Global Warming Fraud?

[d-cat]

Braggi,

No personal aim - the title of the thread pretty much sums it up. I've come across this info and find it interesting. I've shared it with others and they found it interesting. So I put it up here. No one has to agree with it, or even look at it if they don't want to.

d-cat, what is your personal aim with this thread?

Why did you start it?

What behaviors would you like to see changed as a result of Waccobb members reading what you're posting here?

What do you stand to gain by us changing our behaviors in these ways?

Thanks,

-Jeff

[Sonomamark]

Absolutely, Zeno. I remember presenting arguments on "greenhouse effect" when debating energy policy on my high school debate team, in (mumble, cough) 1978. There was pretty good science and there were credible voices sounding the alarm even then. I couldn't get anyone to buy the possibility and ended up dropping it as an approach to contending against fossil-fuel-dependent energy policy proposals by opposing teams because no one was willing to believe it was true.

It has taken nearly three decades for the mounting evidence finally to tip the scales. Does that mean that every last person is convinced? No, and it never will. But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.

They're a tiny, contrarian minority, and they are just wrong on the evidence. Listening to them endangers our very survival.


SM

I don't want to talk for d-cat, but what I see happening with some people is this:

For a long time, we have been campaigning to get the attention from the public and from the politicians for global climate change. Some people started working on this more then twenty years ago.

We complained that the "mainstream" media did not cover this, or covered it as a controversy between two groups of scientists. All the time the urgency of lowering green house gas emissions became more and more a very pressing problem in the eyes of scientists and environmentalists.

[Willie Lumplump]

But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.SM

I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?

[Zeno Swijtink]

I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?

Mark and Willie, I need to quote you here: "[Calling someone a denialist] is what is known as an ad hominem attack: an insult. Saying this makes no case for your position--it just insults the person you disagree with. It's fallacious and doesn't contribute to arrival at truth."

[Sonomamark]

Zeno, I didn't use that word, but I don't think your critique applies to my post. Here's why:

An ad hominem attack is fallacious because it doesn't speak to the issue at hand--it replaces evidence and analysis with negative characterization of the progenitor of the competing position.

That isn't what I did. I started with "credible evidence" back in the 70's, went to "mounting evidence tipping the scales" except for a small, fringe population of disbelievers among climatologists, then drew some analogies to other positions similarly clung to by small minorities in the face of overwhelming evidence and, finally, made a conjecture about the reasons why someone who is intelligent and has access to good information clings to an indefensible position. While not exactly complimentary, that's not ad hominem--the argument I was making was about evidentiary standards and critical thinking.


SM

Mark and Willie, I need to quote you here: "[Calling someone a denialist] is what is known as an ad hominem attack: an insult. Saying this makes no case for your position--it just insults the person you disagree with. It's fallacious and doesn't contribute to arrival at truth."

[Willie Lumplump]

Mark and Willie, I need to quote you here: "[Calling someone a denialist] is what is known as an ad hominem attack: an insult. Saying this makes no case for your position--it just insults the person you disagree with. It's fallacious and doesn't contribute to arrival at truth."

If a person weighs evidence differently from me, we can have an honest disagreement about how to interpret the evidence. But that can't happen if one side has all the evidence and the other side has none. Let's switch momentarily to another example: The evidence for the holocaust is incontrovertible. There are documents, film footage, many thousands of eyewitness accounts, confessions, court convictions, burial sites, architectural structures, and just about every other type of evidence that's possible. Nevertheless, there are people who deny all this and claim that the holocaust didn't happen. Such people are rightly called "denialists." They aren't necessarily "demons" or "Satan incarnate" or anything of the sort. They are simply called what they are--denialists. It's a useful concept.

When the entire world community of climatologists has adopted the opinion that global warming is a real phenomenon and that the chances that it is anthropogenic exceed 90%, laymen can attempt to understand as best they can how climatologists reached that conclusion (which ultimately is based on very sophisticated mathematical modeling that is far beyond the ability of a non-specialist to comprehend). But if a layman pops up and says, "Well, I don't believe it," and if he persists in this opinion even after he is informed of the facts, I'd say that that person qualifies as a denialist, and if he is a denialist, I see nothing wrong in saying so. Now, some would prefer to argue the case with the doubter and eschew the use of the word "denialist," and I have no problem with that. But, along with Mao, I say, "Let a thousand flowers bloom." And this blooming flower says "denialist."

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno, I didn't use that word, but I don't think your critique applies to my post. Here's why:

An ad hominem attack is fallacious because it doesn't speak to the issue at hand--it replaces evidence and analysis with negative characterization of the progenitor of the competing position.

That isn't what I did. I started with "credible evidence" back in the 70's, went to "mounting evidence tipping the scales" except for a small, fringe population of disbelievers among climatologists, then drew some analogies to other positions similarly clung to by small minorities in the face of overwhelming evidence and, finally, made a conjecture about the reasons why someone who is intelligent and has access to good information clings to an indefensible position. While not exactly complimentary, that's not ad hominem--the argument I was making was about evidentiary standards and critical thinking.


SM

Right, you did not use the term "denialist" but wrote: "They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be" which is a definition of "denialist," isn't it?

Quoting Wikipedia:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

So, even though your posting made good points, you ended with an ad hominem argument I would say.

[Zeno Swijtink]

If a person weighs evidence differently from me, we can have an honest disagreement about how to interpret the evidence. But that can't happen if one side has all the evidence and the other side has none. Let's switch momentarily to another example: The evidence for the holocaust is incontrovertible. There are documents, film footage, many thousands of eyewitness accounts, confessions, court convictions, burial sites, architectural structures, and just about every other type of evidence that's possible. Nevertheless, there are people who deny all this and claim that the holocaust didn't happen. Such people are rightly called "denialists." They aren't necessarily "demons" or "Satan incarnate" or anything of the sort. They are simply called what they are--denialists. It's a useful concept.

When the entire world community of climatologists has adopted the opinion that global warming is a real phenomenon and that the chances that it is anthropogenic exceed 90%, laymen can attempt to understand as best they can how climatologists reached that conclusion (which ultimately is based on very sophisticated mathematical modeling that is far beyond the ability of a non-specialist to comprehend). But if a layman pops up and says, "Well, I don't believe it," and if he persists in this opinion even after he is informed of the facts, I'd say that that person qualifies as a denialist, and if he is a denialist, I see nothing wrong in saying so. Now, some would prefer to argue the case with the doubter and eschew the use of the word "denialist," and I have no problem with that. But, along with Mao, I say, "Let a thousand flowers bloom." And this blooming flower says "denialist."

I am surprised you want to see thousand flowers bloom. I got the impression you were interested in stamping out some bad smelling ones!

What is you project to teach scientific and critical thinking to college students all about, I now wonder?

I may have lost a friend here!

Where you write: "one side has all the evidence and the other side has none" I see another possible lapse in CT.

In an issue that is as causally complex as the anthropogenic character of global climate change, to think that one side has all the evidence and the other side has none, is implausible.

Such issues are decided on the preponderance of evidence, which is, I agree with you, on the side of a very inconvenient truth.

[Willie Lumplump]

In an issue that is as causally complex as the anthropogenic character of global climate change, to think that one side has all the evidence and the other side has none, is implausible.

Evidence on one side (i.e., the side of the world community of climatologists)supports the conclusion that the probability of an anthropogenic cause of global warming exceeds 90%. If someone wants to argue that the probability is less than 90%, let him publish his arguments in a reputable, refereed journal. But it's ludicrous for some layman to pop up and say "I think the probability is less than 90%."

Such issues are decided on the preponderance of evidence

Suppose that I show you a six-cylinder revolver with only one round in it. I then spin the cylinder, point the gun at you, and ask you to decide whether or not I should pull the trigger based on a preponderance of evidence. Will the single round be fired or not? What would be your reasoning process?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Evidence on one side (i.e., the side of the world community of climatologists) supports the conclusion that the probability of an anthropogenic cause of global warming exceeds 90%. If someone wants to argue that the probability is less than 90%, let him publish his arguments in a reputable, refereed journal. But it's ludicrous for some layman to pop up and say "I think the probability is less than 90%."

You raise several issues: one whether lay people may question expert judgment. What do you think yourself?

Earlier you spoke of "all the evidence," as if you had in mind various pieces of evidence coming from different fields of investigation. Now you have aggregated the evidence just as "evidence on one side." Different conceptual model!!

What do you think is meant by "the probability is less than 90%?" Do you understand what that means?

Suppose that I show you a six-cylinder revolver with only one round in it. I then spin the cylinder, point the gun at you, and ask you to decide whether or not I should pull the trigger based on a preponderance of evidence. Will the single round be fired or not? What would be your reasoning process?

This problem is underdetermined. What's in this for me? As stated why would I bother with this gun? Are you dangerous? Reminds me of the serial killer in No Country for Old Men.

[Willie Lumplump]

You raise several issues: one whether lay people may question expert judgment. What do you think yourself?

Your question seems too generalized. Laymen are entitled to question expert judgment in only three cases that I can think of: (1) When experts are speaking out of their field of expertise, (2) when they are speaking about a field that overlaps the body of knowlege held by educated laymen (history or politics would be examples), or (3) when the experts themselves are divided and laymen are called upon to side with one expert opinion or another.

Earlier you spoke of "all the evidence," as if you had in mind various pieces of evidence coming from different fields of investigation. Now you have aggregated the evidence just as "evidence on one side." Different conceptual model!!

First I said "po-tay-toe," and then I said "po-tah-toe."

What do you think is meant by "the probability is less than 90%?" Do you understand what that means?

An interesting question. Certainly it doesn't have a formal statistical meaning because there is only one earth to be considered, and the anthropogenicity of global warming is either true or not. So 90% must be merely a numerical expression of the subjective level of confidence that climatologists feel in their analysis.

This problem is underdetermined. What's in this for me? As stated why would I bother with this gun? Are you dangerous? Reminds me of the serial killer in No Country for Old Men.

My point was that most decisions are based not on a preponderance of evidence but on the notion of risk. A "preponderance" of evidence is a statement of probability. Risk has an additional component--the seriousness of the consequences.

[Willie Lumplump]

What do you think is meant by "the probability is less than 90%?" Do you understand what that means?

I need to revise my opinion. The percentage figure probably isn't as subjective as I previously supposed. Climatological estimates are based largely on mathematical models, and whatever figure comes out of a model can be subjected to sensitivity analysis. I imagine that climatologists play around with the variables, assigning them different values, some values being more likely than others to correspond to reality. I suppose that if you do that enough times with enough of the variables you could end up with a range of output values to which you could legitimately assign probabilities. Something of this sort may be behind probability estimates such as "90% probability that global warming is anthropogenic." This is way out of my field, so I may be talking through my hat, but this is my best guess.

[Lorrie]

Geeesh Willie!!
Where do you store it all? You really do use your brain for thinking!!!...
What did you do when you were younger like say 25-35 years old?

I am amazed and probably would be even more amazed if I were inside your brain seeing it working. Like a factory of answers!!

First you have the left and right sides, which to me both are fully functional, I am surprised you haven't developed any kind of 6th sense...

Thinking of your brain as a office building I can only imagine that you have at least 1000 offices maybe more with all the brain sparks. Think of it! Each office contains an answer to problems with the little sparks figuring it out rapidly... And then the questions... new one's coming in all the time. (Well will call those temps)

There are art offices, writing offices, big word offices, math offices (and sub offices) then there is the not so known fact offices... about 400 of those...and the complex problem offices...and the simple solution offices...the yes offices...the no offices...

Oh my gosh Willie, How big does your office grow?
With all the info in your brain, how do you fit more in?
Or everytime you answer a question...do you make more room in there?

I need to revise my opinion. The percentage figure probably isn't as subjective as I previously supposed. Climatological estimates are based largely on mathematical models, and whatever figure comes out of a model can be subjected to sensitivity analysis. I imagine that climatologists play around with the variables, assigning them different values, some values being more likely than others to correspond to reality. I suppose that if you do that enough times with enough of the variables you could end up with a range of output values to which you could legitimately assign probabilities. Something of this sort may be behind probability estimates such as "90% probability that global warming is anthropogenic." This is way out of my field, so I may be talking through my hat, but this is my best guess.

[Willie Lumplump]

With all the info in your brain, how do you fit more in?
Or everytime you answer a question...do you make more room in there?

This is a serious question. I think the current opinion is that our brain kind of fills up, and every time we want to stuff something new in it something else has to go out the window to make more room. This sifting through old and new information and deciding which to retain goes on during sleep and probably is the primary purpose of sleep. As I age, I notice that more is going out than coming in. But not all my faculties are affected equally. Short-term memory of language, music, and events has taken a terrible beating, but long-term memory and analytical skills seem intact so far. I say, long-term memory and analytical skills seem intact so far. I mean, long-term memory and analytical skills seem intact so far.

[lynn]

sonomamark:
But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.SM

willies response:
I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?
------

BS!...NOT a good point AT ALL!!...There are plenty of people doubting...'global-warming-is-man-made'...or, fence sitters...and they are NOT 'flat-earth', creationist types at all!!...Absolutely nothing of the sort!!...

Geez, I get sick of this stereotyping...So many of the 'global-warming-is-man-made' people in this county sure seem to be full of it!!...

[OrchardDweller]

British Court Rules 'Inconvenient Truth' Represents 'Partisan Political Views,' Requires School Disclaimer

https://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...4678743&EDATE=

[Clancy]

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."


"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said petition signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."

The unprecedented petition includes scientists from more than 25 countries and shows that "the climate science community is essentially fed up," said signer Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada. It includes many co-authors of the intergovernmental climate change panel reports, directors of major American and European climate science research institutions, a Nobel winner for atmospheric chemistry and a winner of a MacArthur "genius" award.

https://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5...pSqhgD8TBDVFG0

[Zeno Swijtink]

British Court Rules 'Inconvenient Truth' Represents 'Partisan Political Views,' Requires School Disclaimer

https://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...4678743&EDATE=

This is a press release from the Heartland Institute.

The Institute was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which questioned the impact of global warming and felt that climate control policies hurt consumers.

Not the first place I would look for an accurate rendition of this court case.

Reaclimate.ord ran an analysis of this courtcase and how it was portrayed in the media:

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged "errors" (note the quotation marks!) in the movie's description of the science. The judge referred to these as 'errors' in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).

For more, incl. links, see:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...switch_lang/fr

[Zeno Swijtink]

sonomamark:
But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.SM

willies response:
I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?
------

BS!...NOT a good point AT ALL!!...There are plenty of people doubting...'global-warming-is-man-made'...or, fence sitters...and they are NOT 'flat-earth', creationist types at all!!...Absolutely nothing of the sort!!...

Geez, I get sick of this stereotyping...So many of the 'global-warming-is-man-made' people in this county sure seem to be full of it!!...

I agree, stereotyping gets us nowhere. These are complicated and frightening matters and it's understandable that some reasonable people are sitting on the fence of are doubting.

Wish though that they all read more widely on this issue rather than just searching for articles that confirm their point of view. At least this is my impression. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Zeno Swijtink]

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose." /snip/

According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.

For years, Kelley, a Republican, has been doubting this problem, and was often the single vote against global climate change measures in front of the Board of Supervisors.

Kelley now says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."

*****

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...1043/OPINION01

EDITORIALS
Bali quest
Why is a county supervisor headed for Indonesia tonight?

As a rule, local government officials have no business attending overseas conferences. Their time -- and taxpayer dollars -- are better spent locally. That brings us to the issue of Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley, who is attending a global warming conference in Bali.

Kelley, who is flying to the conference tonight, was not always a believer in climate change. In an interview two years ago, he expressed strong doubts about the science behind global warming. But reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have convinced him. Kelley says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."

Kelley's newfound conviction, coupled with the fact that he is one of the county's most prominent conservatives, could help change the minds of other climate-change skeptics. But that still leaves the question of whether it's worth public funds -- and the carbon emissions generated by his flight -- to attend a meeting halfway around the world. We wait to be convinced.

These aren't only questions for Kelley, but for many of the more than 10,000 people attending the conference, where delegates will negotiate a process to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN, which is hosting the event, estimates that 47,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollutants will be generated from the conference.

It might seem a contradiction for delegates to be contributing to a problem they are supposed to be solving, but by meeting face-to-face, they have an opportunity to share information and develop trust. Also, by meeting in Indonesia -- a low-lying country predicted to be severely impacted by rising oceans -- delegates get a clear picture of what's at stake unless nations act aggressively.

As to whether a Sonoma County elected official should attend, Kelley says local governments are "most able to implement the recommendations. We need to make sure they're practical and realistic."

So, junket or opportunity? Time and carbon emission measurements will be the ultimate judge, but at least Kelley has landed on the right side of the issue.
--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Willie Lumplump]

There are plenty of people doubting...'global-warming-is-man-made'...or, fence sitters...and they are NOT 'flat-earth', creationist types at all!!...Absolutely nothing of the sort!!...Geez, I get sick of this stereotyping...So many of the 'global-warming-is-man-made' people in this county sure seem to be full of it!!...

But who in this thread has claimed that all people who doubt the anthropogenicity of global warming are denialists? I haven't. Nor do I remember anybody else having said that. What I have said is that people who have been informed of the facts but still deny anthropogenicity are denialists. I'm sure that the vast majority of people who doubt anthropogenicity have not been informed of the facts. The oil corporations have launched a whole industry of denying global warming or minimizing its importance. They have set up entire institutes, staffed them with propagandists, and spent millions upon millions of dollars promoting lies. The media pick up on this because it's controversy, and controversy is what attracts audiences and sells advertising. And money, not truth or public service is the media's bottom line. Politicians have sold their souls to the oil corporations because they need that money to get re-elected. So the corporations and the media and the politicians have all entered into a dirty conspiracy against the interests of the American people--in fact, against the people of the entire world. Is it any wonder that so many people are confused? I think not.

The problem is even much worse that I've described, because, when you think about it, it's not inevitable that Americans swallow the lies they hear. During the time of the Soviet Union, Soviet citizens were well aware of the lies being told to them. Yet, generally speaking, Americans are not. Why is this? It's because almost from birth we are taught how not to think. Americans are in a kind of trance caused by the absence of a reasoning mind. That's the underlying reason for the fence-sitting by many, perhaps most, Americans. The facts are easily available. But to make use of them you have to recognize when you are being scammed, and you have to have some sense of the whole scientific enterprise, and you have to have intellectual skills so you can weigh evidence. Our schools carefully deprive students of the experience they need to learn to make responsible decisions. Think about it! The executive branch of our government recently deprived us of the right of habeus corpus, a right that has been the mainstay of democracy everywhere for 800 years. Congress made no objections. The American people made no objections. Why? Because we are all in a trance. Wake up! Wake up!

[Willie Lumplump]

I agree, stereotyping gets us nowhere. Correct me if I am wrong.

I've placed two of your sentences together that you yourself didn't place together, but I like the juxtaposition.

To expose my views to the fullest scrutiny, I have to be open about what my views are. For example, in my dispute with Christine, I could have just done my best to educate her and let it go at that. Instead, I made statements that revealed, eventually even to my own eyes, that in a certain regard I was a bigot. Even worse, I had developed my bigotry from watching television. I probably would never have realized that if I hadn't made harsh judgments of Christine that she could respond to by taking me to task. By being fully honest and open I learned something about myself (with a little help from my friends). I could give a similar example of my interactions with Lorrie.

My primary goals here are to speak the truth as I see it and to consider people's reactions. In doing this, I'm sure that I'll learn something. If other people also learn something, that's icing on the cake, but I'm not counting on it.

[Zeno Swijtink]

My primary goals here are to speak the truth as I see it and to consider people's reactions. In doing this, I'm sure that I'll learn something. If other people also learn something, that's icing on the cake, but I'm not counting on it.

Don't count us out, yet

[d-cat]

Consensus?


The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report that are contradicted by recent major scientific studies.


Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

[Sonomamark]

Yes: consensus of the overwhelming majority of the most qualified climatologists and other studiers of the question of climate change. This list may look long, but you probably couldn't scroll through a similarly formatted list of all the scientists involved in the IPCC if you sat scrolling for two solid hours. Your list is a tiny, tiny minority. And if you removed those who are completely or partially funded or employed by energy industries, I'll bet your list loses 3/4 of its members.

"Intelligent design" advocates produce similar lists. They don't mean anything.


SM

Consensus?

[Willie Lumplump]

Consensus?

I counted 99 names on your list. Since the list included only names and titles, in many cases one can't be sure of the exact fields of specialization. However, taking titles as an indication, I counted 1 social scientist, 9 economists, 13 engineers, 9 physicists, 4 biologists, 3 geographers, 12 geologists, 1 wildlife biologist, 3 mathematicians, 2 chemists, 1 combination, and 2 unstated. There were also two others in non-meteorology/climate fields whose specialties I didn't record. That adds up to 62 scientists who have no clear connection to meteorology or climatology, or 64% of the names on the list. That whittles the meaningful part of the list down to only 37 names. I echo SonomaMark in wondering how many of these 37 are either direct hirelings of the petroleum industry or grant recipients who have made their careers dependent on that industry.

[d-cat]

I counted 99 names on your list. Since the list included only names and titles, in many cases one can't be sure of the exact fields of specialization. However, taking titles as an indication, I counted 1 social scientist, 9 economists, 13 engineers, 9 physicists, 4 biologists, 3 geographers, 12 geologists, 1 wildlife biologist, 3 mathematicians, 2 chemists, 1 combination, and 2 unstated. There were also two others in non-meteorology/climate fields whose specialties I didn't record. That adds up to 62 scientists who have no clear connection to meteorology or climatology, or 64% of the names on the list. That whittles the meaningful part of the list down to only 37 names.

Not sure why you're eliminating all these fields. I would think these fields are related to the issue of global warming. For example, man-made catastrophic global warming advocates state things like the polar bear population is declining, sea level is rising, etc. I would think opposing arguments would come from geographers, wildlife biologists etc.

I echo SonomaMark in wondering how many of these 37 are either direct hirelings of the petroleum industry or grant recipients who have made their careers dependent on that industry.

If you come across info that this is the case for these scientists, please share them here. Thanks.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Not sure why you're eliminating all these fields. I would think these fields are related to the issue of global warming. For example, man-made catastrophic global warming advocates state things like the polar bear population is declining, sea level is rising, etc. I would think opposing arguments would come from geographers, wildlife biologists etc.
/snip/

Thanks for bringing to our attention this paper in the Int. J. Climatol. (2007), "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" by David Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer.

It's certainly somewhat of a coup to see Fred Singer have a peer reviewed paper in this publication from the British Royal Meteorological Society!

I have had a look at this paper, and although the math and modeling are beyond me, it struck me that the claims in this paper (pointing to an apparent discrepancy between some data and the standard climate models) are much weaker than the rhetoric of the press release. Also it seems to me that the quotations from the different authors in the press release are contradicting each other, some agreeing that CO2 has added to extra forcing but that there are negative feedbacks such as increased cloud cover that make the total forcing small, others who are not agreeing to CO2 having added to extra forcing.

Online it still says that the paper is an advance, and has not appeared yet in print. For us lay people we need to see how this paper stands up to the scientific discussion it will attract, before we can do much with it.

As to why the opinions of not all of these scientists are that scientifically relevant:

The issue right now is not whether climate change is happening (all these authors agree with that) but whether it is mostly anthropogenic, is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Polar bear population declining, sea level rising, all these things are effects of a warming world and would happen whether it was anthropogenic or not. So the studies of these scientist cannot form evidence one way or another.

The list of signees is interesting. I am not so much in favor of saying that these people are bought even though some of them receive grant money from the fossil fuel industry which compromises their authority. Freeman J. Dyson certainly does not receive such monies. He is well known Princeton physicist with a wide ranging interest who publishes also for the general public in such magazines as the New York Review of Books. He likes to take on unpopular positions, he supports the biotech industry and genetic modification, as well as nuclear disarmament. He does not believe that the climate models are good enough. His wikipedia entry gives lots of interesting links to follow.

Anyone who wishes to see the Int. J. Climatol. article please write me privately.

[Willie Lumplump]

The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report.

The letter begins with the assertion that "it is not possible to stop climate change." But what is being claimed? That it is not possible to stop all climate change or that it is not possible to stop any climate change? The former claim would be too obvious to need stating, whereas the second seems very dubious and perhaps impossible to substantiate. A person who states that it is not possible to stop any climate change is saying that all attempts are doomed to failure, and how would anyone know that? Plans are being made to study the "fertilizing" the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which would absorb CO2 and then sequester it when their dead bodies settle down to the ocean bottom. Do the signatories of this letter know in advance that this wouldn't work?

The letter continues that "Recent observations of phenomena . . . are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of natural variability." But the hottest years on record have all come in the last decade, and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now the highest it's been in about 420,000 years.

Freeman Dyson has a reputation as a great physicist, but he has notably squirrelly ideas about some things. For example, he accepts paranormal phenomena as fact, but not on the grounds of scientific evidence because there is no such evidence.

[lynn]

Hey Zeno....

According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.

I wish Kelley would stay there - permanently...He's an a-hole of a typical politician...

...Kelley's newfound conviction, coupled with the fact that he is one of the county's most prominent conservatives, could help change the minds of other climate-change skeptics. But that still leaves the question of whether it's worth public funds -- and the carbon emissions generated by his flight -- to attend a meeting halfway around the world. We wait to be convinced.

Waitin'?...I sure aint' waitin'...I think just-another-corrupt-politician Kelley got 'convinced' when he noticed he could take some junket's to ooooh, someplace like Bali maybe!...My goodness, how could he leave himself out of all the hoopla!!...

Goodness knows, he sure hasn't cared about draining more water out of the rivers around here - and still doesn't...and now he's concerned about rising oceans?...Yeah, right...geeez ya' think it could be free trips, and hobnobbing around?....

These aren't only questions for Kelley, but for many of the more than 10,000 people attending the conference, where delegates will negotiate a process to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN, which is hosting the event, estimates that 47,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollutants will be generated from the conference.

Oh yeah, I love that!...Creating TONS more greenhouse gas so they can sit around on their duffs yackin' about creating less greenhouse gas!!...And the local 'climate-protection' groups want little ol' workin' folks to drive less...Oh, puuuuullleeeeaase!!...

It might seem a contradiction for delegates to be contributing to a problem they are supposed to be solving, but by meeting face-to-face, they have an opportunity to share information and develop trust. Also, by meeting in Indonesia -- a low-lying country predicted to be severely impacted by rising oceans -- delegates get a clear picture of what's at stake unless nations act aggressively.

SEEM a contradiction?!...Ya' don't say!!...Oooooooh, I guess that video-conferencing lost it's lustre!....

And when the h*ll haven't 'low-lying' areas been 'severely' impacted by rising oceans?...That is, 'severly impacted' if it's an area pretty darn overpopulated, and we are around to experience it and define it that way...

So, I'm wondering...When the h*ll HASN'T the climate changed on this planet??...