predictions of ‘extreme impacts’ based on greenhouse emissions employed ‘faulty science, faulty logic and faulty economics’.

“Predictions of changes in sea level of a metre in the next century were overestimates: sea-level rises were likely to be only 10cm to 20cm in the next 100 years. Claims that climate change would lead to a rise in malaria were not warranted.

“Extreme weather was not on the increase but more likely to be part of a natural cycle, not yet understood by climate scientists. The report says a warmer world would benefit fish stocks in the north Atlantic and reduce the incidence of temperature-related deaths in vulnerable humans.”

In addition, the George C. Marshall Institute issued a release today stating that, “This report makes numerous claims about climate change on arctic regions. Most of its claims are based on invalidated climate models and scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) that bear little resemblance to reality and how the future is likely to evolve. And indeed, some of its claims about sea ice and ‘alarming’ warming are contradicted by other peer reviewed research and data.” The Institute was criticized at the hearing as representing the views of only a few scientists. Yet the George C. Marshall Institute was an organizer of the Oregon Petition, signed by more than 17,000 scientists, which disputed claims of catastrophic global warming.