U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

400 out of what 400,000?? 4 million?? 40 million??

why is this news?

and prominent scientists?? why?? because a majority were chosen as state climatologists???

since when is a political appointment going to most qualified candidate???

easy to read between the lines when its in bold print

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

It's also unlikely to be 400. A look at their list seems to show no accounting for duplicates (i.e., you can make the list as a separate scientist, as a someone who signed a letter, as someone who signed another letter, as a supporter of a website, as someone quoted out of context, and if you're lucky all 5!). There's a huge amount of name recycling in names from the 60-person letter to a canadian agency and the 100 person letter to Bali. And, of course, many of those names are from people who are not climate scientiets. And the word "emeritus" is prominent among those listed. But mostly, if James Inhofe said it, why, you know it must be right.

“The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up,†Inhofe said.
“The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction.â€
​

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand, I hope to find time to follow those sublinks, but I've had my hopes raised before that AGW is not real, and each time they've been dashed.

Several times people point out that the climate has changed in the past so the current climate change is nothing new. I even read one person some time back arguing that glaciers have always melted and calved, as if this was something new and stunning. Everybody knows the climate is not static (and that icebergs are a seasonal phenomenon), the question is, is it changing this time for a different reason, and will the change be too fast for society to adapt? Nature will still exist, maybe with another mass extinction, but there will be life on this planet for a good long time yet. Just maybe not a thriving civilization.

It's also worth noting that even these dissenters don't always agree, as in these examples that were listed back-to-back, where the British guy says there's no basis for AGW and the Chinese scientists say there is, but just not to the degree generally stated:

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Richard Courtney is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry). I can't imagine why someone who works for the coal industry would not believe in global warming.

Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian's article is just the sort of "dissident" article that is supposed to be censored by the peer-review process. It was first published online in July 2006, so it's not particularly new for 2007. Their paper isn’t about physics or climate science, but about a mathematical analysis of temperature time series.

In another of their 2006 articles (see the conclusion at the end), Lin Zhen-Shan concludes "The warming or cooling are in amount or size of sun spot. The sun will enter inactive period in the coming decades, the earth temperature will drop."

So I'll go ahead and remain unswayed by this list of 400.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

gee... we hash this out over and over....

i think the real question is not if we are causing GW, its can the Earth continue to absorb the billions of tons of CO2 we pump into the air we breathe?

can our lungs survive it?
can our children grow up to be healthy breathing it?
what about the other particulates and toxins associated with burning fossil fuels?

its sad that only the anticipated extreme short term destruction of our way of life is the only thing we choose to discuss while long term slow decay of our atmosphere does not warrant discussion because a few tens of million people getting a major respiratory disease is not important enough

i am ashamed

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Oddly enough, every one of those 400 scientists had the same handwriting. Among the "prominent" scientists to sign were Mike Easter, Jim Nazium, and Justin Tyme.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Global Warming / Climate Change is a natural occurrence that only humans with big enough ego's could possibly think they are the cause of it.

That doesn't mean I'm not all for cleaner fuels and taking care of the environment. I'm actually all for that. We need to cut this crap with burning fossil fuels for power. We need an alternative that is not only better for the environment, but cheaper, easier, and all in all - CLEANER.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

The report was put together by Marc Morano, known for being the first reporter to report the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" story. He's a good fiction writer. His big dumb list is full of duplicates and weathermen and crackpots and/or people who don't actually dispute AGW:

For example, Morano quotes Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Centre offering this banal statement of the obvious: ""The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate." Morano, however, neglects to mention that Dr. Friis-Christensen says, quite clearly, that change is solar radiation CANNOT be demonstrated to have caused the climate change of recent years. In fact, he says: "There is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases."​

Another "prominent scientist" is listed as "Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean, who, by his own self-described webpage, is a computer consultant and travel photographer. No background in climate science.​

Another "prominent scientist" is listed as "Chemist Frank Britton" who wrote his condemnation "in a July 28, 2007 article in the Pasadena Star." Well. Letter to the editor/opinion piece, actually. At the end of his published piece (no longer available on the Star News web site but archived here) he lists his impressive credentials: Frank Britton has a degree in chemistry from Cal State L.A. He lives in Pasadena. Yessiree, an undergraduate degree in chemistry does a "prominent scientist" make. No background in climate science.​

Another "prominent scientist" is a retired professor, electronics engineer "Dr. John Brignell is a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor of Northampton Engineering College." He's such a prominent scientist, he self-published both of his books on sale at Amazon.co.uk. No background in climate science.​

Another "prominent scientist" is "Retired Air Force atmospheric scientist Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma" who published his anti-global warming tract on the website of the TWIN C I T I E S C R E A T I O N S C I E N C E A S S O C I A T I O N. Dr. Blick's current book on sale at Amazon is the Scientific Analysis of Genesis in which he concludes "concludes that scientific evidence supports the Genesis account of special creation." Oh, and he's also listed elsewhere as: Edward F. Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, Retired, University of Oklahoma. So he's an oilman and a creationist. Neat!​

Another "prominent scientist" is Iowa State Climatologist Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State University. The 400 list cherry-picks some quotes to make him a skeptic. The same article the 400-list cherry picks also states, " 'The point that Taylor makes with his ozone story is not, "Hey people, the ozone hole is our fault, so global warming probably is, too," but rather, "Hey people, human beings have cooperated and stopped the ozone hole from getting worse, so we just might be able to stop global warming from getting worse, too.' " More clearly, he states his position on his website: The only responsible computation (to date to my knowledge) of the contribution people have made to climate change is 5% of the observed change. Bankers care about 5%, we should too.-- Elwynn. So basically, he neither denies AGW or that we should be taking action. And hey, what a coincidence--he has a background in climate science.​

That's just me choosing a spot in the list and working some of the names. ​

This big dumb list is simply a piece of blog-propanganda, intended to be circulated through email and never checked. Congratulations Amped! You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker! I also know of some swampland in Florda you might find enticing...

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

OK, the options are two: we believe the 400 and do nothing about global warming since we aren't causing it, or we doubt the 400 and do something because we are causing it, and it's serious.

The consequences of doing nothing could potentially lead to our demise, or, at best, radically change how we live; the consequences of doing something can avert total disaster and allow us to survive.

I'm sorry, but I think only an idiot would elect to do nothing. I sure don't see much of an argument here.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

I'd have to agree with you 100%

In addition to your argument, there is really no disadvantage to curbing pollution. Less pollution means less allergens, less 'bad air' days, less smog, etc. I think only an idiot would want to keep polluting when there are cleaner options around.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

you are right...unfortunately, the idiots control a huge part of the financial structuring of the US

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Whether or not we are the cause of the climate change (we're not), we still need to find a cleaner, renewable, cheaper fuel source. It is NECESSARY.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Alright. That's it. Everyone out of the pool. desynch has chimed in
with the facts, and we can all quit arguing about it.

I'm glad to see you're so sure although I bet I could waterboard you until you said the exact opposite.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:

The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

The following companiesagree with the consensus:

ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo

In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:

A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc

I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Brewski-

You are not going to convince GW critics by the size of your laundry list....nor should any be swayed.

 

Re: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 200

Spiritually driven belief system?

You have got to be kidding!

That's rich.