E-Mail 'Al Gore doesn't want to debate global warming' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Al Gore doesn't want to debate global warming' to a friend

Loading ...

70 Responses to "Al Gore doesn’t want to debate global warming"

Baklava says:

January 18, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Dennis Prager spent an hour on this today. Riveting show.

Bjorn cares about the environment. But given the math of the AMOUNT of resources crisis mongerers are arguing for to change the environment back it’s 1 degree of warming, poverty would hurt and kill more people by far. This new age of environmentalism would hurt and kill more people than if the majority of those resources were used for diseases like malaria or health care or food for the poor or education.

Logic is left behind. It’s good to care. It’s not good to care so much that you leave your facilities behind. There are far too many people who are using fascist tactics with respect to global warming and climatology – they want to remove scientific credentials and have nuremberg type trials for global warming “deniers”. Fascism has to be used because facts aren’t on their side?
Don Surber » Blog Archive » Bush’s global warming plan worked says:

January 18, 2007 at 10:39 pm

[…] UPDATE: Sister Toldjah said Al Gore refused to debate global warming. Hey, he’s on his way to winning an Oscar, just like Bugs Bunny. […]
Great White Rat says:

January 18, 2007 at 10:52 pm

poverty would hurt and kill more people by far

Absolutely correct, Bak. It’s like the hysteria fomented so many years ago by “Silent Spring”. The early environmental wackos had fits over the health dangers of DDT until they got it banned. It’s now known that the fears were terribly exaggerated, but the hundreds of thousands of people have since died from the diseases spread by the insects who now thrive in its absence.
Carl says:

January 19, 2007 at 12:42 am

It’s long been made clear that Al Gore is unable and unwilling to have hard questions asked of him especially critical ones based on hard science because he is actually quite ignorant of the topic as a whole and would be exposed as ignorant. He knows it. His whole support team knows it. That’s why all his appearances in connection with his propogandist movie have been extremely carefully orchestrated.
camojack says:

January 19, 2007 at 1:14 am

Comment by Baklava @ 1/18/2007 – 9:29 pm

You’ve covered it well; I’ve nothing to add.
Tom TB says:

January 19, 2007 at 7:49 am

The Al Gore traveling road show would have at least some credibility if he would stop generating the gasses he claims are drowning the polar bears! How about Algore trekking across the prairies on foot? Algore sailing across the earth’s oceans with nary an auxillary greenhouse-gas producing engine? This spreading the word while burning up tons of jet fuel is getting old, Al!
Baklava says:

January 19, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Thanks Camo. I read your mind!
Bob says:

January 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

Can the personal attacks, Bob. –ST
Bob says:

January 20, 2007 at 3:03 am

Well heck, since this IP address isn’t blocked (for now) maybe I’ll get to say something. What I want to point out, just to provide a bit of background, is that Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish business school professor, not an environmental scientist. He wrote a book called “The Skeptical Environmentalist” that purported to debunk the claims of environmentalists, saying that their conclusions and predictions were exaggerated. This book was seen by real environmental scientists as being deliberately misleading, so they filed a complaint against it with the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. The Committee found the book to be “scientifically dishonest” and they cited it for the following:

*Fabrication of data
*Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation)
*Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods
*Distorted interpretation of conclusions
*Plagiarism
*Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results

In other words, Lomborg seems just like the kind of fraud who can be dug up when anti-environmental interests need a shill to flog their propaganda. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with an honest contrarian (the key word is “honest”). But my sense is that in the scientific community, the debate is really pretty much over. However, leave it to conservative politicians and their friends to stubbornly cling to the losing side in a scientific discussion.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 9:45 am

People who still are clinging to bogus models and Mann’s discredited and and either incompetent, dishonest, or both “hockey stick” model have precious little room to complain about someone else fabricating data. Selective discarding of results? Given that Gore and the others who push this deliberately ignored the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, they have a lot of gall making that claim too.

So Bob, just what are your scientific credentials, since you obviously have soo much faith in them?

Hey, here’s a thought, let’s play the “absolute moral authority” game here, just like the moonbats do! Bob, you aren’t a climatologist, you aren’t allowed to have an opinion on this one way or the other, so shut up!

Wow, fun, although being that close to liberalism makes me want to take a shower now.
Bob says:

January 20, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Thank you for letting me have my say, Sister. I know that this is your site and I’ll make an effort to be respectful. I have to note that I was banished for using the term “shut up” in the same rhetorical vein as Severian (above). Do the standards apply equally to everyone here?

Severian, I know that you don’t really care what I or anyone else has to say if it goes against party propaganda. No, I’m not a climatologist, although I think I’m reasonably scientifically literate. Those of us who aren’t experts in the field have to use our best judgment in assessing the arguments for and against. What strikes me is that the pro-global warming side is made up of the overwhelming majority of scientific experts who have no vested interest in their conclusions, other than to be as credible and responsible as possible (in science, all you have to go on is your reputation). The other side of the argument seems to consist of a tiny minority of people who often (like Lomborg) have no expertise in the field, but who seem to be using their “Dr.” title as though it gave them credibility they don’t deserve. They often work for think tanks or front groups funded by the petroleum industry. So we seem to have the preponderance of qualified scientists and peer-reviewed publications on one side, versus a handful of often unqualified persons with vested interests in the petroleum industry on the other side making claims that are far out of the scientific mainstream. The claims they make are analogous to those of holocaust deniers in their disingenuousness and their improbability. So I know which side seems more credible to me. You can make your own judgments, of course.

I think Sister is right to ask us to “can the personal attacks.” But if thinking about liberalism is the only thing that gets you to take a shower, Severian, then I’m all for it (just kidding).
Lorica says:

January 20, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Bob, I take issue with your statements. I think you really need to look abit deeper into what drives the whole global warming hysteria. I am not going to say that it does not exist, but I will say that it will not be anywhere near what Al Gore and the “Day After Tomorrow” crowd are hoping for.
1st off:
no vested interest in their conclusions No vested interest?? You have to be joking. I have heard on multiple occassions about just how much money it will take to clean up our mess.

From the article:
Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century.
Do you have any idea just how much Money 553 Trillion dollars is??? Even if the US Government could triple it’s present budget, it would take more than 100 years to get that much money. Nope It is all about these loving caring scientists, who don’t want to grovel for grant money, but just want to care for all mankind.

Bob also states:
(in science, all you have to go on is your reputation). You mean like the cocaine snorter Freud?? That fools ideas have been screwing up people for over 100 years. Ya Thank God for the scientist. Or how about Evolutionary Science?? How many Trillions have been wasted trying to prove that theory?? But yet millions and millions of people believe it whole heartedly without question.

Then Bob speaks such utterly unknowledgeable BS:
The claims they make are analogous to those of holocaust deniers in their disingenuousness and their improbability. You are now comparing the horror of 6 million people being destroyed to a single degree of temparture?? You liberals REALLY need to knock that crap off. How Careless of you to compare these two things. It is completely disengenious of a person to think the way you think Bob. People were burned alive in those ovens, people, including children were gassed alive, starved, Women were Brutally raped, and yet you compare us to the completely ignorant who would deny these things happened?? You have no clue, and you certainly have no clue how the earth is going to handle mankinds continued use of her resources. Do us all a favor and just keep your hateful comments to yourself. Good Lord How you libs just run around and care for nothing, but think you care for everything is just amazing. – Lorica
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 6:21 pm

What strikes me is that the pro-global warming side is made up of the overwhelming majority of scientific experts who have no vested interest in their conclusions, other than to be as credible and responsible as possible (in science, all you have to go on is your reputation).

OK, I’m going to assume, being charitable, that you really have no real experience in the scientific or technical community, otherwise there is no way you could honestly make this kind of inane statement. Scientists, unfortunately, are human. I’ve lost count of the vicious, backstabbing, and ultimately petty squabbles I’ve seen over things like funding and “reputation” between scientists. When I first ran into these things, I was honestly shocked, when I started my physics career and education, I was naive enough to think that scientists were these dispassionate seekers of truth, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Let me explain how this works. Say I’m a scientist wanting to go study a particularly nice little piece of nature, a wonderful lake and forest system I know about. I love to take students there, commune with nature, etc. I want to do a study, and apply for funding. I don’t get it. Suddenly I get an idea, instead of proposing “A Study of the Great Lakes Ecosystem with Emphasis on the Role of the Twin Titted Tartmouse in regulating Ant Population” which is what got rejected before, I get a brilliant idea. I change my research project to “Effects of Global Warming and the Damage to Native Twin Titted Tartmouse Populations in the Great Lakes Region.” Bingo, I get funding. I get to go lay out by the lake, and believe me, I also get the adulation of the fellow global warming proponents for being a “serious” scientist. I’ve seen this happen, though I’m not going to name names for obvious reasons.

The “majority” of scientists do not support this. Many do, and the ones who do overwhelmingly rely on this type of research, promoted and encouraged by political and scientific types who either want to use global warming for power grabs or who have managed to drink their own bathwater enough that they’ve started to believe their own BS, for funding and status. It takes a LOT more courage and responsibility to stand up to this management by intimidation “consensus” group than to go along.

The science is not settled. The reason this is getting so shrill at the present time, in my observation, is that the past year has not been a good one in the scientific community for proponents of anthropogenic global warming. The measurement of exactly how much the temperature of the planet has increased keeps going down the more accurately it’s measured. Radiosonde data has been found to have overestimated temperatures due to long term equipment drift. The famous “Hockey Stick” has been completely debunked and shown to be a outright lie. More and more data has been coming in pointing out that planetary temperatures on Mars and Triton have been increasing, even Jupiter has been showing signs that the energy output of the sun is increased. Solar output has been way way up over the decades since the 40’s, and in addition to the fact that that increases the amount of energy heating the earth, it also has been demonstrated experimentally that the solar magnetic field, which expands during periods like this, blocks cosmic rays from deep space that have a MAJOR impact on the formation of clouds in the earth’s atmosphere. Fewer clouds due to the lack of cosmic rays charging small particulate matter in the atmosphere interferes with formation of water droplets around such particles, which reduces the cloud cover, which reduces the ability of the atmosphere to reflect the suns energy out to space. Conservative estimates of this effect alone, just the solar/cosmic ray/cloud effect, results in ~85% of the observed temperature increase over the past century, without even taking the increased solar radiation into effect.

So saying the science is “settled” is a complete red herring, and the AGW proponents are getting more and more desperate. Desperate people do things like trying to silence critics and stifle debate.

You really need to take the time to read further into this, and also realize that just because an organization is non-profit, or many scientists support something, that that makes it settled or that the organization is good and honest and only wants the truth out there.

The claims of doom and gloom come from computer models, the main ones in use by the AGW crowd to push their agenda all have several traits in common. They propose wild feedback loops that have never been observed in nature, they have prove spectacularly unsuccessful in predicting things, and the most popularly quoted ones are in general the least accurate, they are quoted because they provide the biggest scariest scenarios. According to these models, the Southern Hemisphere should be warming at least as much and perhaps more and more rapidly than the Northern Hemisphere. Well, the Southern Hemisphere is cooling in general, and the Antarctic is stubbornly refusing to go along with the models and is also cooling. Run the models backwards, an accurate model should be able of reverse predictions, if you do this they get even worse results.

Yet, based on this flawed science, in order to satisfy politicians who want control and power, and other countries and agencies who have a decidedly socialist and anti-capitalist (and yes, anti-US) agenda, they want people to cede more control to the international community, and spend $553 TRILLION dollars to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist, CO2 based global warming due to human activity. It’s a great lever to use on the poorly technically educated masses, many of whom are generally sympathetic to environmental causes, and many of who, liberals, also believe increasing government power and control can never be a bad thing.

No thanks.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 6:44 pm

BTW Bob, as to the “shut up” how’d it feel? Insulting ain’t it? Irritating. Infuriating even. That’s exactly what you and others are doing when you insist that unless someone is exactly the right kind of climatologist (and no, all climatologists do not support AGW) that they should just shut the hell up and not have an opinion on this, or that they should be ignored. Finding the truth in this does not require a climatologist background, if you are going to do original research, yes, if you are going to try and sift thru this and find the truth, a reasonable scientific understanding helps, but climatologists are by no means the only ones who can find out things relating to climate. The people who discredited Mann’s hockey stick were statisticians. Saying that a person should be discredited or ignored just because they are not an party approved climatologist is bull, and insulting in the extreme.

Lomberg is not a climatologist, so any comments of his should be ignored, but Gore, who also is not only not a climatologist but a not particularly bright politician, should be believed when he supports global warming.

Yeah, I get it now.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 6:46 pm

God created climatologists so that meteorologists would look accurate.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 7:36 pm

This is one of the best and most accurate primers on global warming I’ve seen to date. Take the time to read thru it and learn, everyone who has an interest in this subject. This debunks most of the Al Gore crowd’s arguments, and it doesn’t even cover the recent experiments relating to cosmic rays and cloud formation although that can be found on this site as well. This is the most comprehensive summary though of the entire issue.

What are the take-home messages:

* The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
* The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century – perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 Â°C.
* The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
* The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
* There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend — global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
* The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
* Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
* Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
* Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
* There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures – there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
* Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
* Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Ah, found a good article relating to cosmic rays and climate.

Follow the links to the original data if you like. These two references are excellent summaries of the relevant science that undercuts Gore’s wailing on this.

A good example of what you’ll find:

How big a deal is this indirect cloud effect? Huge, actually. In just 5 years it was responsible for a 2% decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm-2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85% of the IPCC’s estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolution.

Significantly, the “Svensmark Effect” only operates in the lower troposphere because there is always more than sufficient ionization of the upper atmosphere to ensure no shortage of cloud nuclei. This is important since high, thin clouds do not reflect incoming sunlight and are a net warming influence while the reverse is true of low, bright clouds. The effect then directly influences cooling cloud cover.

Note that this is only part of the story since, as far as we are aware, no one has yet investigated a counterintuitive parallel effect — condensation and precipitation will likely reduce the total lower atmospheric concentration of that ubiquitous greenhouse gas, water vapor, so increasing clear sky radiative cooling. It’s true that clouds account for roughly one-fifth of the greenhouse effect but gaseous water vapor accounts for more than one-half of the total effect. Reduced condensation then would leave an increased proportion of gaseous water vapor with corresponding increase in clear sky greenhouse effect.

I hope, Bob, that you will take this effort to provide you with some rational links in the spirit it’s offered, an attempt to allow you to learn a lot more about this then you’ll ever hear from the MSM or AGW supporters, who want to silence this kind of information. Perhaps after reading and absorbing this, you’ll be more charitable about people like Lomborg and others who dare to challenge the “consensus.”
Bob says:

January 20, 2007 at 9:10 pm

A case in point, Severian: I checked out the web site you linked to as “one of the best and most accurate primers on global warming I’ve seen.” It was produced by “JunkScience.com.” Here’s what SourceWatch (a media research organization) says about this enterprise:

JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute – right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Milloy defines “junk science” as “bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the ‘food police,’ environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune.” He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all “scares” and “scams.”

Milloy’s attacks are often notable for their vicious tone, which appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse. That tone is noticeable, for example, in his extended attack on Our Stolen Future, the book about endocrine-disrupting chemicals by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and Peter Myers. Milloy’s on-line parody, titled “Our Swollen Future,” includes a cartoon depiction of Colborn hauling a wheelbarrow of money to the bank [1] (her implied motive for writing the book), and refers to Dianne Dumanoski as “Dianne Dumb-as-an-oxski.” [2]

Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi’s Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company’s primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide. [3]

Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master’s degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse “by up to four hours.” In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours.

Thank you, Severian, for providing such a perfect example of exactly what I was describing. A non-expert in the field (a tobacco company lobbyist, no less) with no peer-reviewed publications, funded by industries with a vested interest in propagating misinformation about environmental issues. On the other side, you have all the real scientists. I understand that you seem to hold publicly-funded research in low esteem, but come on. Are you really that naÃ¯ve?

And by the way, Severian. I think I’m a pretty good sport, so I won’t take your “shut up” personally. I’m sure you’re a decent guy and I don’t want to waste time insulting you. Thanks for all the time you put into responding to me. I do appreciate it– seriously.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Bob, you’re an ideologically blinded person I’m afraid. Take time to read the article, not just give the usual liberal knee jerk reaction that “they’re not qualified!” Read it, he links to REAL DATA, and the ORIGINAL PAPERS! Which is something that I have practically NEVER seen out of the web sites, news articles, and other bull put out by the AGW supporters. He has given you the facts, and the links to the raw data to back them up, but you, like so many others, refuse to listen or understand. Instead, you run off and find propaganda from people trying to discredit his arguments by saying he’s not qualified, not by disputing his science. Don’t you think that if he was so stupid, so unqualified, or so transparently in the pockets of “big business” that there would have been enough glaring errors in what he presents that his opponents would have been able to easily discredit his representation of the science, rather than engage in the kind of character assassination in that little jewel you posted?

Thanks for playing though. I had hoped you might have been one of the few liberals willing to actually make an attempt to understand this issue more fully. Instead, you disappoint like every other liberal, there’s no evidence you read the links at all, only that you rushed to Google the site in an effort to find some, any, reason to allow yourself to ignore what the site says without having to think about it. Otherwise, you would have come back with questions or comments about the particular issues, the science, the facts involved. But, I guess that’s easier and safer for a lot of people than having their comfortable viewpoints challenged or having to think for yourself.

I made an honest attempt to enlighten you, but the old comments about pearls before swine and leading horses to water pop to mind. At least, perhaps, others reading this will find some measure of education, but since you are unwilling or unable to do any better, my patience with you has expired. Go ahead and believe the sky is falling, it seems to comfort you. Go ahead and let your “betters” tell you what to think, as I said, much easier and safer than the alternative.

Disappointing, but hardly unexpected sadly.
Severian says:

January 20, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Oh, and BTW, this is who you consider a credible answer to the papers and data presented by JunkScience.com?

The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization… it is essentially a two-person operation.”[1]. It is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as ‘leftwing’, such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials. Headquarters: Madison, Wisconsin.
Bob says:

January 21, 2007 at 12:57 am

Severian, most of us (most likely including you) are not in a position to directly collect and analyze climatology data. We have to use our judgment to decide who are the most credible sources for such information. On one side of the global warming debate, we have mainstream scientists with no political axe to grind, publishing in peer-reviewed journals. On the other side, we have a handful of lobbyists and people of dubious scientific standing working for industry-sponsored front groups.

Science magazine, one of the top two or three scientific journals in the world, said the following in an editorial in 2004 called “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:”

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

(I didn’t bother to remove their footnote references.) You get the picture. You can believe the IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and all of the hundreds or thousands of scientists they represent, or you can believe a fricking tobacco lobbyist and a Danish business school professor with ties to the petroleum industry. You can choose between a peer-reviewed journal like Science (or any other major scientific journal that publishes work in climatology), or you can choose a two-man, two-bit operation like JunkScience.com (they might as well call their site PropagandaWhores.com). I’m sorry, Severian, but this is not a difficult choice.
Bob says:

January 21, 2007 at 1:20 am

There was another tidbit from the Science article that I should share. It discusses how many out of over 900 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals disputed the consensus view that anthropogenic global warming is real:

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

So out of 925 published papers, not a single one disputes the idea that human-caused global warming is a real phenomenon. But I’ll be a sport and throw JunkScience.com into the mix. That now makes the score 925 to 1.
Bob says:

January 21, 2007 at 1:23 am

Oops . . . make that 928 to 1.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 10:30 am

Well Bob, go ahead and keep letting people tell you what to believe, your gullibility is astounding, but hardly unusual unfortunately. Once again, I see absolutely NO indication that you have even tried to read and understand the issues, they are not difficult, but you once again do nothing but run to the web to find reasons to not think for yourself. No comment on the cosmic ray study, no comments on CO2, etc. Only a “everybody says it.”

The 900 to 1 study has been debunked, all the authors did was examine titles and abstracts, many of the papers referenced in that “study” don’t even support the claims the authors of this “study” think they do. The IPCC has based it’s claims on Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick and other data that has quietly been dropped, and has continually lowered it’s predictions of the amount of warming, but that doesn’t get the press the original release did.

We could go on and on with this, me providing you links to authoritative data, that is simple enough for a reasonably intelligent lay person to read, absorb, and understand, and you providing me with “rebuttals” coming directly from leftist propagandists that are so far to the left they make Nancy Pelosi look like Margret Thatcher, to no purpose. You now whine that “most of us (most likely including you) are not in a position to directly collect and analyze climatology data.” Well Bob, you’re lazy, you aren’t willing to open your mind and even attempt to understand it, it’s not that difficult, the “science” is not as complex as you believe. So I’m left with one of three choices, either you’re so ignorant you can’t understand simple facts and arguments, you are so ideologically blinkered that you refuse to even think about something that might upset your worldview, or you’re so intellectually dishonest that you know this is wrong but refuse to acknowledge it as you actually want the world’s economy crippled. Most likely it’s a combination of all three.

It’s sad, but as I said unfortunately not unusual. You, like so many others, are acting like a child who was told that Santa Claus isn’t real. Instead of asking your Mommy “did you lie to me, is Santa real?” you go home crying and say “Billy told me Santa isn’t real, tell me he’s wrong!” All you want is your Mommy to stroke your hair, dry your tears, and tell you “Yes, Bob, there is a Santa, and a Tooth Fairy too!” But that is hardly surprising, I’ve often noted that liberals have an inherent childlike quality to their personalities.

Until you are able and willing to come back and talk about something other than “everyone who matters says it” there is no purpose to anyone paying attention to you.

One final anecdote, the sun is getting warmer, has been for decades, it’s entered a period of increasing output, I knew that in the late ’70’s, I was assisting one of my professors measure sunspots and compute solar output. Back then, Time and all the usual idiots were wailing about “global cooling” and the impending ice age, and we all had a good laugh at the headlines. My prof said “yeah, just wait a decade, then they’ll be saying we’re all gonna burn up.” Remarkably prescient wasn’t he?
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

Another link for those out there willing to take the time to understand this. By the way Bob, take a look at the petition, lots of PhDs there, but then you’ll just whine they aren’t the “right” kind of PhD’s (even though you have no idea whether they are or not) and ignore the fact that the same or worse is done by the AGW side.

On second thought Bob, better not look, it’s got scary math and graphs, and I don’t want your head to explode.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

Here’s another excellent site, the whole page has newsletters and links. So, Bob, the Hockey Stick, which is THE entire foundation of the IPCC’s bloviating, is settled science eh?

For years, the â€˜Hockey Stick’ has been one of the most important arguments in public for human induced climate change. It suggests that global warming during the 20th century is most probably caused by mankind.

But now climate scientists are faced with new findings according to which the hockey stick theory is utterly wrong.
Obviously this central issue of climate policy has never been scientifically checked by an independent institution.
Professor Mann, the father of the hockey stick, refuses to disclose his methods and data….

he results are amazing:
The temperature rise in the second half of the 20th century that had been quoted time and again does not show in the tree rings!
The authors of the study say that the tree rings do not correspond with the warming in the 20th century. Possibly other factors than the summer temperatures have had an impact on tree ring growth since 1950. In addition, the authors imply that the tree rings give no reason to assume that the warming in the 20th century is unexpected. Further research is necessary.

That raises further questions:
If we assume that tree rings do not properly reflect the last decades, can they give us reliable information about the temperatures in the past millennium at all?

But maybe the data obtained from the tree rings are not completely wrong. Measurements taken by satellites and hot-air balloons only show little warming for the past decades, too (Newsletter 3). The exact data obtained from ice cores in Greenland tend to confirm this (Newsletter 11).

Conclusion:
Today, after decades of time and money consuming research in the field of climate change, there is still no recognized and scientifically proven temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years.…

…the temperature rise between 1900 and 1940 and the subsequent variation until 1980 are clearly visible in the sun’s radiation curve.
Today, we have the highest sun activity for 8000 years. (!)

Yeah, that’s a really good scientist, refuses to disclose his methods and data. For good reason, it’s a lie. Mann did wonderful things like base the entire temperature for certain periods on the basis of ONE tree, because the other data didn’t support his position. And his algorithms, after they finally got to the bottom of this, was found to show a hockey stick of increasing warming no matter what data was fed into it. And he conveniently erased the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age because they were “inconvenient.” And this is representative of the kind of people Bob and others think of as the “right” kind of scientists.

Bob is a lost cause, but I’d like to invite the other regulars here to take a look at the links referenced, they offer strong facts for rebuttal of the liberal, AGW bedwetters. Not that they will ever listen…

Consensus, oh that’s rich. All the “right” people believe it, no one doesn’t, yada yada yada:

Is there a â€žherd instinct” in climate research?
Hans von Storch:
… but what annoys him even more is his colleagues warning him not to touch the â€˜sacred cow’. “They are telling me: You cannot say that, it would be abused immediately. Some people out there have become paranoid, they expect climate skeptics everywhere.” Storch assumes a sort of self-censorship in many colleagues. “This way of researching pre-filters its results and thus deprives the public of the right of decision. This means a crisis in politically relevant research, because it no longer makes a difference between those who do politics and those who advise politicians and provide activity options.” (11)
Karin Labitzke:
The supporters of the sun theory complain about the predominant CO2 fraction prohibiting free thoughts here. “The impact of the sun is a taboo issue”, complains stratosphere expert Karin Labitzke of the Free University of Berlin. “Once we talk about it, people accuse us of being against energy conservation, too.” (22)
Hansjoerg Streif, State Office of Ground Research in Hannover, Germany:
The Secretary of the Environment in Lower Saxony objected to the publication of the book “Klimafakten”! “…. The Secretary reckoned that an institution which is funded by the Ministry of Economics must not deliver results that contradict the political opinion. … These charges have long since been abandoned. We are free to give our scientific opinion, even if it is not identical with the political opinion. There is no gag order.” (24)

â€žStephan Schneider … teaches at Stanford University….” and is the author of several IPCC chapters.
“.. to get the public’s attention we have to draw up shocking scenarios using simple and dramatic statements. Possible doubts should only marginally be considered. Everyone needs to find the right balance between honesty and effectivity.” (23)

Climate politics keeps on referring to scientific consensus.
â€¦. Because a great part of the climate researchers are far from being convinced that the fundamentals were sufficiently examined. A survey among climate researchers in 2004 revealed that 20 percent of the respondents had their doubts about mankind being the source of the latest climate changes. (21)
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 11:33 am

Slow morning here, this is rich. So Bob, all scientists agree?

Link

This is from Dr. Singer’s Congressional testimony:

My name is Fred Singer. I am Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in Fairfax, Virginia, a non-partisan, non-profit research group of independent scientists. We work without salaries and are not beholden to anyone or any organization. SEPP does not solicit support from either government or industry but relies on contributions from individuals and foundations.

We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a “tiny minority outside the mainstream.” This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see “no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.”

Others try to discredit scientific skeptics by lumping them together with fringe political groups. Such ad hominem attacks are deplorable and have no place in a scientific debate.
To counter such misrepresentations, I list here qualifications relevant to today’s hearing.

Relevant Background

I hold a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. For more than 40 years I have researched and published in atmospheric and space physics. I received a Special Commendation from President Eisenhower for the early design of satellites. In 1962, I established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, served as its first director, and received a Gold Medal award from the Department of Commerce for this contribution.

Early in my career, I devised instruments to measure atmospheric parameters from satellites. In 1971, I proposed that human production of the greenhouse gas methane, through cattle raising and rice growing, could affect the climate system. This was also the first publication to discuss an anthropogenic influence on stratospheric ozone. In the late 1980s, I served as Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation and also provided expert advice to the White House on climate issues.

Today, by presenting evidence from published peer-reviewed work, I will try to rectify some erroneous claims advanced at the May 17 NACC hearing.

1. There is no Appreciable Climate Warming
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 12:17 pm

The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide:

ABSTRACT

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the wellâ€‘known but underâ€‘appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2â€‘rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
Bob says:

January 21, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Severian, none of the links you provide are scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. The items you link to are all either petitions, newsletters or privately-run web pages. Any schmoe can file a petition or create a web site and make any claims they want to. How about this site, where the author boldy concludes, “As improbable as the presence of non-terrestrial craft in the Earth’s vicinity may be, the likelihood of such a presence seems to be increasing by the week, thanks to developments in the new and well-accepted science of astrobiology.” (Wow! There’s a science called astrobiology! And they said so on a web site! It must be true, then!) The key point is that there is no process of vetting the claims made at these sources you refer to. And none of these web pages reference peer-reviewed papers. These people can make any claims they want to. Whatever it is, it’s not science.

You keep going on about “the latest results.” Show me a link to these results in a peer-reviewed publication and I’ll read it. Don’t waste my time with any more links to these two-bit propaganda sites. JunkScience.com, indeed. How pathetic. You’ve got things exactly bass-ackwards when you assert, “We could go on and on with this, me providing you links to authoritative data . . . and you providing me with “rebuttals” coming directly from leftist propagandists.” So Science magazine, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, etc., are “leftist propagandists” and tobacco lobbyists are “authoritative?” And you call me gullible? This discussion is absurd. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Great White Rat says:

January 21, 2007 at 3:11 pm

It’s interesting that Bob has yet to provide a single link to any of his sources so we can examine them for ourselves.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Bob, I’ve tried to be patient with you, but I’ve come to the inescapable conclusion that you’re just not bright enough to have a discussion with. You continue to whine about “peer review.” Guess what Bucky, there are tons of links to the actual, peer reviewed papers in those articles, and the people writing them have credentials far in excess of anything from anyone you’ve posted. More proof that you refuse to actually read the articles.

Take a look back over the thread. I’ve posted science, articles, links to data and papers. All you’ve done is link to far leftist sites that say nothing about the science, but only make lame attempts at character assassination to try and discredit their opponents. Honestly, you’re like some kind of deranged parrot. “Not proven…everyone agrees…he’s not credible…he’s been bought off…squawk…Bob want a cracker!”

One last comment, consensus is bunk. Up until the 1940’s, everyone was of the “consensus” that blacks were essentially subhuman, not able to rise to the abilities of whites. In fact, they even arranged a little experiment called the Tuskegee Airmen to “prove” that blacks were too stupid to learn to fly fighter aircraft. The results were startling, the black pilots of that squadron were in high demand for escort duty, as they never lost a bomber in any of the missions they escorted. They proved, dramatically, just how wrong consensus thinking was. I can imagine you, Bob, back in the 40’s, having this same kind of argument, only you’d be arguing that blacks can’t fly fighter aircraft because, after all, everyone says they can’t. If the world were totally made up of people like you, blacks would still be drinking from colored only water fountains.

You’re a fool Bob. When you can make one, ONE, detailed comment that shows you read ANY of the scientific studies, I’ll maybe have something else to say to you. I won’t hold my breath waiting, blue just isn’t my color. You are a fine example of the kind of sheep that become liberals and Democrats, willingly, eagerly even, walking along the path someone else picks for you without question. No wonder we’re in such sad shape today.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 4:16 pm

So Bob, how’s it feel to be a fish? Reminds me of an old Roman saying “Poor fool, he’s clever as a sardine!”
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 4:44 pm

It’s interesting that Bob has yet to provide a single link to any of his sources so we can examine them for ourselves.

Yeah, that sticks out doesn’t it? All he can do is whine that there are no “peer reviewed” information or articles, neglecting the fact that most of these links have bibliographies listing tons of papers and publications that the information came from. You know, those same journals like Nature and Science and Geophysical Review.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Oh, and lest anyone doubt that the main reason global warming is being pushed is because of a political agenda, this quote is priceless:

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Some interesting thoughts on peer review:

As concerns Mann himself, this is especially curious in light of the recent RealClimate posts (link and link) in which Mann and Gavin Schmidt warn us about peer review and the limits therein. Their point is essentially that peer review is limited and can be much less than thorough. One assumes that they are talking about their own work as well as McIntyre’s, although they never state this. Mann and Schmidt go to great lengths in their post to single out Geophysical Research Letters. Their post then seems a bit ironic, as GRL is the journal in which the original Mann curve was published (1999, vol 26., issue 6, p. 759), an article which is now receiving much attention as being flawed and under-reviewed. (For that matter, why does Table 1 in Mann et al. (1999) list many chronologies in the Southern Hemisphere while the rest of the paper promotes a Northern Hemisphere reconstruction? Legit or not, it’s a confusing aspect of the paper that should never have made it past peer review.)

Of their take on peer review, I couldn’t agree more. In my experience, peer review is often cursory at best. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face. That is real peer review. A 12 year-old hacker prodigy in her grandparents’ basement should have as much opportunity to check your work as a “semi-retired Toronto minerals consultant.” Those without three letters after their name can be every bit as intellectually qualified, and will likely have the time for careful review that typical academic reviewers find lacking.

Specious analysis of your work will be borne out by your colleagues, and will enter the debate with every other original work. Your job is not to prevent your critics from checking your work and potentially distorting it; your job is to continue to publish insightful, detailed analyses of the data and let the community decide. You can be part of the debate without seeming to hinder access to it.

That’s just too freaking rich, Mann, after having his butt handed to him over the problems with his “peer reviewed” work, complains about the shoddiness of the peer review process at GRL because it let an article critical of him thru, when his original “peer reviewed” work was published in GRL!!!

So there, Bob, the article dismantling Mann is a “peer reviewed” article, and reviewed by the same publication Mann published in.

Dishonesty in science should be punished with crucifixion or impalement.
Bob says:

January 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Come on now, Severian. You’re just being petty and mean now. You try to cop a superior attitude with me, say I’m a fool, call me a sardine, call me a parrot. I think you’re losing your cool because you’re losing this discussion. You claim to be providing “science, articles, links to data and papers” and that they contain “tons of links to the actual, peer reviewed papers in those articles.” But I looked, and none of those sources have links to anything that was peer-reviewed. As I said before, these are all petitions, editorials, private web sites, personal statements, etc, none of which have had to pass scientific scrutiny, and none of which contain citations to scholarly papers. So I’m going to have to give you an “Incomplete” on this assignment . . . sorry.

For those who asked, here are links to scholarly works about global warming that I was citing. These are coming from the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world, so don’t give me the lame routine about how it’s leftist propaganda.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (IPCC, 2001)

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Science, 2004)

Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (The Royal Society, 2005)

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (The National Academy of Sciences, 2001)
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Bob, only in the mind of the kind of fool who swallows the entire global warming BS hook, line, and sinker would you be considered to be losing the argument. The simple fact is, you’ve done nothing but bleat the same tune no matter what is presented, and I don’t suffer fools gladly. No links to peer reviewed articles? What the hell do you think McIntyre’s article is, chopped liver? It’s peer reviewed, and the reference is in the links quoted. You just aren’t either sharp enough or care enough to actually follow the links, much easier to whine that it’s not credible.

But just to show my hearts in the right place, here is a peer reviewed scientific study that ties temperatures over the past 6000 years to solar output. Get back to us after you digest it.

“Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on Î´18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghaiâ€“Tibet plateau, China” – “Abstract: During the past 6000 years, the temperature variation trend inferred from Î´18O of peat cellulose in a peat core from Hongyuan (eastern Qinghaiâ€“Tibet plateau, southwestern China) is similar to the atmospheric 14C concentration trend and the modeled solar output trend. The general trend of Hongyuan Î´18O during the past millennium also coincides well with the atmospheric 14C concentration trend, the 10Be concentration trend in an ice core from the South Pole, the reconstructed total solar irradiance trend, as well as the modeled solar output trend. In addition, temperature events also correspond well to solar perturbations during the past 6000 years. Therefore, the driving force of Holocene temperature variations should be properly ascribed to solar activity. The spectrum analysis further illustrates that quasi-100-yr fluctuation of solar activity was probably responsible for temperature variations in northeast Qinghaiâ€“Tibet plateau during the past 6000 years.” (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology)

This one is in there too. You get an F Bob.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Err. sorry Bob that should have read:

Bob, only in the mind of the kind of fool who swallows the entire global warming BS hook, line, and sinker would you be considered to be winning the argument.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how people who are completely clueless continue to refuse to learn the facts for themselves, but also continue to argue that they actually know something based on what someone else tells them to think. Despite numerous peer reviewed articles (just because you don’t want to find them doesn’t mean they aren’t in there Bob, see two above for quick examples, no make that three I can think of off the top of my head, the paper on cosmic rays is in the Royal Society A publication), despite demonstrable flaws in the peer review process, despite the fact that McIntyre’s article appeared in, and was peer reviewed by the same people that peer reviewed Mann’s, and the hypocrisy of Mann complaining that the same agency that peer reviewed his article wasn’t good at peer review, you still cling to this fantasy that the only peer reviewed articles are pro global warming. And you conveniently ignore the political aspects of this, many of the same agencies you quote are neck deep in trying to push this agenda for political reasons, hell, they’ve even said as much in the quotes above, yet you still line up begging to be lied to and misled.

So Bob, without even going back and searching I’ve found 3 peer reviewed articles that undermine and refute the AGW arguments, so you’re obviously wrong, not that you’ll admit it. You have still not read anything, you just go Google to try and find a reason not to think, if you had, you’d have comments on things like the logarithmic nature of CO2 absorption, the effects of cosmic rays on cloud cover, the problems with Mann’s work, just to name a few.

Sloppy thinking Bob.

Bob wanna cracker now?
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Also note, Bob, that the above mentioned, PEER REVIEWED publication on solar forcing mentions a 100 year solar cycle. Hmmmm…when was this huge “man-made” global warming supposed to begin, why, 100 years ago!!! What a coincidence.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be too hard on you Bob, being as I am a scientist, I am educated enough to have confidence in my own ability to read the literature and separate the good from the bad, you can’t help being ignorant of the details, but you don’t have to act like you’re proud of it.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 6:18 pm

You know Bob, your links are not to “scholarly works” they are links to summaries and editorials based on papers that support the global warming scenario, published by agencies that by and large have a vested interest in continuing the flow of money to do more research. The simple fact that you can’t tell the difference between a real scientific paper and these summaries speaks volumes.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 6:23 pm

From which we get such gems as this:

The results presented in this chapter are based on simulations made with global climate models…

I want something more convincing than a tarted up video game before I sacrifice $553 trillion dollars over the next decade, that’s $53 trillion a year, or over 4 times the GDP of the US, to solve a non-existent problem.

And quoting the IPCC? C’mon, they are a major part of the problem, being a UN panel, whose motives are far from pure.
Bob says:

January 21, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Severian, the links I presented are even better than one or two journal papers, because they represent the overwhelming consensus of all of the major scientific organizations of the world that global warming is a real and dangerous phenomenon. This is peer review on a massive scale, involving not just a few, but thousands of informed opinions. Each link has numerous citations to individual papers published in the most prestigious journals. You’ve got to be deliberately playing dumb about this, since you’re such a big important scientist, right? Do you really fail to recognize that you’re taking a position that pits you (and a handful of lobbyists and industry shills) against the entire scientific community worldwide? And you try to give yourself cover by sneaking links to disreputable sources like JunkScience.com, as though that did anything but destroy your credibility?

Your responses in this discussion have been one big emotional overreaction. Too many angry words, too much junk passed off as legitimate science, too much name-calling. It’s been a virtual mudslide of invective from your side. I have to say, it seems very unprofessional for such a big important scientist as you.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Once again Bob, all you have is this stunningly ignorant faith in “consensus.” I’m not angry Bob, just mildly disgusted with yet another drone swallowing the lies of the AGW crowd, you’ve exhausted the ante of respect I gave you when I thought you might be willing to actually try and understand the issue or actually discuss the science. Instead, it’s the same mantra over and over from you, it’s consensus, everybody believes it, etc. ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

When you have actually read the science articles, and can come back with one single intelligent comment or question, then you will be worth talking to. So far, you’ve refused to even read the articles. You have made absolutely no comment on the science, just continued your attempts to discredit scientists who disagree, web sites who don’t agree with your heroes, and parroted again and again the same “argument,” although calling what you post an argument is being charitable. On and on and on with the “industry shills” and “disreputable sources.”

C’mon Bob, make one single intelligent comment. Ask one single intelligent question about the science. Ask me about CO2 forcing, lead/lag with temperature rise, cosmic rays, even if it’s asking to have something explained to you, that would indicate that you both read the articles and were curious enough to want to know what they actually said. The answer might not convince you of anything, but it would make you understand the science better. As I said earlier, I’m not going to hold my breath, because in this entire thread you’ve not said a single thing, not one, that shows you did anything but look up the references with an eye to finding an excuse to ignore them. So, junkscience is wrong? How? Where? That’s the issue isn’t it? To date, I’ve not seen anyone make any comment against the data he links to and presents or the explanations, only the kind of inane comments you post denigrating him and the site without addressing the issues and facts, which is a sure sign of people who have no real argument to present, and no facts to back them up.

I’d probably die of shock if you did though. You’d rather continue to impugn the reputations of people who know a lot more than you with snide innuendo, calling them industry shills and worse. You’ve lived down to the amazingly low standard liberals set in this entire debate.

I know you’re not a scientist, but you could have at least made an attempt.
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 7:25 pm

BTW Bob, in the astronomically remote chance that you actually do decide to enter into an honest discussion/debate on the science, and post something regarding the technical issues, I might not get back to you really quickly. In the off chance you do, I apologize in advance for the fact I’m probably not going to be able to get back to it in a reasonable (like same day or next) timeframe. While I’ve been online working on the computer this weekend, that changes tomorrow as I have to get back into the lab and do some serious work on the simulation I’m working on (unlike some, I compare my simulations to reality). It may be a day or two before I read this again, though if I can get internet access I’ll look in (I’m going to be working in a black hole, hard to get access to the outside world).

I hope you’ll actually take the time to come up with something worth discussing. If you continue with the kind of thing you’ve been saying up until now, well…
Severian says:

January 21, 2007 at 7:29 pm

BTW Bob, complaining about the “tone” of the debate is also a surefire indicator that the person doesn’t have anything else to buttress their arguments. If you think this is rough debate, you’ve led a very very sheltered life. I’ve seen near knife fights at department meetings among scientists I’ve worked with over things a lot less important than this.
Great White Rat says:

January 21, 2007 at 11:00 pm

OK, let’s assume for the moment that Bob is right – that global warming is a unquestioned scientific fact, that the Hockey Stick model is gospel, and anyone who doesn’t buy into the theory is a tool of big oil.

Postulating that, let’s go back to the original question. Logic dictates that Algore, in any kind of a face-to-face debate with such neanderthals, would mop the floor up with them. This event would then be widely heralded by the MSM as the ultimate proof of the rightousness of his crusade. Cancel the voting for the Oscars and give him the award by acclamation. Maybe even use this as a springboard to launch the 2008 presidential campaign.

Which leads us to the inevitable question: why then is Gore the one ducking the debate? It’s not like he’s passed on debates before when he had the data stacked in his favor – see Gore vs. Perot on NAFTA. Gore has never shown any tendency to avoid the easy fight. Other true believers, like Bob, are willing to debate it here. So why run now?

Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that Lomborg does have credible scientific and statistical evidence arguing against global warming, and Gore would have difficulty refuting it. As Bob has had here due to Severian’s yeoman efforts.
Baklava says:

January 22, 2007 at 12:01 am

Just call me Severized.

Great work Sev.
Bob says:

January 22, 2007 at 1:07 am

Of course it’s a silly argument to make that we need to be experts in every field to make informed decisions on government policy. Does George W. Bush do his own analysis of climatology data? Is Nancy Pelosi an expert on food safety? That’s what we have professional associations like the National Academy of Sciences for: to make expert determinations in technical fields and advise society on their findings. I’ve read and understood the reports and articles I cited, I’m satisfied that these are the premier scientific organizations in the world, and that they all agree that global warming caused by human-generated greenhouse gasses is a real phenomenon. It’s not necessary to go around and personally debunk every crackpot web site to prove otherwise.

You say, “all you have is this stunningly ignorant faith in â€˜consensus.'” Well, none of us—individually or collectively—may be omniscient, Severian, but the scientific consensus represents the state of the art of all that humans know about the universe at this particular time. If I had to choose between that consensus and some hack with a web site and a conflict of interest—especially if that person had been cited by a professional organization for scientific dishonesty—I know which way I’d choose. But if you’d rather scrap 100 years of scientific discovery, thousands of individual papers and all of the leading scientific associations that support global warming, to take the side of political hacks, industry lobbyists and the two (2) papers you could find that support the other side, Severian, by all means, do.

I have to note how funny it is, by the way, that you have this same peanut gallery of Severian, White Rat, Lorica and Baklava who populate every single thread here, constantly stroking each other. Do you call each other up for mutual support when one of you faces a challenge? Would you fall over like a two-legged stool if enough of you weren’t there on any given day? It seems like quite a love-fest. I’m happy for you all, really.

Bob, any one of the people you mentioned can handle a one on one argument just fine. This blog has mostly conservatives posting on it, so of course they will be involved o\in a lot of threads together, in the same way a liberal blog would be. Don’t get uptight because several of them have something to say to you and don’t assume that it’s a ‘coordinated effort.’ I can assure you, a ‘coordinated effort’ isn’t needed by any of them. –ST
Lorica says:

January 22, 2007 at 9:09 am

Actually Bob, I have been quite amused with this discussion. The way you so frightfully hang on to the garbage you have become assured of, is so very cute. It is just too funny. Heck half the garbage you linked too only cemented my belief that the earth goes thru warming and cooling periods, based on sun spot activity and the earth’s core. In the world of science it is well known that the earth has been warmer than it is today, so my question is what happened then?? Since the majority of the science you linked to refuses to take into account the fossil record, I figure that they are just blow hards who, as you say, “stroke each other”. It is amazing how just plain ignorant you are. You accuse us of the very thing the scientific community, that you suck up to, of doing. You know what a good article in a prominent journal means to a “real” scientist don’t cha Bob?? About a half a million dollars in grant money. So go on be a good leftist, and continue to blah blah blah and believe that you are the most inteligent person in the room. It is just too amusing to try and stop you. – Lorica
sanity says:

January 22, 2007 at 10:23 am

Bob complains:
I have to note how funny it is, by the way, that you have this same peanut gallery of Severian, White Rat, Lorica and Baklava who populate every single thread here, constantly stroking each other. Do you call each other up for mutual support when one of you faces a challenge? Would you fall over like a two-legged stool if enough of you weren’t there on any given day? It seems like quite a love-fest. I’m happy for you all, really.

We are daily readers Bob, and discuss much here on a daily basis, sometimes agreeing, sometimes not, but most times we are along the same wave length on most htings.

We aren’t democrats here, there is no ‘concerted effort’ to overpower you. We don’t send out smoke signals or phone calls to others to get help. we respond when and where we see fit. If you would care to peruse the achives ST has, you will see majority of discussions on almost ALL threads have most the same individuals talking and debating things, with others coming in to add to it. The ones you see now are loyal readers, not loyal as in mindless drones, but we think of ST’s place as a home to discuss our ideas.

You won’t be shouted own or threatened with your life as I hear can happen in places like DU and KOS.

Now as for Gobal warming, I was listening to a very good speaker on the radio about this on Bill Bennett’s show this morning and he makes more sense than most of the global warming alarmists.

1st, one thing he mentioned was Kyoto, and it was said that if EVERY country in the orld follow ed the guildelines of Kyoto, in 50 years the effect would be something like .006 percent difference, not even measurable.

Another thing brought up was that the earth is like a top, it is constantly spinning, and just like a top, the earth wobbles, and during those times we are further away from the sun (cooler), and other times we are closer (warmer). We also orbit the sun, and we never have the same orbit, the earth is constantly changing, small changes, but changes none the less.

We are going through a slightly warmer period now, and it was not even the warmest time in history either. It has gone in cycles.

I believe the NYT splashed the infamous polar bears are drowning (I thought they could swim – but that is another debate), also splashed about 10 years ago (the senator NC I think, brought this up) that within in 10 years we would be in another ice age.

Oh and if you think celebrities have all the answers, I believe it was 10? 20 years ago? Ted Danson went on the record stating the world would end in 10 years if we didn’t recycle (something along that lines – I can find the exact idiocy if needed, but this wa just a point).

There is no true proven without a doubt fact that gobal warming is man made, even meteorologist state this, but even then, there is just not enough evidence to suggest that. Is it possible, yes, anything is POSSIBLE, but lets have some proof to go along with the panic please.

Oh, and one last thing, the senator in the interview stated one thing that stuck out on global warming…..follow the money.
Baklava says:

January 22, 2007 at 10:58 am

Bob wrote, “Of course it’s a silly argument to make that we need to be experts in every field to make informed decisions on government policy.

No. We as expert Bob’s can discount substance with a slight of hand. And in the same paragraph make the argument that those receiving government grants to do research or clean as the wind driven snow. Look Bob. I’ll just assume you are naive on that one but your negligence that you showed Severian after all of his due diligence was arrogant. Sentence after sentence with substance and you didn’t deal with one sentence. Merely wave it off. Ignore it. It’s they typical liberal way. We’ve seen it here before Bob. Did you know that? We hope for an actual conversation one day.

Bob wrote, “and that they all agree that global warming caused by human-generated greenhouse gasses is a real phenomenon.”

And others don’t Bob. That’s why it’s NOT consensus. There is real peer reviewed articles who measure the sun’s output and Severian gave you them. You dismissed them with a wave of the hand. Good JOB!!! You did due diligence. Climatologists don’t deal with sun output. They deal with “computer models” that turn out to be inaccurate every time. Truly. They and you can FEEL and AGREE with each other and FEEL some more but if you don’t accept input from others then how open minded are you truly. Can I refer to you as CM Bob (Close Minded Bob?) Or will you be different from here on out? EVERY ONE HERE has seen the climatologists’ reports and articles that you show us. It is pushed on us by the dominant media. We are open minded and have considered the input. It is part of a larger scale of data. History over 1,000’s of years as Severian wrote about. Sun output. Ocean output. Contradicting evidence from other scientific points of view that climatologists don’t even consider (and neither does CM Bob).

CM Bob wrote dishonestly, “But if you’d rather scrap 100 years of scientific discovery”

No Bob. Nobody is asking to scrap 100 years of scientific discovery. We are all asking you to consider other fields and you call them crackpot because Bob is not only close minded but judgmental. CMJ Bob? OK. Really I’m having fun and you can do the name calling to. I don’t mind. The wit is intended to get you to think about what you are doing. But you can close your mind to that to.

CMJ Bob wrote, “constantly stroking each other.

Because we respect each other because we are a tag team of very intelligent people with great common sense. We’ve been around. We’ve debated greater than you. You CMJ Bob need to step up to the plate better with more due diligence.

CMJ Bob wrote, “Do you call each other up for mutual support when one of you faces a challenge?”

Nah. We are tough guys. Never even met each other. Each of us are great in our fields. I’ve read 1,000’s of pages of articles during and since my conversion from liberalism in 1991. We aren’t small potatoes yet we aren’t getting each of our sentences peer reviewed Little CMJ Bob humor there.

ST wrote, “I can assure you, a â€˜coordinated effort’ isn’t needed by any of them. â€“ST”

Same to you sis !

Lorica asked, “In the world of science it is well known that the earth has been warmer than it is today, so my question is what happened then?? ”

Um. I’ll ingore the question. I don’t deal with substance buddy. $\:d/$

Lorica affirmed what I’ve been saying by writing, “Since the majority of the science you linked to refuses to take into account the fossil record,”

Wup. I gotta go to my 8:00 meeting. Se ya’ll later
Severian says:

January 22, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Well, I see there’s nothing new from Bob. And on the same day the headlines are reading “Did Scientists Oversell Global Warming.” Heh.

Notice the ever changing standards: First it’s “No one dissents, everyone agrees.” Then when shown that’s not true, it’s “The people who disagree aren’t scientists and are hacks.” When shown that scientists disagree, even climatologists, it’s “They’re paid off by the oil companies and there are no peer reviewed articles doubting AGW.” Then when shown peer reviewed papers, it’s “There aren’t enough of them.” When it starts cooling what will be the excuse then? “I never believed it” will probably be it.

Sigh. This type of “argument” is typical of liberals. No WMDs at all, then when found, they are old and “safe” etc.

At any rate, I read an interesting article for those of you who’d like to read it:

Is there linkage between increasing solar activity and increasing global temperatures?
sanity says:

January 22, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Sev states:
First it’s “No one dissents, everyone agrees.”

You will assimilate and think like we tell you to think or we will yank your credentials, so says the Weather Channel.

In the Weather Channel’s world, its ..think like we tell you too, or else.

Why are Global warming alamrists so threatened by debate and different ideas? Al Gore, can you answer that pleae? Al? Did anyone see where Al Gore went? We can’t seem to find him when it comes to having a debate of ideas and theories………How Inconvienent.
Severian says:

January 22, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.” – Al Gore of Borg
Baklava says:

January 22, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Algore changes his name to Bob.
Bob says:

January 23, 2007 at 1:39 am

What perfect timing . . . I knew the peanut gallery would appreciate this latest news from AP:

WASHINGTON – Human-caused global warming is here — visible in the air, water and melting ice — and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

“The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,” said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. “The evidence … is compelling.”

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: “This isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes “a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate,” said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.

That report will feature an “explosion of new data” on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.

. . .

Global warming is “happening now, it’s very obvious,” said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. “When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it’s pretty much a no-brainer.”

Look for an “iconic statement” — a simple but strong and unequivocal summary — on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.

The February report will have “much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that’s taken place,” Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.

An early version of the ever-changing draft report said “observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming.”

And the early draft adds: An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation.”

The world’s global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.

The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.

Did you knuckleheads get that? This report was compiled by 600 scientists, and then reviewed by 600 more. What puny scraps of propaganda can you offer in the face of this? What will JunkScience.com have to say? What about the hockey stick? We’ll anxiously await your personal inspection and independent analysis of their data when the document arrives, Severian. Don’t let us down.
Bob says:

January 23, 2007 at 11:37 pm

What’s wrong, did the news about the IPCC’s new report demoralize you guys or something? Severian, are you hard at work crunching the numbers for your rebuttal? Did you catch the part about how the report has 1,600 pages? That must represent an awful lot of man-hours of research. How long will it take, Severian, for you and the two guys at JunkScience.com to come up with an equivalent body of work to prove them all wrong? You’re way deep in the hole. You’d better get busy.

By the way, I also read the following today:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A diverse group of U.S.-based businesses and leading environmental organizations today called on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The group said any delay in action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future.

This unprecedented alliance, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), consists of market leaders Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources, along with four leading non-governmental organizations — Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and World Resources Institute.

At a news conference today at the National Press Club, USCAP issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. The solutions-based report, titled A Call for Action, lays out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection.

My, my, my. The consensus just keeps getting stronger, and you guys seem to be stuck farther and farther out to sea on a rapidly melting ice berg.
Great White Rat says:

January 24, 2007 at 12:22 am

Of course, it’s entirely possible that these USACP companies are pushing the government for new envrionmental regulations solely for the purpose of crippling their competitors and increasing their own market share. Color me skeptical.

There’s something fishy about any group that calls for increased government regulation while simultaneously claiming to lay out a blueprint for “mandatory, economy-wide, market-driven” controls. Whenever you hear that, your BS detector should be going off loud and long.
Bob says:

January 24, 2007 at 12:35 am

There is precedent, GWR, for some environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council to work with industry on sincere efforts to reduce pollution. If I’m not mistaken, they did a collaboration with McDonalds to get rid of the old styrofoam “clam shell” containers in favor of paper and cardboard. It’s the kind of win-win, “market-based” approach than should warm the hearts of conservatives and liberals alike.
Bob says:

January 24, 2007 at 12:55 am

Correction: It was the Environmental Defense Fund, not the NRDC, who worked with McDonalds.
Severian says:

January 24, 2007 at 8:01 am

Bob’s masters have spoken again. To whit, I point you a the following:

Stephan Schneider â€¦ teaches at Stanford Universityâ€¦.” and is the author of several IPCC chapters.
“.. to get the public’s attention we have to draw up shocking scenarios using simple and dramatic statements. Possible doubts should only marginally be considered. Everyone needs to find the right balance between honesty and effectivity.” (23)

So, one of the main authors of the last IPCC report admits that lying is OK if it’s for a “good” cause, and you still want to believe everything they say without question. The pro-AGW people are getting more and more aggressive as the science underlying this gets shakier and shakier. But not to worry, people like Bob will believe no matter what, and help them push their socialist utopian ideals of massive wealth redistribution on us all. God help us.
Severian says:

January 24, 2007 at 8:05 am

And again Bob, when you can come back with one intelligent question about the actual science instead of bleating it’s consensus it has to be right, then you’ll be worth talking with. Of if you address the question of if they are so confident of their science why are they trying to silence discussion and debate? What are they afraid of, there may be something you say worth listening to.

You really do a parrot impression remarkably well. Try coming up with an original thought, I know it’s hard for liberals, but try it, you’ll find it liberating.
Severian says:

January 24, 2007 at 8:11 am

Did you catch the part about how the report has 1,600 pages?

In Bob’s simple, untrained mind, that must mean something! You’re judging a not yet released report and assigning it a lot of credibility just because of it’s size?!?

Early in my career I had a document sent back to me for more work because it wasn’t “long” enough. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it had to be much longer to both 1) look “serious and scientifically sound” and 2) because that way fewer people would read anything other than the abstract and conclusion and there’d be less arguments about it that way. So, color me unimpressed.
Severian says:

January 24, 2007 at 8:20 am

And one last comment, the IPCC, brought to you by the UN, the same agency that brought you the Oil For Food scandal and child sex rings around the world. Yeah, that’s credibility for you.

Makes me wonder, if Bob’s such a believer, what has he done to reduce his carbon footprint? Stopped driving so much? Turned his thermostat settings to save energy? Or is he like most liberals, and expects the government to force others to do it?
Bob says:

January 24, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Severian likes to pretend that nit-picking individual bits of data, like Mann’s original “hockey stick” chart, or questioning the motives of a researcher here or there because of one unclear or ambiguous statement they once made, while ignoring the overwhelming body of independent data collected by other scientists that supports global warming, is either an honest or typical way of disproving a scientific theory.

This is the same approach that people who deny the theory of evolution often take. Scientists are constantly questioning and refining the details of the theory, even while completely accepting all of its basic premises. For example, does evolution proceed in a continuous or temporally punctuated manner? These are honest questions that real scientists ask, and their motive is to try to come as close to the truth as possible. But hacks with dishonest political agendas often use this quest for truth against the science, by trying to claim that questioning and refining the details means that the basic premise is in doubt. I refer back to the article from Science, where the author states:

Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

Severian’s excruciatingly swollen ego notwithstanding, this debate is not about him or me. It’s about the overwhelming body of data, and the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world who work in this field, who are convinced that human-caused global warming is a serious problem. Try as they might, the tremendously powerful forces who want to deny the reality of global warming can do nothing more than nit-pick the science. Despite their enormous political power and financial resources, they have been unable to fill their own 1,600 page volume with data and analysis to rebut the scientific consensus. Since they can’t win on a playing field where only facts matter, they have tried to do an end-run around the science by mounting a huge PR campaign to create their own fictional world where facts don’t matter.

I have to say, Severian, that I think you’re flailing here. I think all of the personal attacks against me—as if it mattered or I really cared—are the kind of thing that an angry and threatened person does. You’re backed into a corner and trying to hide your insecurity behind a faÃ§ade of arrogance and bluster. As I said, you have a lot of catching up to do to make any kind of case for what your side is trying to claim. You really need to get going here, and the personal attacks are just wasting time. If the world needs your undivided talents as much as you seem to think it does, then you’re letting us all down.
Severian says:

January 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

– – –

Sincerely
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

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

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

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

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Bob says:

January 24, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Severian, you had to expect this. The following is the list of contributors to the IPCC 2001 report (apologies to Sister Toldjah for wasting her bandwidth. Sister he made me do it, I swear!). Severian, we’ve beaten on each other long enough and it’s reaching an absurd degree. Howzabout we call a truce and consider this topic beaten like a dead horse? It’s been fun — really. I’ll give you the last word to insult me some more. Best Regards . . .
–Bob

Annex A. Authors and Expert Reviewers

Argentina
Daniel Bouille Fundecion Bariloche
Marcelo Cabido IMBIV, University of Cordoba
Osvaldo F. Canziani Co-Chair, WGII
Rodolfo Carcavallo Department of Entomology
Jorge O. Codignotto Laboratorio Geologia y Dinamica Costera
Martin de Zuviria Aeroterra S.A.
Sandra Myrna Diaz Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologia Vegetal
Jorge Frangi Universidad Nacional de la Plata
Hector Ginzo Instituto de Neurobiologia
Osvaldo Girardin Fundacion Bariloche
Carlos Labraga Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, Centro Nactional Patagonico
Gabriel Soler Fundacion Instituto Latinoamericano de Politicas Sociales (ILAPS)
Walter Vargas University of Buenos Aires – IEIMA
Ernesto F. Viglizzo PROCISUR/INTO/CONICET

Australia
Susan Barrell Bureau of Meteorology
Bryson Bates CSIRO
Ian Carruthers Australian Greenhouse Office
Habiba Gitay Australian National University
John A. Church CSIRO Division of Oceanography
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg The University of Queensland
Roger Jones CSIRO Atmospheric Research
Bryant McAvaney Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
Chris Mitchell CSIRO Atmosphere Research
Ian Noble Australian National University
Barrie Pittock CSIRO (Climate Impact Group)
Andy Reisinger Ministry for the Environment
B. Soderbaum Greenhouse Policy Office, Australian Greenhouse Office
Greg Terrill Australian Greenhouse Office
Kevin Walsh Principal Research Scientist CSIRO Atmospheric Research
John Zillman Vice-Chair, WGI

Austria
Renate Christ IPCC Secretariat
Helmut Hojesky Federal Ministry for Environment
K. Radunsky Federal Environment Agency

Bangladesh
Q.K. Ahmad Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad

Barbados
Leonard Nurse Coastal Zone Management Unit

Belgium
Philippe Huybrechts Vrije Universiteit Brussel
C. Vinckier Department of Chemistry, KULeuven
R. Zander University of Liege

Benin
Epiphane Dotou Ahlonsou Service MÃ©tÃ©orologique National
Michel Boko Universite de Bourgogne
Annex A Authors and Expert Reviewers

Bosnia
Permanent Mission of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Botswana
Pauline O. Dube University of Botswana

Brazil
Gylvan Meira Filho Vice-Chair, IPCC
Jose Roberto Moreira Biomass User Network (BUN )

Canada
Brad Bass Environment Canada
James P. Bruce Canadian Climate Program Board
Margo Burgess Natural Resources Canada
Wenjun Chen Natural Resources Canada
Jing Chen University of Toronto
Stewart J. Cohen Environment Canada
Patti Edwards Environment Canada
David Etkin Environment Canada
Darren Goetze Environment Canada
J. Peter Hall Canadian Forest Service
H. Hengeveld Environment Canada
Pamela Kertland Natural Resources Canada
Abdel Maaroud Environment Canada
Joan Masterton Environment Canada
Chris McDermott Environment Canada
Brian Mills Environment Canada
Linda Mortsch Environment Canada
Tad Murty Baird and Associates Coastal Engineers
Paul Parker University of Waterloo
John Robinson University of British Columbia
Hans-Holger Rogner University of Victoria
Daniel Scott Environment Canada
Sharon Smith Natural Resources Canada
Barry Smit University of Guelph
John Stone Vice-Chair, WGI
Tana Lowen Stratton Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Roger Street Environment Canada
Eric Taylor Natural Resources Canada
G. Daniel Williams Environment Canada (retired)

Chile
E. Basso Independent Consultant

China
Du Bilan China Institute for Marine Development Strategy
Z. Chen China Meteorological Administration
Liu Chunzhen Hydrological Forecasting & Water Control Center
Zhou Dadi Energy Research Institute
Qin Dahe China Meteorological Administration
Xiaosu Dai IPCC WGI TSU
Lin Erda Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science
Mingshan Su Tsinghua University
Yihui Ding Co-Chair, WGI
Guangsheng Zhou Chinese Academy of Sciences
Z.C. Zhao National Climate Center

Cuba
Ramon Pichs-Madruga Vice-Chair, WGIII
A.G. Suarez Cuban Environmental Agency

Czech Republic
Jan Pretel Vice-Chair, WGII

Denmark
Jesper Gundermann Danish Energy Agency
Kirsten Halsnaes Riso International Laboratory
Erik Rasmussen Danish Energy Agency
Martin Stendel Danish Meteorological Institute

Finland
Timothy Carter Finnish Environment Institute
P. Heikinheimo Ministry of Environment
Raino Heino Finnish Meteorological Institute
Pekka E. Kauppi University of Helsinki
R. Korhonen VTT Energy
A. Lampinen University of JyvÃ¤skyla
I. Savolainen VTT Energy

France
Olivier Boucher Universite de Lille I
Marc Darras Gaz de France
Jane Ellis OECD
Jean-Charles Hourcade CIRED/CNRS
J.C. Morlot Environment Department
M. Petit Ecole Polytechnique

Gambia
B.E. Gomez Department of Water Resources
M. Njie Department of Water Resources

Germany
Heinz-Jurgen Ahlgrimm Institute for Technology & Biosystems
Rosemarie Benndorf Umweltbundesamt
Peter Burschel Technische Universitat Munchen
Ulrich Cubasch Max Planck Institut fÃ¼r Meteorologie
U. Fuentes German Advisory Council on Global Change
Joanna HouseMax Planck Inst. Biogeochemie
Jucundus Jacobeit Universitaet Wuerzburg
Eberhard Jochem Vice-Chair, WGIII
Harald Kohl Federal Ministry of the Environment
Petra Mahrenholz Federal Environmental Agency of Germany
I. Colin Prentice Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
C. le QuÃ©rÃ© Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
Sarah Raper University of East Anglia
Ferenc Toth Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Manfred Treber Germanwatch
R. Sartorius Umweltbundesamt
Michael Weber Ludwig-Maximilians UniversitÃ¤t MÃ¼nchen
Gerd-Rainer Weber Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenberghaus

Hungary
G. Koppany University of Szeged
Halldor Thorgeirsson Ministry for the Environment

India
Murari Lal Indian Institute of Technology
Rajendra K. Pachauri Tata Energy Research Institute
N.H. Ravindranath Indian Institute of Sciences
Priyadarshi Shukla Indian Institute of Management
Leena Srivastava Tata Energy Research Institute

Indonesia
R.T.M. Sutamihardja Vice-Chair, WGIII

Israel
Simon Krichak Tel Aviv University

Italy
Filippo Giorgi Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP)
Annarita Mariotti ENEA Climate Section

Japan
Kazuo Asakura Central Research Institute (CRIEPI)
Noriyuki Goto University of Tokyo, Komaba
Mariko Handa Organization for Landscape and Urban Greenery Technology Development
Hideo Harasawa Social and Environmental Systems Division
Yasuo Hosoya Tokyo Electric Power Company
Y. Igarashi Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Takeshi Imai The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
M. Inoue Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Hisashi Kato Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Naoki Matsuo Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI)
Hisayoshi Morisugi Tohoku University
Tsuneyuki Morita National Institute for Environmental Studies
Shinichi Nagata Environment Agency
S. Nakagawa Japan Meteorological Agency
Yoshiaki Nishimura Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Ichiro Sadamori Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI)
Akihiko Sasaki National Institute of Public Health
Shojiro Sato Chuba Electric Power Co.
A. Takeuchi Japan Meteorological Agency
Kanako Tanaka Global Industrial and Social Progress
Tomihiro Taniguchi Vice-Chair, IPCC

Kenya
Richard S. Odingo Vice-Chair, WGIII
Kingiri Senelwa Moi University

Malawi
Paul Desanker University of Virginia

Mexico
Gustavo Albin Permanent Representative Mission of Mexico

Morocco
Abdelkader Allali Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fishing
Abdalah Mokssit Centre National du Climat et de Recherchco Meteorologiques

Netherlands
Alphonsus P.M. Baede Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)
T.A. Buishand Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
W.L. Hare Greenpeace International
Catrinus J. Jepma University of Groningen
E. Koekkoek Ministry of Housing, Spacial Planning and the Environment
Rik Leemans National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection
K. McKullen Greenpeace International
Bert Metz Co-Chair, WGIII
Leo Meyer Ministry of the Environment
Maresa Oosterman Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
M.B.A.M. Scheffers National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management
Rob Swart Head, WGIII TSU
H.M. ten Brink ECN
Aad P. van Ulden Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
J. Verbeek Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management

New Zealand
Jon Barnett Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury
Vincent Gray Climate Consultant
Wayne Hennessy Coal Research Association of New Zealand, Inc.
Piers Maclaren NZ Forest Research Institute
Martin Manning Vice-Chair, WGII
Helen Plume Ministry for the Environment
A. Reisinger Ministry for the Environment
J. Salinger National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA)
Ralph Sims Massey University

Niger
Garba Goudou Dieudonne Office of the Prime Minister

Nigeria
Sani Sambo Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University

Norway
Torgrim Aspjell The Norwegian Pollution Control Authorities
Oyvind Christophersen Ministry of Environment
Eirik J. Forland Norwegian Meteorological Institute
S. Gornas University of Bergen
Jarle Inge Holten Terrestrial Ecology Research
Snorre Kverndokk Frischsenteret/Frisch Centre
A. Moene The Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Audun Rossland The Norwegian Pollution Control Authorities
Nils R. Saelthun Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration
Tom Segalstad University of Oslom Norway
S. Sundby Institute of Marine Research
Kristian Tangen The Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Oman
Mohammed bin Ali Al-Hakmani Ministry of Regional Municipalities, Environment & Water Resources

Pakistan
Tariq Banuri Sustainable Development Policy Institute

Peru
Eduardo Calvo Vice-Chair, WGIII
Nadia Gamboa Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru

Phillipines
Lewis H. Ziska International Rice Research Institute

Poland
Jan Dobrowolski Goetel’s School of Environmental Protection & Engineering
Zbyszek Kundzewicz Polish Academy of Sciences
Miroslaw Mietus Institute of Meteorology & Water Management
A. Olecka National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management
M. Sadowski National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management
Wojciech Suchorzewski Warsaw University of Technology

Romania
Vasile Cuculeanu National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology
Adriana Marica National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology

Russia
Yurij Anokhin Institute of Global Climate & Ecology
Oleg Anisimov State Hydrological Institute
Igor Bashmakov Centre for Energy Efficiency (CENEF)
Igor Karol Main Geophysical Observatory
Alla Tsyban Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
Yuri Izrael Vice-Chair, IPCC

Senegal
Alioune Ndiaye Vice-Chair, WGII
Sierra Leone
Ogunlade R. Davidson Co-chair, WGIII
Slovak Republic
Milan Lapin Comenius University
South Africa
Gerrie Coetzee Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Bruce Hewitson University of Capetown
Steve Lennon Eskom
Robert J. Scholes CSIR

Spain
Sergio Alonso University of the Balearic Islands
Francisco Ayala-Carcedo Geomining Technological Institute of Spain
Luis Balairon National Meteorological Institute
Felix Hernandez CSIC
Don Antonio Labajo Salazar Government of Spain
Maria-Carmen Llasat Botija University of Barcelona
Josep Penuelas Center for Ecological Research & Forestry Applications
Ana Yaber University, Complutense of Madrid

Sri Lanka
Mohan Munasinghe Vice-Chair, WGIII
B. Punyawardena Department of Agriculture

Sudan
Nagmeldin Elhassan Higher Coucil for Environment & Natural Resources

Sweden
Marianne Lillieskold Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Ulf Molau University of Gothenburg
Nils-Axel Morner Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Stockholm University
Markku Rummukainen Swedish Meterorological and Hydrological Institute

Switzerland
Christof Appenzeller Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (MetroSwiss)
Fortunat Joos Vice-Chair, WGI
Herbert Lang Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH)
JosÃ© Romero Office Federal de l’Environnement, des Forets et du Paysage
T. Stocker University of Bern

Tanzania
M.J. Mwandosya Centre for Energy, Environment, Science, and Technology
Buruhani S. Nyenzi Vice-Chair, WGI

United Kingdom
Nigel Arnell University of Southampton
C. Baker Natural Environment Research Council
Terry Barker University of Cambridge
K. G. Begg University of Surrey
S.A. Boehmer-Christiansen University of Hull
Richard Courtney The Libert
K. Deyes Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Thomas E. Downing Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford
Caroline Fish Global Atmosphere Division
Chris Folland Met Office, Hadley Centre
Jonathan Gregory Hadley Climate Research Centre
Steve Gregory Forestry Commission
David Griggs Head, WG-I TSU
Joanna Haigh Imperial College
M. Harley English Nature
Susan Haseldine Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
John Houghton Co-Chair, WG-I
Mike Hulme University of East Anglia
Michael Jefferson World Energy Council
Cathy Johnson IPCC, Working Group I
Sari Kovats London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
David Mansell-Moullin International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA)
Anil Markandya University of Bath
A. McCulloch ICI Chemicals & Polymers Limited
Gordon McFadyen Global Atmospheric Division Deparment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
A.J. McMichael London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Aubrey Meyer Global Commons Institute
John Mitchell Hadley Center
Martin Parry Jackson Environment Institute
J.M. Penman Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
S. Raper University of East Anglia
Keith Shine Department of Meteorology, University of Reading
P. Singleton Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Peter Smith IACR-Rothamsted
P. Smithson University of Sheffield
Peter Thorne School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
P. van der Linden Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
David Warrilow Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Philip L. Woodworth Bidston Observatory

United States
Dilip Ahuja National Institute of Advanced Studies
Dan Albritton NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
Jeffrey S. Amthor Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Peter Backlund Office of Science and Technology Policy/Environment Division
Lee Beck U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Leonard Bernstein IPIECA
Daniel Bodansky U.S. Department of State
Rick Bradley US Department of Energy
James L. Buizer National Oceanic & Amtospheric Administration
John Christy University of Alabama
Susan Conard Office of Science and Technology Policy/Environment Division
Curt Covey Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Benjamin DeAngelo U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Dickinson University of Arizona
David Dokken University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Rayola Dougher American Petroleum Institute
William Easterling Pennsylvania State University
Jerry Elwood Department of Enegry
Paul R. Epstein Harvard Medical School
Paul D. Farrar Naval Oceanographic Office
Howard Feldman American Petroleum Institute
Josh Foster NOAA Office of Global Programs
Laurie Geller National Research Council
Michael Ghil University of California, Los Angeles
Vivien Gornitz Columbia University
Kenneth Green Reason Public Policy Institute
David Harrison National Economic Research Associates
David D. Houghton University of Wisconsin-Madison
Malcolm Hughes University of Arizona
Stanley Jacobs Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
Henry D. Jacoby Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Judson Jaffe Council of Economic Advisers
Steven M. Japar Ford Motor Company
Russell O. Jones American Petroleum Institute
Sally Kane NOAA
T. Karl NOAA National Climatic Data Center
Charles Keller IGPP.SIO.UCSD
Haroon Kheshgi Exxon Research & Engineering Company
Ann Kinzig Arizona State University
Maureen T. Koetz Nuclear Energy Institute
Rattan Lal Ohio State Universtiy
Chris Landsea NOAA AOML/Hurricane Research Division
Neil Leary Head, WGII TSU
Sven B. Lundstedt The Ohio State University
Anthony Lupo University of Missouri – Columbia
Michael C. MacCracken U.S. Global Change Research Program
James J. McCarthy Co-Chair, WGII
Gerald Meehl NCAR
Robert Mendelsohn Yale University
Patrick Michaels University of Virginia
Evan Mills Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
William Moomaw The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
Berrien Moore University of New Hampshire
James Morison University of Washington
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta USEP/NHEERL/WED
Camille Parmesan University of Texas
J.A. Patz Johns Hopkins University
Joyce Penner University of Michigan
Roger A. Pielke Colorado State University
Michael Prather University of California Irvine
Lynn K. Price Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
V. Ramaswamy NOAA
Robert L. Randall The RainForest ReGeneration Institute
Richard Richels Electric Power Research Institute
David Rind National Aeronautics and Space Agency
Catriona Rogers U.S. Global Change Research Program
Matthias Ruth University of Maryland
Jayant Sathaye Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Michael Schlesinger University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
Stephen Schneider Stanford University
Michael J. Scott Battelle Pacific Northwest Nat’l Laboratory
Roger Sedjo Resources for the Future
Walter Short National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Joel B. Smith Stratus Consulting Inc.
Robert N. Stavins John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Ron Stouffer US Dept of Commerce/NOAA
T. Talley Office of Global Change, U.S. Department of State
Kevin Trenberth NCAR
Edward Vine Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Henry Walker U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Watson Chair, IPCC
Howard Wesoky Federal Aviation Administration
John P. Weyant Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University
Tom Wilbanks Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Venezuela
Armando Ramirez Rojas Vice-Chair, WGI

Zimbabwe
Chris Magadza University of Zimbabwe
M.C. Zinyowera MSU Zimbabwe Gvt
Sister Toldjah says:

January 25, 2007 at 9:01 am

Bob, I think you put too much stock in the IPCC, which has proved itself to be untrustworthy and duplicitous (emphasis added):

A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth’s climate, released “The Science of Climate Change 1995,” its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.

This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules–a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel’s actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

That was from the mid-90s. How can we trust that the same tactics haven’t been used again today? Furthermore, why would the IPCC feel the need to do such a thing in the first place?
Severian says:

January 25, 2007 at 9:41 am

It gets even worse ST:

Update (p.m.): If you’re wondering about this procedure which, to my knowledge, is unprecedented in public commission reporting, here’s what IPCC procedures (section 4) say about Technical Report acceptance:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 is to enable them to make any “necessary” adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the “necessary” adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.

IPCC insiders should not be allowed to change a comma of the WG1 Report after Feb 2, 2007 to “ensure consistency” with the Summary. If the two are inconsistent, let the chips fall where they may.

Link

So, they are up to their old tricks again. Also, they closed off acceptance of papers before the recent ones published showing that the oceans have been cooling for the past 2-3 years, and deliberately did not go back and incorporate that data as it completely destroys their model based ramblings.

But talking to people like Bob is a waste of time, he is a fundamentalist on this issue, with a completely closed mind, as sadly so many others are. Unlike most of us, these people actually seem to enjoy it when people pee on their heads and tell them it’s raining. Hopefully, though, the links and information in this thread will prove enlightening to more open minded and rational people, which is the entire reason I kept posting. It was obvious from the start that Bob would never actually read or think about this for himself, you can only hope that the thread will prove enlightening to others.

Having sat on peer review panels, and panels choosing which articles are to be accepted for publication, I am fully aware of how political and pet theory biases can impact what gets published. I have over 20 published scientific and technical papers and have co-authored two books, so I don’t need others to “explain” the system to me, especially people who have absolutely no experience with this.

This article is an excellent look at the kind of mindset that the environmental extremists have and which leads to the kind of inane overreaction we see on a daily basis out of them.

Comments are closed.