So you just need a bachelors in engineering to get on that list?
The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!
- Thread starter grapeman
- Start date
- Status
Climate Change Skeptic Finally Testifies
04/11/11
We on the leftward half of the spectrum have, depending on disposition, fun or outrage at climate change deniers. Senator Jame Inhofe published a list of "Over 400 Prominent Scientists" who consider themselves climate change skeptics. We laughed at some of the names.
One of the prominent scientists was a TV weatherman from Kentucky, whose reasoned, scientific objection was this: "What these environmentalists are actually saying is ‘we know more than God— we're bigger than God — God is just a fantasy — science is real.'" The fellow is hardly a fraud, however. When he was sought out and interviewed, he denied being a scientist at all. He pointed out that he does not have a college degree.
Others on the Inhofe list were also interviewed. There was another weatherman from Brazil, another from Chicago. In all, 44 of the scientists were just weather broadcasters. One "scientist" turned out to be a web designer in Vermont. The number of actual scientists were quite small. Many were from other branches, having nothing to do with climate. 20 economists were included.
The entire list was composed of names virtually all of which were laughable. Virtually.
Everyone stopped laughing when we got to Richard Muller. Muller is a genuine no-nonsense scientist. He is a physicist who specializes in surface temperature. In fact, he heads up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. This is not a news weather broadcaster or a technician checking instruments in the Canadian wilderness. He's the real deal.
Our main defense against that sort of thing, the finding of an occasional scientist with an unusual point of view, is that for every such voice, there are 2000 legitimate voices that carry the preponderant evidence. Most of the very small number opposing climate change are funded by industries presumed to be the cause of gas emissions. But perhaps we can also consider the specific argument the lone voice advances.
Muller's main objection to mainstream science, in this case, has been that the raw material on which it is based is not representative. Scientists a hundred years ago did not envision the global effect of carbon emissions. Motivations for putting up measurement devices were eclectic. They varied widely. In some cases, they were put up for pure science. In some cases, there was some cause for researching a specific effect in a specific geological location.
What that means is that the data being gathered for comparison purposes is not at all representative of temperature all over the earth. It isn't some sort of scientific conspiracy. Placements will be near areas that were accessible way back when. In most cases, this means areas that would experience population growth. Rural areas would become suburban, or even urban. More remote areas would be underrepresented in all the graphs and charts scientists analyze. So the comparison of temperature might well over-represent an increase in temperature. Even if it didn't it could well over-represent the human factor in global climate change.
Conservatives got to really like Richard Muller. They went from like to love when he got the National Climatic Data Center to concede that some weather station data could be of poor quality. Muller put unprecedented resources to work on the effect of the data distortions. He was able to isolate the best data, that going from 1957. Republicans pushed for him to testify as if he represented mainstream scientific consensus. He spoke before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Science, Space and Technology on March 31.
His analysis showed that there was indeed a significant amount of distortion. Global climate change turns out to be significantly worse than had been previously measured. And it is most definitely anthropological. That means it is caused by human activity. The conclusion is based on solid data. "The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends."
Conservatives reacted quickly. Activist Anthony Watts attacked Richard Muller, who had been his hero, as a sellout. His testimony was "post-normal political theater."
What has once again been demonstrated in the congressional petri dish is a scientific principle. In most cases, mere evidence will not convince a person of the truth, if that person's salary depends on denying the truth.
04/11/11
We on the leftward half of the spectrum have, depending on disposition, fun or outrage at climate change deniers. Senator Jame Inhofe published a list of "Over 400 Prominent Scientists" who consider themselves climate change skeptics. We laughed at some of the names.
One of the prominent scientists was a TV weatherman from Kentucky, whose reasoned, scientific objection was this: "What these environmentalists are actually saying is ‘we know more than God— we're bigger than God — God is just a fantasy — science is real.'" The fellow is hardly a fraud, however. When he was sought out and interviewed, he denied being a scientist at all. He pointed out that he does not have a college degree.
Others on the Inhofe list were also interviewed. There was another weatherman from Brazil, another from Chicago. In all, 44 of the scientists were just weather broadcasters. One "scientist" turned out to be a web designer in Vermont. The number of actual scientists were quite small. Many were from other branches, having nothing to do with climate. 20 economists were included.
The entire list was composed of names virtually all of which were laughable. Virtually.
Everyone stopped laughing when we got to Richard Muller. Muller is a genuine no-nonsense scientist. He is a physicist who specializes in surface temperature. In fact, he heads up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. This is not a news weather broadcaster or a technician checking instruments in the Canadian wilderness. He's the real deal.
Our main defense against that sort of thing, the finding of an occasional scientist with an unusual point of view, is that for every such voice, there are 2000 legitimate voices that carry the preponderant evidence. Most of the very small number opposing climate change are funded by industries presumed to be the cause of gas emissions. But perhaps we can also consider the specific argument the lone voice advances.
Muller's main objection to mainstream science, in this case, has been that the raw material on which it is based is not representative. Scientists a hundred years ago did not envision the global effect of carbon emissions. Motivations for putting up measurement devices were eclectic. They varied widely. In some cases, they were put up for pure science. In some cases, there was some cause for researching a specific effect in a specific geological location.
What that means is that the data being gathered for comparison purposes is not at all representative of temperature all over the earth. It isn't some sort of scientific conspiracy. Placements will be near areas that were accessible way back when. In most cases, this means areas that would experience population growth. Rural areas would become suburban, or even urban. More remote areas would be underrepresented in all the graphs and charts scientists analyze. So the comparison of temperature might well over-represent an increase in temperature. Even if it didn't it could well over-represent the human factor in global climate change.
Conservatives got to really like Richard Muller. They went from like to love when he got the National Climatic Data Center to concede that some weather station data could be of poor quality. Muller put unprecedented resources to work on the effect of the data distortions. He was able to isolate the best data, that going from 1957. Republicans pushed for him to testify as if he represented mainstream scientific consensus. He spoke before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Science, Space and Technology on March 31.
His analysis showed that there was indeed a significant amount of distortion. Global climate change turns out to be significantly worse than had been previously measured. And it is most definitely anthropological. That means it is caused by human activity. The conclusion is based on solid data. "The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends."
Conservatives reacted quickly. Activist Anthony Watts attacked Richard Muller, who had been his hero, as a sellout. His testimony was "post-normal political theater."
What has once again been demonstrated in the congressional petri dish is a scientific principle. In most cases, mere evidence will not convince a person of the truth, if that person's salary depends on denying the truth.
If you read my previous post, you read how quickly a former skeptic scientist was turned on in DC. Here's an example how the same scientist was turned on by a skeptic blogger, wattsupwiththat.com
Climate skeptics lose their cool
Friends become enemies as a scientist expected to cast doubt on global warming trends does the exact opposite
By Andrew Leonard - APR 1, 2011
Is there anything angrier than a climate skeptic scorned? On March 6, Anthony Watts, operator of Watt's Up With That, one the most industrious global-warming-is-not-happening (and if it is, it certainly isn't caused by humans) websites on the Internet, expressed his high hopes that a new review of surface temperature data conducted by University of California, Berkeley, scientists would bring real clarity to what's been happening to the earth's climate in the last century. He pronounced himself delighted at the project's pledge that its review would be "open source, fully transparent, and replicable."
All good things, to be sure, but one suspects, given the general thrust of Watts Up With That? that Watts' real hope was that the new round of data crunching would undermine the consensus climate-scientist interpretation of available data indicating that the Earth has been steadily warming. But Watts, seemingly, was ready to be disappointed.
From the New York Times:
UPDATE: An explanation of why Watts Up With That was unhappy with this post, and further analysis of why climate skeptics are so upset with Muller.
Climate skeptics lose their cool
Friends become enemies as a scientist expected to cast doubt on global warming trends does the exact opposite
By Andrew Leonard - APR 1, 2011
Is there anything angrier than a climate skeptic scorned? On March 6, Anthony Watts, operator of Watt's Up With That, one the most industrious global-warming-is-not-happening (and if it is, it certainly isn't caused by humans) websites on the Internet, expressed his high hopes that a new review of surface temperature data conducted by University of California, Berkeley, scientists would bring real clarity to what's been happening to the earth's climate in the last century. He pronounced himself delighted at the project's pledge that its review would be "open source, fully transparent, and replicable."
All good things, to be sure, but one suspects, given the general thrust of Watts Up With That? that Watts' real hope was that the new round of data crunching would undermine the consensus climate-scientist interpretation of available data indicating that the Earth has been steadily warming. But Watts, seemingly, was ready to be disappointed.
And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.
But that was before the lead scientist on the project, Richard Muller, testified on Thursday at a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing.
From the New York Times:
BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.
Watts has long been a vocal adherent of the theory that existing temperature data shouldn't be trusted, because urbanization has created "heat islands" that have artificially influenced temperature readings at locations that used to be rural. But Muller slapped that theory down.
"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
The reaction from Watts Up With That was swift and furious.
With his testimony, Dr. Muller has totally destroyed any credibility he might have had with me. He might be able to rebuild it by explaining his strange numbers. But to give that kind of erroneous testimony, not in a random paper he might written quickly, but to Congress itself, marks him to me as a man driven by a very serious agenda, a man who doesn't check his work and who pays insufficient attention to facts in testimony. I had hoped we wouldn't have another temperature record hag-ridden by people with an axe to grind -- foolish me.
... That is taking unfair advantage of your fifteen minutes of fame. Show your work and numbers like anyone else and we'll evaluate them. Then you may be able to crow, or not, before Congress. But to stand up before Congress as an expert witness and refer solely to your own unpublished, uncited, and unverifiable claims? Sorry, but if you want to make that most public scientific claim, that bad siting doesn't affect temperature trends, you have to show your work just like anyone else. If you want to make that claim before Congress, then PUBLISH YOUR DATA AND CODE like the rest of us mortals. Put your results where your mouth is, or if not, leave it out of your Congressional testimony. Why is that not obvious?
The hilarious thing about all this is that scientists who do think global warming is happening have also been critical of Muller's project, in part because his research has yet to be published or peer-reviewed -- which is essentially the same complaint that the skeptics have. So I'm look forward to seeing the feeding frenzy continue as more data from Muller's project is released. But judging by the character assassination currently splashed all over another prominent skeptic site, Marc Morano's Climate Depot, Richard Muller has a long way to go before he makes any new friends in the skeptic community. And I'll bet he's getting a lot of unfriendly emails today.... That is taking unfair advantage of your fifteen minutes of fame. Show your work and numbers like anyone else and we'll evaluate them. Then you may be able to crow, or not, before Congress. But to stand up before Congress as an expert witness and refer solely to your own unpublished, uncited, and unverifiable claims? Sorry, but if you want to make that most public scientific claim, that bad siting doesn't affect temperature trends, you have to show your work just like anyone else. If you want to make that claim before Congress, then PUBLISH YOUR DATA AND CODE like the rest of us mortals. Put your results where your mouth is, or if not, leave it out of your Congressional testimony. Why is that not obvious?
UPDATE: An explanation of why Watts Up With That was unhappy with this post, and further analysis of why climate skeptics are so upset with Muller.
I think it's important to note that Watts and skeptics alike demand peer review... but only for one side of the equation. Watts and the like apparently don't go after the two gentlemen who released their study July 11.
It's also important to note that Muller wasn't slated to defend agw advocates in DC. Muller was a skeptic and determined his initial assumptions weren't correct.
Watts isn't a scientist yet he places emphasis on where peer review should and shouldn't exist. More ends-justifies-the-means.
Peer review will be commensurate with Muller's publication. Should Muller's conclusions pass the peer-review process, don't expect folks like Inhoffe and Watts to be influenced. Should Muller's conclusions be scientifically refuted, not sure how the skeptics will spin the whole thing. Could be the scientific process itself is subject to special-interest critics.
It's also important to note that Muller wasn't slated to defend agw advocates in DC. Muller was a skeptic and determined his initial assumptions weren't correct.
Watts isn't a scientist yet he places emphasis on where peer review should and shouldn't exist. More ends-justifies-the-means.
Peer review will be commensurate with Muller's publication. Should Muller's conclusions pass the peer-review process, don't expect folks like Inhoffe and Watts to be influenced. Should Muller's conclusions be scientifically refuted, not sure how the skeptics will spin the whole thing. Could be the scientific process itself is subject to special-interest critics.
Here's a cute video of someone quickly discerning the list of 30k names is chock full of non climate-scientists with at least a bachelor degree in their specific field. Didn't know animal doctors are so versatile.
31,000 "scientists" disagree with climate change? You mean family doctors and veterinarians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxxJuOQPIKs
31,000 "scientists" disagree with climate change? You mean family doctors and veterinarians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxxJuOQPIKs
Here's some basic and intermediate implications with the list of skeptic 'scientists'.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm
Scientists demand removal from Heartland's global warming denier's list
Scientists demand removal from Heartland's global warming denier's list
Scientists demand removal from Heartland's global warming denier's list
.
Sure thing dag. And climate scientists treat pets in their off-time. 
Who gives a flip when Heartland is lying about what scientists actually say, lol. This is from 2008 and Heartland is still receiving demands to remove names that were fraudulently added to the listssssss of deniers.
Who gives a flip when Heartland is lying about what scientists actually say, lol. This is from 2008 and Heartland is still receiving demands to remove names that were fraudulently added to the listssssss of deniers.
Ten popular myths of denier science.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There is no scientific consensus
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]American scientists don't buy it - 19,000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]This is all within natural variability
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It won't affect Canada much - and definitely not in my lifetime
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
A few degrees more will be really nice - especially for plants!
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The scientific models aren't very good at projecting the future
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Carbon Dioxide levels are not strongly related to temperature - how could they in such trace amounts?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Satellite measurements have not shown the trends
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The observed warming is all due to solar radiation variability, not human activity
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Scientists are just exaggerating in order to get more funding
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There is no scientific consensus
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]American scientists don't buy it - 19,000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]This is all within natural variability
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It won't affect Canada much - and definitely not in my lifetime
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
A few degrees more will be really nice - especially for plants!
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The scientific models aren't very good at projecting the future
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Carbon Dioxide levels are not strongly related to temperature - how could they in such trace amounts?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Satellite measurements have not shown the trends
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The observed warming is all due to solar radiation variability, not human activity
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Geneva,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Scientists are just exaggerating in order to get more funding
[/FONT][/FONT]
Sure thing dag. And climate scientists treat pets in their off-time.
i guess its the bubble..
i read
"and climate scientists play with animal teets in their spare time"
like 5 times before it sank in.
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1).
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
- Essays on Science and Society
- The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes{at}ucsd.edu
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1).
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
In regard to the Petition Project
In regard to the Petition Project
The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[3]
“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition is often misrepresented. For example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever"[4] and the British newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that the petition "denies that man is responsible for global warming."[5] As seen above, the petition uses the terms catastrophic heating and disruption rather than "global warming".
The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[6] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[7][8] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."
In regard to the Petition Project
The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[3]
“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition is often misrepresented. For example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever"[4] and the British newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that the petition "denies that man is responsible for global warming."[5] As seen above, the petition uses the terms catastrophic heating and disruption rather than "global warming".
The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[6] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[7][8] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."
elements of disinformation....
elements of disinformation....
The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, and made reference to his former position as president of the US National Academy of Sciences, accompanied by an attached article supporting the petition. The current version of Seitz's letter describes the article as "a twelve page review of information on the subject of 'global warming'."[9] The article is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.[10][11][12] One of these earlier petitions and presentation was discussed by Lahsen (2005).[13]
The 1997 version of the article states that "over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly" and says that this was based on comparison of satellite data (for 1979–1997) and balloon data from 1979-96. At the time the petition was written, this was unclear. Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows warming. (See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements.)
The article followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[6] even including a date of publication ("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149-164 1999"), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that the article was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article...is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[14] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[14]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[15] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[15]
In a 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming"[16]
As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.[17] Noah E. Robinson presented this material at Telecosm 2007 titled "The Global Warming Myth".[18]
elements of disinformation....
The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, and made reference to his former position as president of the US National Academy of Sciences, accompanied by an attached article supporting the petition. The current version of Seitz's letter describes the article as "a twelve page review of information on the subject of 'global warming'."[9] The article is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.[10][11][12] One of these earlier petitions and presentation was discussed by Lahsen (2005).[13]
The 1997 version of the article states that "over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly" and says that this was based on comparison of satellite data (for 1979–1997) and balloon data from 1979-96. At the time the petition was written, this was unclear. Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows warming. (See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements.)
The article followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[6] even including a date of publication ("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149-164 1999"), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that the article was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article...is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[14] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[14]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[15] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[15]
In a 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming"[16]
As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.[17] Noah E. Robinson presented this material at Telecosm 2007 titled "The Global Warming Myth".[18]
i guess its the bubble..
i read
"and climate scientists play with animal teets in their spare time"
like 5 times before it sank in.
If only originality wasn't your weakest moment. Your question was funnier than your jokes.
http://www.twitter.com/kgrandia
whoa throwin it down
whoa throwin it down
PWNED !!!
whoa throwin it down
Damn Disco!
Talk about nuking the thread with facts. Now, how do you think all those crazies like grapeman are going to feel? They might get sad ... you're so mean!
PWNED !!!
Global Warming Facts and Figures
These facts and figures are divided into five sections:
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
These facts and figures are divided into five sections:
- The Physical Basis of Global Warming
- Observed Temperatures and Greenhouse Gas Trends
- Impacts
- U.S. Emissions
- International Emissions
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures
huh?
question?
i was making a laugh about misreading your statement....
what are you talking about?
We've gots some data... and an ankle biter.
I'm happy we consider debating the posted subject matter, adding our own referenced discourse and reasonable facsimiles. I also like to laugh and pretty much get along with as many different perspectives as possible.
Thanks for your contributions to the debate.
I'm happy we consider debating the posted subject matter, adding our own referenced discourse and reasonable facsimiles. I also like to laugh and pretty much get along with as many different perspectives as possible.
Thanks for your contributions to the debate.
Last edited:
- Status
