400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Bunk

Fri, 2007-12-21 22:19Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Bunk

Climate change denial lives - though not nearly to the extent that Swiftboater Marc Morano would have you believe in his latest overstatement about “prominent scientists” who dispute man-made global warming.

Morano's list of “over 400” alleged climate quibblers includes the usual deniers for hire Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Christoper Monckton, PR people who have no credibility on issues scientific and who each have a handsome record of saying things widely and demonstrably at variance with the truth.

There is also a group of second-order “scientists,” who are not scientists at all.

There's “Dr. Richard Courtney, a British coal journal editor whose PhD is rumoured to have issued from a Crackerjack box. There's Stephen McIntyre, the one-time mining promoter and amateur statistician who has earned unending fame by constantly attacking the same, remarkably resilient climate reconstruction.

There's the climate quibbler's latest star, “Dr. John Mclean,” apparently another amateur who has neither a PhD nor any specific training in climate science. One might also legitimately question whether a panel of TV weather forecasters actually qualify as “prominent scientists.”

Finally, Morano includes a group of legitimate scientists who are not deniers at all, but who are often quoted out of context.

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.”

Giving credit where it's due, Morano is a tireless and creative writer of fiction.

His long screed on this occasion links liberally back to his early bouts of disinformation, making it appear as though he actually has legitimate sources for many of the points that he makes. And this list of 400 includes many names that are new to the DeSmogBlog - people whose qualifications and true positions are difficult to ascertain four days before Christmas.

But given the quality and credibility of Morano's previous work, it seems fair to assume that this, too, is an ideologically driven document with no merit whatsoever, either as a piece of research of, even more laughably, a reliable comment on science.

Comments

Paul S/G, you have obviously not read the North Report, only the cherry picked parts available on CA and other right wing sites.

Your statements are completely wrong.

Here are some pertinent passages from the report which show that both M&M and Wegman were wrong in their conclusions and arguments.

“As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press)”.

“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900”.

References can be found on the North Report web page.

Here is a quote which says that to make the best selection of which statistical method to use requires some knowledge of the underlying science, which neither M&M nor Wegman possessed:

“However, the higher-variance variables tend to make correspondingly higher contributions to the principal components, so the decision whether to equalize variances or not should be based on the scientific considerations of the climate information represented in each of the proxies”.

Note that the method MBH used has been used since at least 1971 to generate paleoclimate data.

Here are further references which support the North Report and disagree with Wegman:

“However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature (P. Huybers: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 20, L20705, Wahl and Ammann: Climatic Change, Volume 85, 33-69, 2007)

So Paul, I have no disagreement with the North Report and it supports all of MBH’s conclusions and methods except for their statement that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.” The reason (from the North Report) “because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales”.

Note: this does not mean that 1998 was cooler than in the MWP, only that the data for that period could not be resolved on a yearly or decadal basis.

Ian Forrester

LOL. That's the biggest claim of MBH, that the 1990's are likely the warmest in a millenium. Both North and Wegman state that claim can not be supported.

As Dr. North was quoted as saying when asked if he disputed the findings of Dr. Wegman:

"We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report."

The "Warmest in a 1000 Years!!" claim was the main propaganda value of MBH's work and both Wegman and North state the data doesn't support it.

That the IPCC did not independently verify MBH before featuring it so prominently in IPCC reports confirms that peer review is not enought to determine the integrity of a study.

Troll Paul S/G is once again showing his stupidity and is trying to gain more denier points. Is there a prize at the end of the year for idiots who accumulate the most denier points, maybe a pair of Hummers?

Ian Forrester

He's playing Global Warming Sceptic Bingo.

http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/

Do you consider Dr. Wegman, Dr. North and the National Academy of Sciences to be deniers also Ian? I'm just curious how deep this denier paranoia of yours goes.

Why are you making the same arguments that you make at Rabett Run and Deltoid? Don't they destroy your arguments enough over there?

Not sure what you are getting at VJ, except to avoid any discussion of the relevant points. Does Mann's original claim that it is "likely" that the 1990's were the warmest decade in a millenium stand or not? It's a rather straightforward question.

Or, do you consider Dr. Wegman, Dr. North and the National Academy of Sciences to be deniers also?

If you are able to read the various reports with a critical and unbiased mind (some how I doubt you can do either of these) you will see that North and the NAS support the majority of the MBH results. Wegman, on the other hand is a denier since it is "his opinion" that the method that they used was wrong. An opinion which has now been shown to be not only wrong but biased.

You deniers must be in dire straights if you are still trying to convince intelligent people that "the hockey stick is broken".

There are a multitude of "papers" put out by the deniers which are in need of critical "auditing", why do you and the CA crowd not spend some time auditing them? The letter by Carter, endorsed by Wegman, would be a great place to start since it is based on fraudulent statistics.

Ian Forrester

The only claim of Mann's that the zealots touted was the "Warmest in a 1000 Years!" one. And that is the one that Dr. North, Dr. Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences refuted since the data was not strong enough to make that claim.

Keep the hockey stick if you like Ian, but you can't use it to make scientifically unsupportable claims anymore.

As I said before read the report.

“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press)".

Do you understand what this says? I don't care what you thought "zealots" thought that has got nothing to do with what North says about the MBH papers, which he basically agree with.

To quote JB over on Deltoid: "Arguing science with libertarians is like fighting over bananas with monkeys".

Why don't you pick up your bananas and go home?

Ian Forrester

Happy New Year, Ian!

Oh, I understand what the North Report says. It says, in regard to all the temperature reconstructions:

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.

And goes on to say:

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600.

This means that none of the temperature reconstructions you listed can be used to make the claim "Warmest in 1000 years!!!" with any degree of certainty.

The weakness in the data prior to AD 1600 in Mann's study applies to all the other temperature reconstructions.

Have a banana Ian.

You are an arrogant, anti science creep. Get lost and get a life. Arguing with you is just a waste of time.

You are completely ignorant on the science of global warming but pretend to know all about it. You are the worst kind of greedy, arrogant, narcissist and hypocritical person who is happy screwing up the planet. Why don't you find a deserted island somewhere that you can pollute to your heart's content?

People with attitudes like yours disgust me.

Ian Forrester

Ian, one of my favourite bits of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is when Arthur Dent (the hero) encounters a group of settlers who have been "sent ahead" to establish a beachhead on a new world because their own is about to explode (or something). The truth is, back at home folks got fed up with the useless people (I won't list the occupations, in case I hurt someone's feelings, but you know the type) so they told them the world was coming to an end and that they were needed to lead the way to a new home. They put them all on a spaceship, waved goodbye, and went on with their lives. It's a bit like Gilbert & Sullivan ("you can put them on the list/They never will be missed . . .").

I vote Rob, Paul S/G & Zog onto the spaceship. Any other nominations?

Here's a possible explanation for some of the denialists' behaviour:

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge...

And they have four characteristics including:

...1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.

2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Hat tip to Dave at http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/ (from a post by him on a different topic)

3. Incompetent individuals keep on repeating the same false information, even after it has been shown to be wrong.

Ian Forrester

=Ian:=
="Incompetent individuals keep on repeating the same false information, even after it has been shown to be wrong."=

So now Dr. North, Dr. Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences are all wrong for reaching the same conclusions about MBH and other temperature reconstructions pre-1600AD. Right.

I don't respond to idiots anymore.

Ian Forrester

Since you responded to me, I must be in a different category. :)

Heh. Ian's suggestion is not really number 3, but it should be in there somewhere. Actually they do hold out hope that the incompetent people can learn. But I think these guys would need a full time Socrates apiece to teach them to admit their own ignorance.

LOL Ian. You don't appear to like me quoting from the same North Report which you like so much. So when the facts go against you, you revert to ad homs. Don't slip on a banana peel on the way out.

I don't reply to idiots anymore. However, if you come up with other lies, distortions, misrepresentations and dissemination of fraud I will call you on it.

Did I mention before that I hate with a passion anyone who denigrates science and scientists?

Ian Forrester

No need to respect bad science, or sloppy science or science that has never been independently verified; instead only given a cursory peer-review.

A "cursory peer-review"? Wow way to show your ignorance of what the words "peer review" mean.

Peer review certainly wasn't sufficient for MBH.

You are as guilty as the so called deniers in misquoteing people. This is the full quote you should have used from Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, not exactly a ringing endorement of AGW

"Climatologists are more concerned whether the observations fit their preconceived model and prefer to describe solar activity by one single parameter. But solar activity can not be described by a single number. There are many different manifestations of the turbulent and 3-dimensional distribution of energy release from the Sun, and for a physicist the real challenge is to find those parameters of solar activity that best correlate with climate in order to provide a clue regarding the exact physical mechanism that could be responsible for a cause and effect relationship. The present case illustrates how science works. In 1997 the results of a parallel line of research indicated a more direct physical link between solar activity and climate (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997 [Journ. Atm. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59:1225-32]). This result was later refined with more and better observations and documented that during the last two solar cycles there is a very good correlation between the solar modulation of the cosmic rays and the low altitude cloud cover (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000 [Space Science Review, 94: 215-30]). So therefore, and in spite of the fact that the solar cycle length seemed not to explain the most recent temperature increase after 1985, solar variations still do have direct effect on important climate parameters. How large this effect may be on the global temperature is currently being investigated, and is outside the scope of this comment. But there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much. Only increased understanding of the physical processes can give us the answer. "

I think that you misunderstand the logical role played by this quote. Remember, it was originally used as support for denial of AGW. The entire quote is clearly NOT supportive of denial of AGW. It raises some interesting complications, but does not serve as a denial of the basic AGW hypothesis. Thus, it has been misquoted. The short quote presented in the article above does not misrepresent the thrust of the quote. The usage of this quote to support AGW denial DOES misrepresent the thrust of the quote.

hey, there is a viable Democratic opponent to Inhofe in the 2008 election.

Andrew Rice

www.andrewforoklahoma.com

I'm surprised you did not even think to mention him.

Most of your disagreement with the Senate report seems simply to level ad hominem attacks. It is more interesting to me, and it ought to be to every thinking person, that there are some serious scientists with peer-reviewed research that gives genuine doubt to the MMGW consensus, which implies that 'consensus' is a misleading term.

Michael, it's important to realize that the existence of a few scientists who disagree with the mainstream does not substantially reduce the reliability of the mainstream view. Remember, there are literally thousands of scientists working on this subject. If you polled thousands of experts on ANY issue, do you really think that every last one would say the same thing? Of course not! The important thing is to look at the big picture. The vast majority of climatologists are in basic agreement on the AGW hypothesis.

But let's take these 400 scientists at face value. Let's assume that we were to consider them a sample from a set of scientists meeting the following criteria:

1. Any college degree on any subject.
2. Has spent some time reading the technical literature.

I think that if you were to broaden these criteria in any way, you'd end up ruling out some of the 400 scientists on this list. So, how many people meet this definition? Surely you'd agree that there are millions of people who have a college degree and have read something of the technical literature about climatology. So, if only 400 out of millions can be found who reject the basic AGW hypothesis, then surely you'd agree that they do not constitute a large enough group to justify skepticism -- right?

Michael Floyd:
"there are some serious scientists with peer-reviewed research that gives genuine doubt to the MMGW consensus, which implies that 'consensus' is a misleading term."

1) In any case, as Naomi Oreskes has correctly said many a time, consensus does not require unanimity. Peer-reviewed is not a guarantee for correctness, but rather a bare minimum to keep out most of the junk.

2) But since you say there are *serious* scientists with *peer-reviewed* research that gives genuine doubts to the MMGW (more commonly called AGW) consensus, could you please cite some (maybe 5) so I could look at them.

and just to avoid waste of time, I assume:

"serious scientists" means climate scientists who do original research and at least occasionally publish some in credible peer-reviewed journals?

"peer-reviewed" means peer-reviewed in the usual sense, not E&E?

"genuine doubts" means that the published results hold up for a few years, and probably get cited positively (as opposed to being cited for refutation)?

Are those fair? If it turns out that it is difficult to find such things, would your opinion change?

=====
Regarding consensus, we just went through that a few months ago, and the consensus wasn't even touched, although Morano tried hard with Monckton & Schulte. If for some reason you want to see how crazy the political anti-consensus efforts get, see my writeup at:

http://www.zerocarbonnow.org/wordpress//uploads/monckton_schulte_oreskes1.pdf

Michael Floyd, can you name the serious scientists and their peer-reviewed publications which cast doubt upon AGW? The names listed include a number of dishonest denialists; which makes the rest look less credible.

Please show me a statement signed by IPCC contributors who agree with IPCC's assessment human contribution to global warming.

Bob, I doubt that such a statement exists because I doubt that anybody sees any need for it. The IPCC hammers out its reports based on the input from a large number of scientists. I think it safe to apply a presumption that those scientists who participate in the process are in basic agreement with the overall conclusions. I know that there are a few cases in which scientists who disagreed sharply with the conclusions have withdrawn from the IPCC process. If there were a significant minority of scientists who resigned for such a reason, it would be cause for concern. However, the tiny number of scientists doing so suggests that there is little cause for concern as to the overall reliability of the IPCC reports.

I hate to make a bunch of retards cry but I cant help my self.

www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/04/24/global-warming-progress-not-for-all-the-coal-in-china/

www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

Merry Christmas!

You're all heart, RTWNGR.

The denigratory tone of your note suggests that a reply is futile, but I'll point out two things about the stories you link to (which, for others, are both stories about the increasing amount of CO2 that China's burgeoning economy is putting into the atmosphere).

First, this only underlines how serious the problem is. We're not the only emitters on the planet. Emissions are increasing at a time when we need them to decrease. In other words, we're heading for trouble and pushing down hard on the gas. Which in turn gives even greater import to our efforts to do something about it.

Second, note how weak our position is. Had we signed onto Kyoto and used our influence to get everybody else on the bandwagon, then we'd be in a much better political position to twist China's arm to agree to some restrictions starting with Kyoto II in 2012. That's not going to happen because China will laugh in our faces and call us hypocrites if we try to get them to reduce emissions.

On a side note, I wonder if the global warming deniers have thought about what happens if they're wrong. The deniers are all ardently insisting that there's no problem, and the evidence of the problem just keeps mounting. The loss of summer ice in the Arctic is one of the most obvious consequences of global warming, and it won't be long before there's no sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. When that happens, the global warming deniers are going to be exposed as flat out liars, and they'll lose all credibility. Afterwards, whenever an environmental issue is raised, and you guys start making a stink about it, the environmentalists will just say, "Yeah, and you told us that global warming was a fraud!" at which point everybody will laugh you out of the room. Have you considered that you're setting yourselves up for disaster down the road?

WRT your last statement, it seems to me that the amount of credibility they have is not important. Singer argued for cigarettes not affecting health; others argued (and still do) that ozone isn't depleted by CFC's. Somehow, these people still have their op-eds printed and people visit their websites. It's amazing. A parallel but quite independent issue I'm aware of is the farming of Atlantic salmon in Pacific waters. First the industry said that Atlantics that escape nets won't survive, then after findings far from the nets said they won't go to rivers, then when found in rivers said they won't spawn, and when found spawning asserted (on the basis of no evidence) that they wouldn't harm native species. Their comments throughout that process of discovery were taken at face value (in the media at least). More recently the cycle has begun and almost come to completion again, this time with respect to disease & parasite transfer from farms to wild fish. Presently there is falling resistance to evidence that salmon farms increase sea lice abundance along migratory pathways for young wild salmon, and that young wild salmon are killed by sea lice. But there is still a lot of resistance to the conclusion that this negatively affects the populations of wild salmon (example of argument used: wild pink salmon populations have always fluctuated greatly, so you can't show recent declines are due to farmed salmon).

Chris said "On a side note, I wonder if the global warming deniers have thought about what happens if they're wrong." Hum, that is the same argument I heard from Christians when I told them that I didn't believe in their religion. More evidence that Global Warming is a religion. As for the Arctic ice, the Northern passage has been open in the summer in at least two prior recorded events. The big problem with this argument is that satellite observations did not begin until 1979, do I need to tell you that in geologic time this does not mean much, if not anything. There are newspaper reports of arctic melting and the pending doom of polar bears from the 1930s. I might add that since Antarctic temperatures have been measured in the 1950s, the vast majority of the continent has cooled (read NASA records.) Nothing that has been observed is out of the ordinary, in fact the observed warming is within the margin of error for the calculation of the average global temperature (if you took stats you will know that a mean may or may not be significant.)

Bob, perhaps you didn't understand my point, which was that the scientific question will likely be resolved in ten or, at most, twenty years (unlike the religious question). And if it turns out that you're wrong on this one, the political credibility of "anti-environmentalists" will fall in direct proportion to the vehemence with which they now deny the AGW hypothesis. If I as an atheist turn out to be wrong, nobody will ever know, and my credibility will not be shot to hell (even though I myself will ;-) ).

So, no, acceptance of the conclusions of the IPCC report does not comprise a religion. If anything, the dogged insistence on denying AGW in the teeth of ever-increasing evidence in support of it, plus the refusal to actually read the IPCC reports and understand what they say, is strong evidence that AGW denial is not based on rational thinking.

As for the Arctic ice, the Northern passage has been open in the summer in at least two prior recorded events.

I had earlier explained that the problem here was not the opening of the Northwest Passage but the disappearance of summer sea ice over the ENTIRE Arctic Ocean. Sadly, that post was lost by a software bug.

The big problem with this argument is that satellite observations did not begin until 1979, do I need to tell you that in geologic time this does not mean much, if not anything.

Yes, it's true that, in terms of geologic time, twenty years is nothing. But we don't live in geologic time; in our time scale, twenty years is a long time. If the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in the summertime within 20 years, that's a very serious event. If the Greenland ice pack melts in 100 years, that's a REALLY serious event. And we have tons and tons of data supporting the overall conclusion that temperatures are increasing.

There are newspaper reports of arctic melting and the pending doom of polar bears from the 1930s.

Yes, and the National Enquirer publishes reports of UFO sightings all the time, but I don't put much weight on them. Let's confine our discussion to scientific data, OK?

I might add that since Antarctic temperatures have been measured in the 1950s, the vast majority of the continent has cooled (read NASA records.)

I don't think that's true. Do you have a link to that data?

Nothing that has been observed is out of the ordinary, in fact the observed warming is within the margin of error for the calculation of the average global temperature

There are a great many observations that are definitely out of the ordinary. The most extraordinary data involve the rate of change of temperatures in a number of areas. Another very out-of-the-ordinary set of data comes from the recession of glaciers all over the globe. Yes, glaciers always advance and retreat -- but the rate of change we are seeing now is most definitely NOT ordinary.

And your statement regarding "average global temperature" is misleading. How does one define "average global temperature"? There are ways to define it that could well justify your statement. But remember, we have long expected that the greatest effects would be experienced at the highest latitudes, and that in fact is definitely happening in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic. The temperature changes we are observing there are way above the margin of error for the observations.

Lastly, I'd like to ask you a question: have you read the IPCC reports? The AAAS report? The NAS report? Do you know anything about even the basic physics at work here? For example, if solar radiation were to increase by 1%, how much would the earth's temperature increase by (in the simplest calculation)? My point here is that I have never met an AGW denier who actually understood the science at work. I know that there are some AGW deniers who DO understand the science, but they are very few and I have never interacted with any of them. I have challenged scores of AGW deniers and never have I found one who has even read the IPCC reports. Can you break this losing streak for AGW deniers?

"Retards" is a word that has been out of use in polite company for several decades now.

Just as a reminder:
1) A list of actual signatures is one thing, and one can fairly comment on someone's placing themself on that list, if they did.

2) On the other hand, having someone *place* you a list is a different thing, and I suspect some of the 400 will be surprised to find themselves there.

Here is the beginning of the list of your so called unqualified experts. You liberal pea brains are enough to make one puke!!!!!

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

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

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

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

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to continue>

And If you have a mind click on the link at the end of this list to read about induvidual experties of these men & women. But im expecting you won't.

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed one of the "Fathers of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Other scientists (not already included in this report) who signed the letter include: Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia; Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.; Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada; Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands; William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.; R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa; Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay; Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden; Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia; Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia; Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia; Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands; Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.; Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada; William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.; A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors; Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany; Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada; Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway; Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia; John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia; Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada; Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force; R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.; Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada; Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.; L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada; Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden; Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia; Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany; and Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia. Also, "Other professional persons knowledgeable about climate change who expressed support for the open letter to the UN Secretary General" included meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service Allan Cortese; Water resources engineer Don Farley; Dr. David A. Gray of Messiah College, a former researcher in electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere; Barrie Jackson, associate professor of Chemical Engineering at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Raymond J. Jones, PhD, FATSE, OAM. retired, Agronomist, Townsville, Australia; J.A.L. Robertson, M.A. (Cantab.), F.R.S.C., nuclear-energy consultant, Deep River, ON, Canada; J.T.Rogers, PhD, FCAE, nuclear engineer; energy analyst, Ottawa, Canada; John K. Sutherland, PhD in Geology (Manchester University), New Brunswick, Canada; Noor van Andel, PhD Energy Physics, Burgemeester Stroinkstraat, The Netherlands; Arthur M. Patterson, P.Eng, Geological Engineer. Extensive experience in the Canadian Arctic; Agronomist Pat Palmer of New Zealand; and Alois Haas emeritus Prof. PhD, nuclear chemistry. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360&Issue_id=

Yup, and few of them have anything on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and if they do, they fold their hand and indicate that the planet on a whole is warming and is likely the result of greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity.

They may have signed this document, but their work clearly has not refuted AGW.

Tom, I have read the letter and looked over the list of signatories.

I think that the letter makes some reasonable points, although I do not accept those points. In particular, I think it makes a solid point about the differences between the executive summaries and the technical content. This is why I always suggest that people start off with the executive summaries, and then proceed to reading the entire report. And certainly the entire report does not quail from presenting a strong case for the existence of AGW.

As to the specific points they make:

1. They argue that the observations so far fall inside the range of known natural variation. While this is true, it fails to note that these observations all fall at the extreme end of the range of natural variation. For example, the observed rate of temperature change that they quote (which is, by the way, one of the more conservative measures) is believed to match a quick spurt in temperatures about 10,000 years ago. However, there is nothing else in the geological record to suggest anything so quick at any other time, and the magnitude of that spurt is still uncertain. Here's a fair analogy for non-scientists: they're claiming that the body on the floor with the knife in its back might not be a murder because there was a case a few years back where a knife was accidentally bounced into somebody's back, killing them.

2. They assert that "leading scientists, including some IPCC senior representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate." That's a statement so vague as to be suspicious. What does "predict" mean? I can made a climate prediction right here and now, and I don't even need a computer to make it. I predict that the average global temperature 100 years from now will be within 20 degrees Fahrenheit of its current value. See how easy that was? Of course, it's not very useful. The real question is, what's the uncertainty bounds for the predictions? The computer models in use provide those uncertainty bounds, and we can be confident that the reality will fall within those uncertainty bounds.

3. They state that " there has been no net global warming since 1998". This is absolutely correct. Yet it is also meaningless. You can cherry-pick your numbers any way you want. There's lots of other ways of expressing the data, the great majority of which show a clear warming trend. And if 2007 turns out to be cooler than 2006, that doesn't mean that global cooling is descending upon us. There are always fluctuations.

I looked over the list of 100 signatories and found a great many who are not, in my opinion, qualified to offer judgements on the IPCC reports. These include economists, geographers, and geologists. None of these advanced skills are relevant to the IPCC reports. There are also quite a few persons whose degrees are not specified other than "PhD". I ruled them out as well. I accepted anybody with a PhD in physics, climatology, or meteorology, who was a member of a university faculty, either practicing or emeritus. I found that only 36 out of the 100 signatories met my criteria.

Now, consider the number of people in the world who meet my criteria: current or emeritus faculty members with PhDs in physics, climatology, or meteorology. There are tens of thousands of such people. And the sponsors of this letter could drum up only 36 people out of tens of thousands? Doesn't that clearly demonstrate just how tiny the opposition to AGW is?

But let's suppose that you think my standards too narrow. You think that I should include economists, biologists, and geologists as well. Very well, let's accept all one hundred signatories. There are literally hundreds of thousands of scientists meeting the broader criteria for this set of 100 signatories. Which means that the scientific community appears to be divided a thousand to one in favor of AGW. I'd call that a consensus.

One more time:
"Just as a reminder:
1) A list of actual signatures is one thing, and one can fairly comment on someone's placing themself on that list, if they did.

2) On the other hand, having someone *place* you a list is a different thing, and I suspect some of the 400 will be surprised to find themselves there."

The list of 100 people on letter to UN appear to be actual signatories; the list of 400 includes anyone that Marc Morano ever thought said anything that might be cherry-picked or interpreted. If you think that Marc's list *signed* anything, show it to us. Some of us are very familiar with Morano tactics.

Tom Keefe:

If you take Morano and Inhofe on faith:
that makes sense if:
a) You work in the fossil fuels industry, in which case your short-term motivation is clear.
OR
b) You're rich, have plenty of investments in fossil fuels, and that is clear motivation.

but if you're an average working person, they are setting *you* up to go over a cliff.

Look up "peak oil".

Inhofe pushes PlanA: burn as much fossil fuels as as fast as possible, it's good for us ...
or at least for Inhofe's contributors (oil&gas, #1, electric utilities, #2 (keen to build new coal power plants).

Well, when oil&gas start getting *really* expensive, just who do you think is going to get hurt?

- average people in places that have worked very hard to improve their energy efficiencies and maximize their alternate energy supplies?

- average people in places where they haven't...

When fuel prices go up, prices of basics rise, which hurts average people a lot more than it hurts rich ones.

Do you remember the oil crisis of the 1970s? When energy costs rise fast, it takes a long time for the installed base to improve. It's not just the price at the pump (I'm planning on seeing $10/gallon within 10 years), it's the energy cost embedded in food (farming, transport, fertilizer (natural gas)), manufactured products, etc.

Inhofe has done a great job suckering average people into heading for a cliff, but that's OK, because his rich fossil backers will get even richer in the short term, and he can keep getting elected.

When Oklahoma's part of the Ogallala Aquifer is useless, and OK turns into a dustbowl again from climate change, it won't be Inhofe and friends that suffer, will it?

Let's hope Andrew Rice, http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com/, can beat Inhofe in 2008. On first glance, he at least looks reasonable.

Richard Littlemore, said "Stephen McIntyre, the one-time mining promoter and amateur statistician who has earned unending fame by constantly attacking the same..." Isn't Stephen the person who pointed out statistical errors in Dr. "CO2 causes global cooling in the 1970s" Hanson's calculations of mean US temperatures and forced NASA to correct its numbers? It appears that you learned from Bill Clinton's strategy of "politics of personal destruction" just as the AWG blogs have found to be a method of silencing the thinking people. Stalin and Mao, just eliminated us, thank god I live in the good old USA.

Bob, could you expand on this statement:

Isn't Stephen the person who pointed out statistical errors in Dr. "CO2 causes global cooling in the 1970s" Hanson's calculations of mean US temperatures and forced NASA to correct its numbers?

I know something of the myth that 'scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s', and you seem to be referring to it, but I'd like to know precisely what event you're talking about.

Global cooling prediction in 1970s:
that's #7 [ice70s] in
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

John, thanks for the link. I had seen a few other explanations of the issue, including the NAS report from the 70s, but this is the most complete collection I've yet seen. Thanks.

And BTW, I notice that the deniers have a penchant for swooping in with long posts, and then disappearing, or at least failing to respond to my rejoinders. While this is the best possible evidence of their insincerity, it is a bit frustrating to prepare careful responses and then have them ignored. Is this common practice at this blog?

Pages