Consensus Busters: The pushback grows stronger
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.
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,”
[…]
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.”
Update – Here’s a stinging counter-punch: “After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.”
Just a point for the troll liberals – who’s rockin’ in Canada – Alberta – yah, baby and conservative all the way. The problem with liberals is they are always following the money trail looking for hand-outs, never leading the way.
b_nichol,
Did you learn two new words today? Verdant and fallacious. I am impressed!
To answer your question, the ice core samples that are so old are taken from the center of the glacier where they have been deposited for the last approx. 200,000 years. The size of the glacier shrinks and grows during times of warming and cooling, but the center of the glacier has been there for about 200,000 years, which in geological terms, is quite a short time.
While it is likely that the Erikson’s used the naming of Greenland as an exaggeration to get more people to come to their settlement, 1000 years ago the glacier was much smaller and there was quite a bit of arable land there that is covered with ice today.
So no, the argument is not fallacious. Get your head out of the sand. Anyone purporting (see, I can use big boy words too!) that human activity significantly changes the climate of the planet is either misinformed or deliberately lying in order to push a political agenda or make money (eg. Suzuki, Gore, Dion).
Well, as long as they didn’t take money from Occidental Petroleum:
“Despite being a predominantly Republican supporter, Occidental funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to the Clinton/Gore Democrats over the course of their two-term administration. In return, Gore maneuvered to facilitate Occidental’s acquisition of oil drilling rights in the Elk Hills National Petroleum Reserve outside Bakersfield, California. Long held as a federal oil resource, Elk Hills represented the largest turnover of public lands to a private corporation in American history. It tripled Occidental’s U.S. petroleum reserves, increasing the company’s stock value by ten percent. Gore later admitted to controlling between $250,000 – $500,000 worth of shares through a family held trust.”
I second the motion Richard. That was really unbecoming.
Damnit, I wish that Inhof et. al. had edited their list of scientists a little more roughly and settled for 300. Their list of 400 includes several real giants in the field of climatology but it also includes several non-entities – people at about the same level of expertise as the denizens of RealClimate.org or perhaps even a little lower. That leaves the whole list open to attack by the warmist nuts. Damnit.
@zog:
Percentages are your friend. Last time I checked, a strike in ten-pin bowling requires ten pins to fall down after the first ball is bowled, not one plus “the others might! You certainly can’t prove that they won’t!”
So is disbelieving in the existence of the Flying Santaclaus Monster (FSM), who seemingly has bestowed upon humanity a way to logically prove a negative.
Justthinkin: “Notice that the States have half the unions we do,and their economy is booming? ”
All I want for Christmas is some of what you’re smoking! The US economy is booming? Excuse me.. have you not read about the sub-prime mess, the seize up of credit markets, the enormous write-downs being taken by major US firms such as Citi, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, etc.? Virtually everyone with brains is predicting a recession in the US next year; the only discussion is how deep and prolonged it will be.
By virtually every standard, the Canadian economy is outperforming the US (and everyone else in the G8, for that matter). We have budget surpluses, good employment figures, positive trade and current account balances.. the IMF recently gave us extremely good marks on our performance.
I’m no unionista, but let’s not let our biases get in the way of the facts.
Oh FSM, this is too much!
Have any of seen today’s Ipsos-Reid Poll?
Now Harper lags Dion even in Quebec, LMAO at Harper. If Ipsos-Reid is admitting that, than you’re seriously screwed come election time this spring, recession or not.
Please put Harper on suicide watch, I’d hate to see him kill himself after loses to Dion. I want him alive and subject to ridicule for decades to come!
Have a very Noodlely Pastamas Day, and may the great Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky not shit on your heads.
Not that I should even respond to something as silly as what you posted, QLib, but I will. Here’s the latest from Angus Reid:
The governing Conservative party remains in first place in Canada’s federal political scene, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 33 per cent of respondents would vote for the Tories in the next election to the House of Commons.
The Liberal party is second with 28 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 17 per cent, the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent, and the Green party also with 10 per cent. Support for the Tories and Grits fell by one point since October, while backing for the Bloc and Greens increased by the same margin.
Canadians renewed the House of Commons in January 2006. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Harper leads a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party. In December 2006, former environment minister Stéphane Dion became the new leader of the Liberals.
Yesterday, Dion discussed his views on Arctic sovereignty, saying, “The North is not only a tool for the south. There are people living in the North. They don’t ‘use’ the North—they are the North. (…) The seabed mapping is the key by far. We are in the 21st century and we will not shoot the Danes or the Russians to impose our sovereignty.”
Are you talking out of the other side of your filthy mouth yet?
While I was out for a while I see that b Nicol made a pathetic response to the question of how Greenland got it’s name and did not address any of the others. His pal global warmingist pal “Quantum less leap” has avoided all of the questions.
Well nichol, evidently you never heard of the “medieval warming period” which occurred from the 10th century to the 14th. During that time the global warming was sufficient, obviously much more than at the present time, that the very thick ice cap over much of the fjords did in fact melt to the extent that lush, yes green growth occurred. And the polar bears in the north did not drown and much of the world did not flood.
Now please answer the other questions or admit that they are too tough for you or that you do not wish to be embarrassed.
BTW Quantum less wonder, regardless of the most recent polls (the latest one has Harper ahead again by six points), Harper will ‘mop the floor’ with Dion. given Dion running near single digit in ‘ability polls’ versus Harper at approx 400 % higher. You weenies are too easy. BTW I am aware that the provincial Pres. of a Liberal youth group has decided to lay low until, as he calls it, “the Dion train wreck” is over. Are you boys part of that pathetic group also?
Erwin
Kate: I’ll second RB’s vote to eject Happy Conservative (2.12 pm) off the (sda) island, while acknowledging the appropriateness of a well-placed avalanched.
QL, now, is another story. Please preserve his drivel as a fitting illustration of unreasoned partisanship and its accompanying cerebral rot.
don’t ask a scientist what he thinks – I mean what could he/she possibly know about ‘man-made global warming’ in comparison to what Al Gore could actually know
Look, anyone that has three 30″ flat screen computer monitors and books and papers and stuff surely *must* be sciencely competent and really, really important.
http://cache.lifehacker.com/assets/resources/2007/05/goredesk.jpg
@A Quantum Liberal:
So you did pick up the reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have to hand it to Prof. Dawkins for his illustration of a concept that’s usually stuck in the pure-theory aisle.
@everyone:
Now, if only there was some snappy image for the concept of procedural rights, to replace the all-but-moribund “what if they do it to you?”…
Erwin
greenland got it’s name from it’s founder Eric the Green, the historian that first wrote about “greenlands” discovery was colour blind:-)))))
Another point in the Greenland debate is the recent findings of trees (tree root systems?) uncovered by melting glaciers. The trees have been dated to about the year AD 1000 give or take a few years.
Think about it. Trees grow where 100 years ago there were only glaciers. In what way does that make the present warming (as referenced by IPCC & NASA GISS) unprecedented?
Quantum Lieberal we have a holiday in Canada called Christmas if you don’t like it move to zimbabwe to celebrate your solstice.
It’s a Canadian Value Christmas, do you have any? Or are you mean spirited and just like to insult Canadian values.
Why are you here? Go to robertmugabe.org or Fidelismysavior.notcom you will be much happier. And have more dedicated tax money to waste.
PS it’s Christians don’t you know how to spell? DUH!
I would think that this man knows a thing or two about the artic and ice. He has lived and worked up there a long time.
Perhaps some of us in this MMGW debate should listen to his suggestions.
1. Define climate change, global warming, manmade greenhouse effect, and ask the public to stop the synonymous use of these terms. (Those who use these terms synonymously do not know what they are talking about.)
2. Ask the mass media to stop using scenes of large blocks of ice falling off the terminus of a glacier and of the spring break-up in the Arctic as supposedly due to the manmade greenhouse effect. (Glaciers are ‘rivers of ice’, so that calving is natural, and spring break-up is a normal, annual event; both have been going on from the geological time.)
3. Ask the mass medial to stop using collapsing houses built on permafrost (frozen ground) as a result of the manmade greenhouse effect. (Their collapse is due to improper construction that allows the house heat to melt the permafrost underneath the structure.)
4. Tell that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is not a single plate of ice. (The area covered by sea ice changes considerably because of winds and ocean currents, not just by melting.)
5. Call attention to the fact that anomalous, extreme, and unusual weather phenomena are not directly related to the manmade greenhouse effect. (The manmade greenhouse effect is represented by a slow increase of temperature at the rate of 0.6°C/per 100 years.)
6. Acknowledge that the use of the so-called “hockey stick” figure in the 2001 Summary Report for Policy Makers was not appropriate. (It shows a sudden increase of temperature around 1900 after a slow decrease for 900 years, giving the impression of ‘abrupt climate change’.)
7. Acknowledge that the present warming trend is not unusual or abnormal in the light of past temperature changes. (There were many warmer periods than the present one, which lasted hundreds of years during the present interglacial period that began 10,000 years ago.)
8. Distinguish between the manmade greenhouse effect and a great variety of manmade environmental destructions, which are often mentioned by greenhouse advocates in the same breath. (The latter includes results from the over-harvesting of forests and fish, pollution, extinction of some species.)
9. Stop media reports telling that the sea level has already increased several meters during the last 50 years. (According to the 2007 IPCC Report, the rising rate is 1.8mm/yer, so that the sea level increased 9 cm during the last 50 years.)
10. Scientists who study satellite data should not use the term “unprecedented changes”. (They do not have satellite data before the 1970s and cannot tell if any of the changes are “unprecedented”, even those that occurred in the 1930s or 1940s, not having comparable data.)
11. Encourage the mass media not to report only on sensational scientific findings that may represent the opinion of only one scientist or a few. (Reporters who are not familiar with arctic phenomena tend to report normal features as anomalous.)
12. Remind scientists to be careful about hinting at possible disaster scenarios resulting from the greenhouse effect of CO2 without solid scientific bases.
D.M. Ryan 6:56 PM
“percentages are your friend…” etc.
What is your gibberish supposed to mean, and what, if anything, does it have to do with my post?
This is all great stuff, but why, tell me why Santy Claus, Why.. won’t the MSM report this. The general public have only received the Global Warming message from Gore and Suzuki. So as far as the public is concerned Global Warming is upon us as no one will report anything different.
I saw Mansbridge on the national a few days ago in the arctic reporting that the -30 deg temp he was experiencing was way above normal as it should have been -40. This crap goes uncontested… Why Santy Claus Why…
B-Nichol,
Sorry, I did read it. The problem is that these folks who have issues with the methodology of the IPCC have valid concerns that were not addressed by your link. If the IPCC is taking papers from scientists and changing the conclusions of the papers prior to publication, then there is a huge problem. This seems to be the case.
I do not have an issue with the notion of “climate change”. What I do have a problem with is science being manipulated for political gain. Piltdown Man and Eugenics come to mind. Bad science does no one any good. It seriously is time to step back.
zog (6:12 PM): “Their list of 400 includes several real giants in the field of climatology but it also includes several non-entities – people at about the same level of expertise as the denizens of RealClimate.org or perhaps even a little lower. That leaves the whole list open to attack by the warmist nuts. Damnit.” (Emphasis mine)
Daniel M. Ryan (6:56 PM): “Percentages are your friend. Last time I checked, a strike in ten-pin bowling requires ten pins to fall down after the first ball is bowled, not one plus “the others might!…” (emphasis added.)
zog (1:20 AM): “D.M. Ryan 6:56 PM
‘percentages are your friend…’ etc.
What is your gibberish supposed to mean, and what, if anything, does it have to do with my post?” [No enphasis this time)
Daniel M. Ryan (5:29 PM):
“Quick and simple computation:
– 400 scientists have signed this petition
– 25 of them ‘may’ have received funding from a certain company.
– Therefore: at least 375 have not received such funding.
What about those people? The supposed ‘bug squash’ wasn’t even 10% of the job, let alone half the job – even if genuine scientists are as easy to buy off as politicians, an assumption that I seriously doubt is true.”
I trust that putting these four posts together will answer zog’s latest question of me.
here is a better rebuttal
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-inhofe-report-over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/
Gym old chap:
Sorry bud but you are wrong.
Whether or not he was color blind as you allege is totally irrelevant as you are even speaking of the wrong party. The Eric you speak of was actually “Eric the Red”, and it is irrelevant that he even had eyes, color blind or totally blind, as you seem to be.
Gym- Do chew on this:
WORD HISTORY How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in A.D. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name. Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name. Another attraction of Greenland was that Iceland and northwestern Europe, including England, had a grievous year of famine in 976, and people were hungry for food as well as land
GYM at December 21, 2007 10:29 PM
“greenland got it’s name from it’s founder Eric the Green, the historian that first wrote about “greenlands” discovery was colour blind:-”
BS
Erwin
@Erwin:
Thanks for the correction – mea culpa as well. Leif Erickson was Eric the Red’s son.
I honestly don’t know why I confused Greenland and Newfoundland (Vinland.) Perhaps I should have spent more time memorizing names and dates when back in school. Nowadays, my working memory is all but shot.
Interestingly enough, ‘vinland’ is another name that’s less than descriptive nowadays.
@scruffydan:
Nice try, but it still only reduces the number. Plus, it opens up the embarrassing question of how many AGW supporters are not expert in the relevant field too. David Suzuki lacks the relevant expertise himself.
In order to discredit it completely, the number has to be whittled down to zero. And, I repeat: the assumption that a scientist is just as prone to ‘singing the funding’ as a politician is, is dubious.
Another self-correction: it said “25 or 30” in the post update, so I should have used 30 in my post at Dec. 21st, 5:29 PM for margin-of-safety’s sake. That would reduce the number of unimpugned names by five – and change nothing otherwise.
HE,S GORE FINGER THAT MAN THE CARBON TOUCH HE KNOW NOT MUCH done to the theme from GOLDFINGER