I’d emailed Qs to Michael Moran as detailed in my comment above (link), and he replied to my emailed Qs thoroughly and promptly (and then I regrettably did nothing with his reponses, having gotten wrapped up in another project – big apologies.)

Here were MM’s answers to my questions:

Q: Could you tell me please – have you posted other such climate communiques from Inhofe’s group on the CFR site, and if not, what led you to post this one?

MM: No. We post materials which help explain the state of the debate – in essence, we hyperlink references and use Essential Documents like footnotes. The communique merely contextualizes the fact that in the United States legislature no significant progress has been made toward climate change legislation over the past eight years. Whatever one thinks of the views of Inhofe and his allies, they have been very effective in preventing alternate views from making headway legislatively. Posting it implies absolutely no sanction. It merely says, “this is relevant to this topic.” CFR is nonpartisan. We’re not pushing any particular political angle. We’re just leaving breadcrumbs to help people understand arguments being made by all sides .

Q. How did you run across this document? And were you involved in any communication about it, before posting it?

MM: No. Our library scans the web daily for public documents that add context to the issues we concentrate on. First I knew of its appearance was from the misguided accusations of the ClimateProgress blogger.

Q. Do you believe that anyone reading the CFR site might find Inhofe’s speech credible, and believe that CFR’s filing it under “Essential Documents” grants it further credibility? If so, is that a problem, and for whom?

MM: Look at the Essential Documents queue.
http://www.cfr.org/ publication/ by_type/ essential_document.html
It is listing of public documents without any political filter applied. Again, CFR is a nonpartisan organization. I think if you read down you’ll see that the 650 document hardly represents any kind of trend in our choice of Essential Documents.
You can see this for yourself by sorting the Essential Documents by Issue (Climate Change):
http://www.cfr.org/ publication/ publication_list.html?groupby=1&type=essential_document&filter=20

And, again, our decision to include it confers no sanction or credibility. We also have, among the thousands of documents included, the recently agreed SOFA in Iraq, a communique between India and China after a recent summit, Obama’s speech when announcing ihs new National Security team, his acceptance speech in Denver, Palin’s speech in August on Energy Issues, and … for that matter, the US Constitution, the Balfour Declaration, the SALT II Treaty, and speeches by presidents, kings and dictators, the content of which is relevant to the understanding of how things do or don’t get done on this planet, but not sanctioned in any sense by CFR.

The entire conversation here is based on a mistaken assumption by a blogger that we give any credence to these things. In the end, as I said, they are akin to footnotes – just ways to let a reader explore any particular issue in greater depth.
————-

Do you have children or even grandchildren? I DO! To label anything that Imhof submits about Climate Change/Global Warming as an Essential Document is to show your own lack of knowledge about this subject. Let me help you out with where to look for creditable information on this subject. !)NASA 2) NOAA
3) US Department of Ecology 4) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 4) US Global Change Research 5)
Stanford University 6) National Center for Environmental Research 7) NERC National Academy of Sciences 9) U of East Anglia 10) Skripps Institution These are just a few to get you started. Knowing that you have read the report from the IPCC WG II right?? Here are a few Documentary Films you might want to watch. Some times a visual cue is more informative then the dry page. 1) Baked Alaska 2) China from the Inside 3)The 11th Hour 4) Emperors of the Ice 5) Rising Waters: Global Warming 6) Life Running out of Control I & II 7) Earth, Wind and Fire Sun Cookers Again these are just some to get you started on the journey of truth about a subject you need to study much more closely before you make any future determinations about what is a Essential Document on this subject.

Like many people, you are confused about the meaning of ‘ad hominem’ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

If you said “1 + 2 = 2″ and I replied “Randall smells and cheats when playing Monopoly, therefore he is wrong about 1 + 2″ – that would be ad hominem. If I demonstrated mathematically why 1 + 2 = 3 and then called you an idiot, it would not be ad hominem.

There is compelling evidence that Inhofe / Morano have lied, e.g. http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 12/ 11/ inhofe-morano-recycles-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-fooled-again/ . Because there is evidence of dishonesty, the are called ‘liars’. They have little or no credibility because of this.

> All I see is an incredibly desparate [sic], threatened group of people.

Have you not seen the news recently? http://unfccc.int/ meetings/ cop_14/ items/ 4481.php The world’s climate scientists and the world’s leaders are unequivocal in their recognition of ACC, and yet you think those who accept the science are ‘desperate’ and ‘threatened’? I think you might be projecting.

All I see is an incredibly desparate, threatened group of people.

Greetings Mr. Moran -

I’m one of the well-meaning amateur journalists of the blogosphere, and I’m hoping you can clear up some confusion I have about CFR’s posting this document without comment.

1. Could you tell me please – have you posted other such climate communiques from Inhofe’s group on the CFR site, and if not, what led you to post this one?

2. How did you run across this document? And were you involved in any communication about it, before posting it?

3. Do you believe that anyone reading the CFR site might find Inhofe’s speech credible, and believe that CFR’s filing it under ““Essential Documents” grants it further credibility? If so, is that a problem, and for whom?

Thanks if you can help us understand -
Anna Haynes

Subject: Please stop lending credibility to Inhofe’s totally discredited global warming denial document

To: Richard Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations

I just went to your web site and found it impressive, including the climate change section.

Then I went to the “Essential Documents” section. The heading for this section is:

“Vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate.”

Here I see Inhofe’s More Than 650 International Scientists…” which has been shown to be riddled with distortions and inaccuracies

Inhofe’s document is “vital”, “primary”? It is “underpinning the foreign policy debate”?

Putting Inhofe’s document in this area without clearly stating that it is primarily fiction lends it a dangerous credibility. Better to delete it immediately.

Brooks Bridges

Dear Mr. Haas:

As a scientist and a citizen, I am extremely concerned about the threat of climate change and the lack of forceful action by the United States in the face of this crisis. So I was extremely disappointed to learn that the Council on Foreign Relations would list as an “Essential Document” on its website the recent report: “US Senate Minority Report: More than 650 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus in 2008”. The Council on Foreign Relations describes essential documents as “vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate.” It is clear, however, that the US Senate Minority Report is none of the above. Instead it is part of an orchestrated anti-scientific disinformation propaganda campaign meant to justify inaction in the face of an urgent global threat. I urge you to consider the consequences for the good name of the Council on Foreign Relations for promoting this document on your website as an “essential document.” As President-elect Barack Obama has said: “the time for denial is over.”

Sincerely,

MAX

Michael Moran and his fellow editors failed.

——-

Michael Moran,

Get your stuff together. Clean up this mess.

Or vacate your desk and let someone do the job correctly.

A competent executive editor of the Council on Foreign Relations would not have allowed publication of such a paper on the site, under the heading ‘Essential Document’, or would have clearly labelled it as misleading propaganda.

Don’t blame others for your own failings.