Okay, I will rise to the bait (again).

James Inhofe has embarrassed himself again by demonstrating that he cannot even critically read and understand the the "proof" he links to (my emphases throughout).

He gives 10 examples (and a bonus claim) 9 of which are easily refutable just by reading the actual links he provides or checking government sources.

1) In this link the scientist quoted,Jacob Clement Yde, says:

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.
The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.

2) From Chylek:

[19] v) There are significant differences between the global temperature and the Greenland temperature records within the 1881-2005 period. While all the decadal averages of the post-1955 global temperature are higher (warmer climate) than the pre-1955 average , almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the pre-1955 temperature average.

3) From the linked article:

The problem arises in the possibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.

In addition, because there is still scientific debate about what the Greenland glaciers mean:

But for now, with the glaciers moving in fits and starts, it’s wise not to make any sweeping predictions based on a few measurements. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was criticized for not incorporating the recent scary data from Greenland into its long-range projections, these new results seem to vindicate its caution.

Inhofe interpretation: Scientists are too reckless with their interpretations.

4) From the article that Inahofe uses as "proof" the glacier is not melting:

First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes—let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change—for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1). It is conceivable that pronounced ablation (e.g., 10, 11) in low-elevation marginal areas could offset the elevation increases that we observed in the interior areas.

5) Where Inhofe somehow missed the other interpretations:

Scientists not involved in the study cautioned, however, that current climate change is so driven by pollution from power plants, industry, and other human activity that it is nearly impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion about the durability of Greenland's ice.
"Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly," said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia."

6) this is essentially true although I do not recall what timeframe Gore mentions in his movie. The current consensus is 500-1000 years for the entire mass to melt. This simply underscores my repeated emphasis on turning to the scientific consensus and not popular mythology. The scientific consensus is that GW is significant and potentially catastrophic. For all his smoke and mirrors, Inhofe cannot change this.
Inhofe interpretation: LOL climate nazis!!!

7) Starting the quote here: “The main problem is that these models are often based on relatively new climate data. The thermometer has only been in existence for 150 years and information on temperature which is 150 years old does not capture the large natural changes,” they somehow forgot the first part (I’m sure by accident): “Most future models show that the climate will be warmer in the future, but these models have difficulty showing how warm it will be,”. Note the scientist is questioning how much change, this is a direction neutral assessment, it could go either way.
Inhofe interpretation: This scientist reinforces my preconceived notions for no reason.

8) I don’t know Frolov’s story, but you can always find a quote from a dissenting scientist, particularly if it is out of context…

9) This point is debunked over and over again:
From realclimate:

This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations in past centuries. The late 20th century warmth, at hemispheric or global scales, appears, from a number of recent peer-reviewed studies, to exceed the peak warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period". Claims that global average temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions, fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.

10) From the linked article:

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Finally this claim is completely false: “Global warming stopped in 1998.”
From NOAA(can't link because of spam filter):

The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998 (below left). An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998.

That would also be data from your guv’mint.

To summarize, by misinterpresenting data to suggest the Greenland glacier has been proven to not be melting, and by extension all GW issues are not to be worried about, Inahofe demonstrates how deeply ignorant (or duplicitous) he is about the science and its interpretations.

I am beginning to suspect the fine folks at NRO might not be the best source of information on global warming...

Ah, it took less than a few hours for LB Buddy to jump all over this one. I was waiting...

LMC, always be prepared for this if you ever post a climate change post that falls on the skeptical side.

Think of it as a free service I provide.

This simply underscores my repeated emphasis on turning to the scientific consensus and not popular mythology.

Consensus: General agreement or accord

Popular: Accepted by or prevalent among the people in general

Wow, long post LB.
1)The text you bolded in the first quote: "... and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further..." and, "... adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future" are speculation. The observed data is that the Greenland glacier has been melting since the late 19th century (perhaps in anticipation of global warming?).

2) "Inhofe interpretation: Global is teh exact same as local, suxxors!" A creative bit of paraphrasing. I have always found it interesting that during the first half of the 20th century, the shrinking of glaciers on Greenland was pointed to as "proof positive" of Global Warming, whereas in the latter half of the 20th century, the growth of that same glacier has been dismissed as irrelevant to the issue.

3) Everything following the words "...the possibility that..." is pure speculation, NOT observation, and therefore not science.

"So Inhofe is disparaging a point not even included in the IPCC." No, he is disparaging those who criticized the IPCC for not including unverified data in their report.

4) All of the observed data states that the glacier is growing. However, there may be unobserved data which would prove that the glacier is melting. Perhaps the glacier knows that it is being monitored, and carefully maintains a slight growth rate over the 85% of its mass that is being watched, while stealthily undergoing a catastrophic melt down in the other 15%. But it's unlikely.

5) Inhofe did not "miss the other interpretations," he disagreed with them. He gives more weight to the conclusions reached by the scientists actually involved in the study than to the "scientists not involved in the study."

6) see above note on the difference between "consensus" and "popular mythology".

7) "note the scientist is questioning how much change..." No, the scientists is questioning the validity of the computer models.

8) "... you can always find a quote from a dissenting scientist...". Yes, especially if you quote from a scientist that studies the actual observed data regarding the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers.

9) "Claims that global average temperatures were warmer during medieval times than present-day are based on a number of false premises". Like the fact that Greenland was mostly farm country, and had much smaller glaciers than today?

10) It is not a misinterpretation of the data to connclude that the Greenland glacier is not melting. It is, in fact, the only interpretation that fits the facts. The glacier was observed and measured to be a certain size in the 1930s, and is now unobserved and measured to be larger. The only rational conclusion; it grew.

NOTE:
The veiws and opinions expressed in this program-length post are Lurch's, and do not necessarily reflect those of Brian B. (although I think they come pretty darn close).

Lurch's disclaimer was due to my giving him permission to use my email address, he's a bit of a privacy buff. ;-)

As for the views expressed, they were actually far more well thought-out than my observation.

Hi Lurch:

I know I am taking an unpopular position on this site, so I was trying to be complete. Let's see if I can address your criticisms:

1) First, the key word is aggravated. There will be expansion and contraction based on natural fluctuation, but the article incorrectly assumes that because the data shows glacial shrinkage pre-antrhopogenic warming, that current rates are not related to the sudden, rapid increase in temperature. Second, speculation is not taboo in science, he makes an educated guess based on his experience and the data. I would trust him over Inhofe.

2) Global warming was not a scientific issue until the late 70's, so this statement: "during the first half of the 20th century, the shrinking of glaciers on Greenland was pointed to as "proof positive" of Global Warming", is incorrect. Also as I stated in my point 3, IPCC specifically chose not to include glacier data because of the uncertainties the research represents (yet they still conclude GW is real).

3) As I said in 1, educated speculation is helpful in understanding the problems, agenda driven speculation from non-experts is less useful.
Also, you said: "No, he is disparaging those who criticized the IPCC for not including unverified data in their report." I simply do not believe this is Inhofe's motivation. He has been quoted as calling global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”, this does not make me believe his purpose is to specifically address the subtleties of the Greenland Icesheet research.

4) You said in point 1 that the sheet is melting. Your statement that “All of the observed data states that the glacier is growing” is incorrect. In my quote in point for there is a (e.g., 10, 11), 10 and 11 are two published reports of catastrophic melting along the edges of the glacier. The exact scenario you are describing. The authors are saying we don’t know which is faster, other reports conclude it is shrinking e.g. here (rats spam filter won't permit this link http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/looking atearth/greenland_slide.html delete the space between looking at).

5) Can’t disagree with you here, I let my frustration at Inhofe’s persistent dishonesty on the topic get to me.

6) The point I was making was it is more rational to believe the consensus from a collection of over 2000 climate scientists, over the misconceptions in the lay population generated by ill-informed or dishonest journalists (and politicians).

7) I concede this point. However, I am willing to bet on how Hald (and 99.9% of all climate scientists) would answer if you asked him if GW was real, based on this quote: “With respect to climate change, Arctic research is extremely important,” says Professor Hald. “We expect that the effects of global warming will be greatest here, including that the spread of ice sheets and glaciers will reduce.”

8) I disagree with this assertion. Right now there is a cautious general belief that the sheet is shrinking, but it is acknowledged that more study is needed. I refer to this NASA article again (and the referenced primary publication in Science)(spam filter again, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/looking atearth/greenland_slide.html delete space between looking at).

9) You said: “Like the fact that Greenland was mostly farm country, and had much smaller glaciers than today?” No, like the three points I quoted: “a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to distinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions, fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.”

10) This is not a logical assertion. You state that the glacier was smaller in the 30’s and it is bigger now. You conclude “It grew” It it not inconsistent for the glacier to have grown and be currently melting. Thus you are incorrect in stating “It is not a misinterpretation of the data to conclude that the Greenland glacier is not melting. It is, in fact, the only interpretation that fits the facts.” Most publications still indicate net loss of the sheet even with the new data showing the center is growing.

I am not trying to be antagonistic here, merely defending the scientific conclusions about global warming against sites like NRO and politicians like Inhofe, that pick at the edges of the data and pretend it invalidates decades of climate research.