More Global Warming Skeptics

[Ron]

Seems things are tacking back to a more balanced look at the science slowly but surely.

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven consensus on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg.  A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

[Iain]

They might be sceptics, but they aren't the tip of a climate scientist iceberg, they are all familiar names to me, and some  have disgraced themselves publicly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy - see section about his demonstrably erroneous claims about glaciers.

Now, the conspiracy says this is all about politics - yet it looks to me like the so-called 'sceptics' are pretty highly politicised, especially those in Washington. Especially considering this is Sen Inhofe's blog, the man never met a 'global warming is a hoax' claimant he didn't love.

Whatever way you want to look at it, you'd be wrong to claim that the majority of climate scientists reject anthropogenic global warming. Attack the majority and the consensus as not being science as much as you want, but then you'll have to provide some pretty strong evidence as to why you, a lay person, rejects the consensus position in favour of a minority position because that decision has to be based on something - just what exactly?

There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment. - Bertrand Russell

[The Rabbi]

The majority of scientists at one time thought the earth was flat and believed in spontaneous generation.

[Iain]

Few ever held that the world was flat, one ancient Greek calculated the circumference of the earth with reasonable accuracy I believe.

The Galileo position still relies on these guys actually being right. Belief, as a lay person, that they are is an act of faith. I'll still default to the position that things are as yet uncertain, but that on balance the majority of the experts are agreed that AGW is a real issue.

[The Rabbi]

I'll still default to the position that things are as yet uncertain, but that on balance the majority of the experts are agreed that AGW is a real issue.

So the issue should be settled by majority vote?  Who is entitled to vote? Climatologists?  Biologists?  Politicians?  We the people?
It's just a silly approach.  What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven.  Bah.

[Matthew Carberry]

"Scientific Consensus" on environmental damages attributable to man has a pretty hideous past track record for both accuracy and in some cases unintended consequences.  DDT and "global cooling" immediately springing to mind.

Sure they might be right this time, but the odds are not necessarily in their favor based on past performance.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'll still default to the position that things are as yet uncertain, but that on balance the majority of the experts are agreed that AGW is a real issue.

So the issue should be settled by majority vote?  Who is entitled to vote? Climatologists?  Biologists?  Politicians?  We the people?
It's just a silly approach.  What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven.  Bah.

It's not just the increased spending that should worry us.  The greenies want to impose massive new restrictions on what people are allowed to do, build, sell, buy, or use.  They want to deny, limit, regulate, and/or tax anything that isn't perfectly pure and green and low in resource consumption.  It's a power grab, plain and simple, and it should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who cares about property rights and individual liberty.

[Iain]

So the issue should be settled by majority vote?  Who is entitled to vote? Climatologists?  Biologists?  Politicians?  We the people?
It's just a silly approach.  What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven.  Bah.

Not sure what this has to do with paternal chromosome only embryos. (Yes, I'm being picky)

There's no suggestion that this is a matter to be settled by a vote. All I'm suggesting is that as far as the scientific community on the whole is concerned the weight of the evidence is falling towards climate change being a real, and in part, anthropogenic, issue.

With that in mind we, as lay people, should be very careful about choosing a minority opinion as our own, and even more careful about using terms like 'junk science' or 'pseudo science' when referring to a field about which we grasp only the mere basics, if that.

What is to be done is another matter. But the conspiracy theory is that 'what to do' is what this is all about.

Carebear - without dragging DDT into this too much (because I've read very conflicting info, most of the pro-DDT stuff comes from the same sources as the anti-GW stuff) - tell me about global cooling. Or I'll say again that global cooling was a 70's media thing, there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles about global cooling, or at least none that anyone has yet found. The whole 'but in the 70's you said cooling' is another 'sceptic' 'gotcha' that it would seem doesn't actually stand up to much scrutiny.

[grampster]

In science, there can be no such thing as consensus.  It either is or it isn't.  A majority "opinion" is only that, an opinion.

The global warming situation is more of a political statement imho.  Science shows that weather and or climate ebbs and flows.  By the way Mars is warming too.  Do you suppose that is because the Martians are driving Hummers?

[Perd Hapley]

tell me about global cooling. Or I'll say again that global cooling was a 70's media thing, there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles about global cooling, or at least none that anyone has yet found. The whole 'but in the 70's you said cooling' is another 'sceptic' 'gotcha' that it would seem doesn't actually stand up to much scrutiny.

Iain, I'll say this once, so listen up.  Back in the 70s, I said there would be global cooling.  If that ain't scientific enough for ya...

[Iain]

Why am I still awake? Dark chocolate is a bad idea.

There is much less evidence that Mars is warming than there is that the Earth is warming. - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 The seizing of this 'evidence' by some tells me enough about their real scientific rigour (or understanding)

I'm sorry grampster - science is largely about forming a consensus because a consensus is arrived at when the theory under discussion is shown to be that which fits the known facts. General relativity is accepted as consensus. Falsification would state that AGW or relativity can never be proven, only disproven. As that has happened in either of these cases the general scientific consensus is that these are workable theories. That's how science is.

This is actually quite a useful quote from wikipedia - "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."

That's what is happening here, no it's not a scientific argument in an of itself (but then this isn't a scientific discussion), but it is a position that has been arrived at through rigorous scientific research, peer review and debate. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of papers and research projects that have gone into forming this position. For a lay person to dismiss all this as a 'political statement' or 'pseudo science' is where the breath-taking arrogance in this whole debate is to be found.

Also bear in mind that for every Galileo there are countless erroneous results, rejected theories and outright cranks.

[Harold Tuttle]

green house gasses
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%

Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

not a scientist
but pop is   research meteorologist for 35 years for airforce then the weather bureau cuminating with noaa.  and he and his compadres laugh when you bring up global warming.  words like political farce and comments about al gores genealogy abound.   bear in mind dad helped design the models that these guys use to shill their game.  from back when they used punch cards in the computers and hes says that they are remiss to place as much weight on the models as they do.  and he snorts and says 1 f'ing degree in a 100 years?  give me a break.  weather works in cycles of 1000's of years  don't sweat a warm fart in a high wind

[Iain]

green house gasses
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%

Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

What is it you think you have found that climatologists have failed to spot? Is this the great flaw in the conspiracy? Quality source there too.

That's just silly. Ten minutes of serious reading, and an abandonment of pre-conception, would remove these certainties.

Cassandrasdaddy - I don't know about your dad, but models have changed an awful lot, and like I say, unless there is some giant conspiracy, the vast majority of the guys doing the climate research don't agree. I'm not saying your dad is wrong, but I am saying that for me to be a sceptic in the mould of the Russell quote above, I can't place very much weight on your anecdote.

[The Rabbi]

Conspiracy?  Depends on how you define it.  Scientists who come out in favor of global warming get universal accolades, favorable press, increased funding for their projects, and career advancement.
Scientists who dispute global warming get called pawns of ExxonMobil and are denigrated as out of touch and, gasp, conservatives.
So which way is a scientist more likely to lean?

[richyoung]

green house gasses
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%

Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

What is it you think you have found that climatologists have failed to spot? Is this the great flaw in the conspiracy?

The climatologists always leave water vapor OUT - which suspiciously amplifies the effects of mankind by a factor of 20.  Not very scientific.  Not to mention that all the junk computer models used to justify GW completely ignore water vapor, because they don't know how to model it.  Since water vapor "drives the train" of global warming, its kind of stupid to try to make centuries-long predictions without TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION.

Quality source there too.

Doesn't matter if it came from Chairman Mao's Little REd Book or the "The Wit and Wisdom of PeeWee Herman" - the FIGURES (which after all, are the important thing, nicht var?) are correct and verifiable from a number of sources, some of the government.

That's just silly. Ten minutes of serious reading, and an abandonment of pre-conception, would remove these certainties.

Cassandrasdaddy - I don't know about your dad, but models have changed an awful lot, and like I say, unless there is some giant conspiracy, the vast majority of the guys doing the climate research don't agree. I'm not saying your dad is wrong, but I am saying that for me to be a sceptic in the mould of the Russell quote above, I can't place very much weight on your anecdote.

...hard to claim any pretense of impartiality or scepticism when one is a "true beleiver...

[HankB]

. . . it is a position that has been arrived at through rigorous scientific research, peer review and debate. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of papers and research projects that have gone into forming this position.

From Wikipedia:

newspapers inevitably applauded . . . and questioned the motives of . . . critics . . . a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics who urged the patience and observation required for science.

.. . there is no doubt that rival views were rejected because they were seen as "bourgeois" or "fascist"

These quotes weren't taken from Wiki's references to global warming, but from the article on Lysenkoism, the agricultural "science" that held sway in the USSR for three decades, well into the 1960's. Government got behind it, and it became the accepted "science" for thirty years.

Faith in man-made global warming may well be the modern - and more widespread - Lysenkoism. If you're a climatologist and disagree, and you will not get research grants, you will not get funding, you will not be published . . . you will be denigrated in the press and elsewhere.

[Iain]

Faith in man-made global warming may well be the modern - and more widespread - Lysenkoism. If you're a climatologist and disagree, and you will not get research grants, you will not get funding, you will not be published . . . you will be denigrated in the press and elsewhere.

This is nothing more than conspiracy theory. You'd need a pretty high standard of proof for this one. Now some scientists are derided for their connections to the the oil and gas industries, and that's not always right, but when you have these industries offering payment to anyone who publishes anything questioning the science, you've got to wonder just who has the better claim to conspiracy theories.

Rich - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 - still sure those figures are right? What we've got here are 'my figures' against 'your figures'. Gonna be pretty hard for us to come to a conclusion based on the understandings that we've both previously demonstrated (i.e, we've both been wrong, neither of us are climate scientists). Suffice to say, claiming that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect as 'correct and verifiable' when in fact that is a highly disputed claim (and allegedly from one original source too, namely Singer) is a big stretch.

Models do account for water vapour, and unless you've played with one and have the expertise to judge, calling them 'junk' is way out of the bounds of reasonable comment.

You can paint me as a 'true believer' if you want - but ask yourself this - who places massive and unsupportable faith in a very limited number of sources on a subject they are not personally expert?

That isn't me. I've had the reverse of this conversation in which I've questioned the scientific understanding of those advocating extreme and radical 'we're all doomed' views. They have labels for me too.

[Harold Tuttle]

The Sky is Frying!
The Sky is Frying!

[wacki]

"Scientific Consensus" on environmental damages attributable to man has a pretty hideous past track record for both accuracy and in some cases unintended consequences.  DDT and "global cooling" immediately springing to mind.

Sure they might be right this time, but the odds are not necessarily in their favor based on past performance.

I've read every single national academy of sciences and SCOPE report on climate and weather that was issued during the 1970s.  Please point to a single report that predicted global cooling.  Just so you know, Newsweek, ScienceNow, and the New York Times are not peer-review scientific journals.

If you want to see a scan of the 1974 NAS report please go here:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html
and look at the JPG's at the bottom of the blog post.

it says:

Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.

The facts on DDT have been twisted in similar ways as well.  I suggest you find a new venue for your news.  Something that is a little more reliable and isn't driven by commercials, advertisements, TV ratings and controversy.

[wacki]

The majority of scientists at one time thought the earth was flat and believed in spontaneous generation.

The flat earth concept fell out of favor in the year 564.  That is almost a 2,000 year lag.   The scientific method, as we know it today, didn't even get started until the 1930's.  Many of Einsteins own papers weren't even peer-reviewed because peer review didn't exist yet.   To call experts in the year 500 "scientists" is to have a gross failure of understanding what science and more importantly what the scientific method is. 

Please read this:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/flat_earth.html

Not to be condescending but the scientific method is normally taught in the 1st grade.  Karl Popper is normally discussed in highschool biology textbooks.  Any professional skeptic/denier with a Ph.D. is very well aware of this so you should be extremely skeptical about the intentions of any Ph.D. that uses this argument.

[Iain]

Inanity

If that's as good as it gets - don't bother.

[wacki]

It's not just the increased spending that should worry us.  The greenies want to impose massive new restrictions on what people are allowed to do, build, sell, buy, or use.  They want to deny, limit, regulate, and/or tax anything that isn't perfectly pure and green and low in resource consumption.  It's a power grab, plain and simple, and it should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who cares about property rights and individual liberty.

I've researched the arguments put forth by just about every skeptic out there.  Just about every single one of them is intentionally misleading, lying, or screwing up basic highschool math.  One very easy to understand example is Pat Michaels editing graphs and lying or at least being "confused" under oath and 'accidentally' editing out the important parts of climate models:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html

This is the most referenced climatologist by CNN.

  The science behind global warming is quickly becoming a "no brainer" (not my words, the president of the AAAS's).  If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics.  Currently this is not the case.

That being said the left does twist climate change.  In my opinion (and Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley's) the key to the future is not changing peoples behaviors but investing in new technology.  Please review this list:

http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

In all honesty if we all stop driving and turn out the lights we will still emit more CO2 than our planet can handle.  So these greenies and hippies are not only masochistic but they are delusional.  They just happen to be correct on the fact that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Even chevron (an oil company) says that conservation is a hopeless cause.  But their argument is based off of supply/demand and not climate change.
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/

[wacki]

Seems things are tacking back to a more balanced look at the science slowly but surely.

There are 15,000 members of the American Geophysical Union in the US alone.  If you aren't a member of the AGU then you aren't an expert on climatology.  Then there are plenty of Europeans that need to be counted.  You could list 200 skeptics and still not hit 1% of the worldwide experts.  If you think a 99.5:0.5 ratio is balanced well then I'd love to make some friendly wagers at a casino with you.

[Perd Hapley]

If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics.  Currently this is not the case.

Huh?