U.S. Senate Report: 400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Climate Change

[armygas]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb


INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

[MmacFN]

:)

There were many dissenters when Columbus stated the world was round, in fact there is still a flat earth society today HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)

There will always be dissenters, someone has to be wrong.

[deepz]

I wudden bleive any scientickst from NASCAR unless Ricky Bobby endorsed him.

!

Hey -- there's a penguin in my back yard! WTF?

[armygas]

Hey -- there's a penguin in my back yard! WTF?


HAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!!

[DebbieC]

No, Deepz, look closer....it's a zebra.

[MmacFN]

BWHAHAHHAHAHHAH

W, you crack me up man! We have to have another beer soon, when you headed out this way?



I wudden bleive any scientickst from NASCAR unless Ricky Bobby endorsed him.

!

Hey -- there's a penguin in my back yard! WTF?

[armygas]

more...............

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

I found this pretty funny:
Spitting outside has ‘same effect’ as doubling CO2

In May 2007, the “father of meteorology” Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” Bryson, who has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, said. (LINK) “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson added.

[MmacFN]

Then i want someone to explain these (from NASA) since none of the naysayers do. I could post one of hundreads of papers about why global warming is happening and why even one degree makes a difference, but to me these pictures tell the tale without a single word.

http://www.net.org/warming/stills/arctic_before.jpghttp://www.net.org/warming/stills/arctic_after.jpg

http://www.net.org/warming/stills/greenland_before.jpghttp://www.net.org/warming/stills/greenland_after.jpg

http://www.net.org/warming/stills/larsenB_before.jpghttp://www.net.org/warming/stills/larsenB_after.jpg

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/images/larsenb_20020131_20020307_animation.gif

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/posterglacier.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megavolcano/images/shin-nasa-gfsc-meltwater-l.jpg

[armygas]

................because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson added.

[ethernaut]

so, does this mean i can't spit outside anymore?
that sucks <insert spitting here> !!!!

[armygas]

http://www.plusaf.com/pix/figure5-global-temp-history.gif

[armygas]

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/image008.jpg

[armygas]

http://www.arctic-warming.com/poze/pozaBb.jpg

[armygas]

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image2.gif

[armygas]

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/images/2007/09/14/sat_temps_2.jpg

[armygas]

http://www.entrewave.com/view/news/chrt01172000.gif

[armygas]

http://www.entrewave.com/view/news/chrt01172000.gif


How come the Global Warming Advocates only consider recent history??? Could it that because if they included historical temperature data then the "global warming" argument would look foolish?????

[MmacFN]

So im looking at graphs that are nothing more than "guessing" since there is absolutely no real raw data to confirm them and then i look back at those pictures i posted............

And i think this:

Is it worth it to hedge this planets future on the minority opinion that this is a "myth" and simply continue to pollute, continue to drive a fat SUV and eat up natural resources, promote big oil and their interests over CLEAN energy. The answer that comes to my mind is a resounding NO !

Here are the truly indisputable facts that require no guesswork:

1) Pollution is bad. Bad for humans, animals, plant life and the general well being of the planet. Spend ONE DAY in LA or PHX and look UP and you can see it for yourself.

2) There is no money to be made by decreasing your carbon footprint, reducing allowable gas mileage in cars, forcing companies to be "green", decreasing oil use, lowering consumption, cleaning up our atmosphere and recycling.

3) There is ALOT of money at risk by MANY MANY special interest groups if ANY of #1 or #2 were to happen. They have a vested interest in making sure there is always doubt in everyones mind (especially the generally ignorant lay-public) in order to stave off profit loss as long as possible.

4) Those special interest groups only think as far as the next fiscal quarter and could care LESS about what happens b/c of their actions today to the planet tomorrow.

Many would dispute the last two facts. However, i would remind you of the tobacco industry and how long they continued to "seed doubt" about the fact that smoking = lung cancer. They even went so far as to hide proof, create fake research, buy politicians, seed money via holding companies to "expert research groups" to create the data they wanted. Even today while it is considered an indisputable fact within academia there are people who will tell you that smoking dosent cause lung Ca. Afterall, they know a friend of an uncle whos buddies sisters friends mothers me-ma who lived till 101 and smoked every day of her life.

Follow the money. Who will really profit from following the a plan to fight global warming? Then, who will profit from making sure it does not happen? To me, this is history repeating itself alright, but not with a climate change, instead with big buisness bamboozling the public.

[armygas]

So im looking at graphs that are nothing more than "guessing" since there is absolutely no real raw data to confirm them


There is no data to refute that it happened either.....Right????? AND publications in "SCIENCE" don't just get in there "by chance". That is a premier publication.

[MmacFN]

I agree, but the same can be said of the multiple global warming publications and non-profit multi-national organizations.

The point is, we dont know. So, like everything else in life that could go really badly (or in anesthesia), PREPARE for the worst and hope for the best.

[jwk]

How come the Global Warming Advocates only consider recent history??? Could it that because if they included historical temperature data then the "global warming" argument would look foolish?????
Bingo

[ethernaut]

There is no data to refute that it happened either.....Right????? AND publications in "SCIENCE" don't just get in there "by chance". That is a premier publication.

my only refute to this is that there are many articles that i have read in peer reviewed magazines that you wonder how the heck they made it in the journal itself.
it happens, and it will continue to do so.
just because the magazine/journal is reputable doesn't mean pointless or unsubstantiated articles don't make it in..
they do.. that's just a fact.

[armygas]

my only refute to this is that there are many articles that i have read in peer reviewed magazines that you wonder how the heck they made it in the journal itself.
it happens, and it will continue to do so.
just because the magazine/journal is reputable doesn't mean pointless or unsubstantiated articles don't make it in..
they do.. that's just a fact.
I agree, but the bottom line is that no one knows what the hell is going on with the climate one way or the other let alone if it is a "natural occurrence" or not.

Peeps are talking out of there bottom on "global whatever", both sides have "evidence".........

[ethernaut]

I agree, but the bottom line is that no one knows what the hell is going on with the climate one way or the other let alone if it is a "natural occurrence" or not.

Peeps are talking out of there bottom on "global whatever", both sides have "evidence".........

ok.
so would you high five or bitch slap al gore if face to face ??
what a lame question, i know...

[jwk]

ok.
so would you high five or bitch slap al gore if face to face ??
what a lame question, i know...
Simply having Al Gore as part of the whole process calls the whole concept of global warming into question. He's a friggin' politician - that's all - nothing else. It might as well be Britney Spears talking about global warming - she would bring about the same amount of credibility to the table as Al.

Nobel Prize? Who cares? They gave one to Jimmy Carter, too, so what does that tell ya?

[ethernaut]

Simply having Al Gore as part of the whole process calls the whole concept of global warming into question. He's a friggin' politician - that's all - nothing else. It might as well be Britney Spears talking about global warming - she would bring about the same amount of credibility to the table as Al.

Nobel Prize? Who cares? They gave one to Jimmy Carter, too, so what does that tell ya?

i don't care about nobel prize.
you gotta give credit where it's due.
i mean, he's got a lot going for him
and his knowledge bank is grand.
not that i'm supproting anyone, but hey...

[armygas]

ok.
so would you high five or bitch slap al gore if face to face ??
what a lame question, i know...
Bitch Slap, b/c he is using an issue for fame. His sincerity is suspect and he definitely follows a double standard in regards to his personal CO2 emissions.

[jwk]

i don't care about nobel prize.
you gotta give credit where it's due.
i mean, he's got a lot going for him
and his knowledge bank is grand.
not that i'm supproting anyone, but hey...

Credit for what?

His knowledge bank was reading a script. BFD

[armygas]

Credit for what?

His knowledge blank was reading a script. BFD
JWK,

Other than our professional squabbles, I think you and I think in parallel. You nailed it, it is absolutely so easy to "look smart" on an issue when you have the funds to hire a scientific team and then they hand you a dummied down script that is one-sided.......

[MmacFN]

jwk

I resent the fact that you dont think Britney Spears is an excellent diplomat for something... or at least for rehab centers....

:P



Simply having Al Gore as part of the whole process calls the whole concept of global warming into question. He's a friggin' politician - that's all - nothing else. It might as well be Britney Spears talking about global warming - she would bring about the same amount of credibility to the table as Al.

Nobel Prize? Who cares? They gave one to Jimmy Carter, too, so what does that tell ya?

[MmacFN]

Well

historical temperature data which is 100% conjecture and guesswork.

Again, just like in anestheisa you plan for the worst and hope for the best.

[jwk]

jwk

I resent the fact that you dont think Britney Spears is an excellent diplomat for something... or at least for rehab centers....

:P
Ya gotta admit it's more than a little funny that Mama Spears parenting guide is on hold.

[MmacFN]

heheheh

Yah... not so bright.... except when it comes to selling their daughters innocence ;)

[Nancicrna08]

Ouch

[MmacFN]

So Much for the 400....

First off, its not a "senate report" its ONE thing by ONE senator (James Inhofe OK) who is known to be in exxons pocket. Click HERE (http://opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2006) to see who his top contributors are, oh, lemme just make it easy OIL AND GAS. Like I said before, follow the money and you always find the truth.

Here is an excerpt from contributions to him:
In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=E01&Cycle=2002&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U) According to the latest available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has received (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2006) just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry sectors - almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources Sector and their respective PACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee). The next closest sector is the financial/insurance/retail sector at $464,680 (13%).Here is a list of the top industry contributors to Sen. Inhofe over the last 5 years:
1. Murray Energy (private coal company (http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/ii00/archives/108/testimony/robertmurray.htm))
2. Koch Industries (http://www.kochind.com/default.asp)

3. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (http://www.nreca.org/)
4. Cummins Inc. (http://www.cummins.com/cmi/index.jsp?siteId=1&langId=1033&newsInfo=true)
5. OGE Energy (http://www.oge.com/)


Inhofian Reporting: Peerless work?

December 21, 2007 · 11 Comments (http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/inhofian-reporting-peerless-work/#comments)

The Minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Commitee (read James Inhofe (R-Exxon)) has just released a “report”: 0ver 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
As a taxpayer, to start with, I am outraged that my taxes are used to support such truthiness and distortions.
As a human being, I am outraged that such deniers (Roadblock Republicans) are able to stand in the way toward moving the nation and the Globe toward a more sensible energy future.
And, as an analyst, I am outraged that such mediocrity is allowed to be pedaled as a “report” with the imprimateur of the US government and a US Senate Committee behind it.
A full throated examination of the mediocrity of this collection of misleading climate denier and climate skeptic and delayer material is beyond the ability of one single post.
But, after the fold, this posting provides just a taste of the reviews and examinations of just the first three of the “peer-reviewed studies” cited by James Inhofe and his staff-support for Global Warming Denial.
Take a look and join with me in questioning what “peer review” means when coming from James Inhofe’s mouth.
Inhofe calls on us to listen to the UN IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri:

Please listen to the voice of science
Inhofe’s “science” does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. See what science has to say about these “peer-reviewed studies”.

Let us take the first three on the list.
1. Scafetta and West: RealClimate’s deconstruction (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel):

The study by S&W has some suspicious results … their analysis is sloppy in the estimate of change, underestimating the observed temperature change … the paper oozes of vague but subjective and cherry-picked statements … paper also offers some incorrect references … Thus, S&W make a number of unjustified assumptions and sweeping statements which turns it into a mere speculation
2. McKitrick and Michaels; RealClimate analysis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/are-temperature-trends-affected-by-economic-activity-ii)

One of my main concerns then was that their analysis had not taken into consideration the dependency between the data points, … they have not done it properly this time, and they still do not eliminate the effect of dependency. … The fact that they used sea-level pressure (SLP) data from (1974) because they could not find more recent data, suggest that they still are not up-to-date. Updated data, such as the National Center for Environmental Prediction SLP, have long been available … Their regression analysis appears to suffer from over-fitting, since they have thrown in a lot of variables (both ‘meteorological’ and ‘economical’) for various vague reasons.
Not surprisingly, their analysis produces some strange results as a result of this shortcoming. … M&M2007 is biased and gives an incorrect picture, as they do not discuss the fact that also the world oceans are warming up, and whether any economic activity can take the blame for that.
So in summary, I think the results of M&M2007 analysis and conclusions are invalid because
- They do not properly account for dependencies.
- They over-fit the regression.
- Their results look unreasonable.
- They “cherry pick” the MSU data that gives the lowest trend
3. Loehle … again RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/)

Many people hold the mistaken belief that reconstructions of past climate are the sole evidence for current and future climate change. They are not. … the climate of the medieval period has received a very high (and sometimes disproportionate) profile in the public discourse … The Loehle paper was published in Energy and Environment (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html/) - a journal notable only for its rather dubious track record of publishing contrarian musings. … What does this imply for Loehle’s reconstruction? Unfortunately, the number of unsuitable series, errors in dating and transcription, combined with a mis-interpretation of what was being averaged, and a lack of validation, do not leave very much to discuss.
It is a tiresome task, but simply using search at Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/) provides the ability to show just how peerless the peer review process must have been for Inhofe’s cited “studies”.
Determining the right “peer”
James Inhofe is determined to highlight that these are “peer reviewed” studies and papers. As the material above suggests, real scholarly review of the works in question (at least three, chosen at random, e.g, the first three in the list) shows that they do not stand up to the rigor of serious review. Thus, how did they make it through “peer” review? Perhaps the answer comes from how peer is defined. After all, when it comes to the accused murderer, who are his (or her) peers? Other citizens? Or murderers? Thus, who are global warming deniers’ “peers” and how does a “peer-reviewed” publication like Energy and Environment (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html/) determine reviewers? Would Jim Hansen be asked to review a piece submitted to E&E and would his review be given weight? Or, are the reviewers chosen from a select few fellow-travelers in global warming denier, skeptic, or delayer circles?