NRSP: Climate Change Deniers-Are-Us

Congratulations to Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (better known as Not Really Science People), who has scoured the earth for “experts” prepared to deny the science behind climate change and has found a couple of people we'd never heard of before.

Most (27) of Harris's 31 “experts” fall nicely into the category of “usual suspects,” having all signed the infamous Letter of 60, demanding that the Canadian government take NO action on climate change. (Kudos to Harris for his success on that front, as well.)

But there are four names here that weren't on that letter. Dr. David Legates (University of Delaware), Dr. Garth Paltride (University of Tasmania, Emeritus), Hans Erren (a “geophysical consultant” from the Netherlands) and Dr. Robert Balling.

Balling has been around for a while, taking money from energy companies (Exxon, etc.) and denying climate change; he must have been out of town when they created the Letter of 60.

And Legates also pops up on the Sourcewatch list of industry-friendly experts. But Erren and Paltridge are new.

Well done Tom. If you can find another living, breathing, climate-change denying “expert” anywhere else on the planet, let us know. We'll publicize his name and website right here on the DeSmogBlog.



Read the IPCC reports. I have and they do not support their own conclusions.

For example, they have reduced the contribution of solar irradience by over 50% from the TAR based on a model. Then they write that “uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete undersanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales.” (WG1 Technical Summary p. 30-31)

The energy that they arbitraily removed from solar irradience has to go somewhere and so they put it into GHG. This isn’t science!

The report is replete with similar examples.

Look at the discussion on page 36 regarding stratospheric temperature. It’s getting colder! But it is colder than is convenient for the IPCC view of things. So they say that “radiosonde records (back to 1958) also indicate stratospheric cooling but are subject to substantial instrumental uncertainties”. I note that this data was good enough to be used over the years in weather forecasting.

How can a I credit a group of people who are willing to change a global thermal balance equation based on a model with no supporting data and little knowledge and then discount actual observations because they do not fit the desired pattern?

Sounds like voodoo science to me.

Can you send me a list of your climate change deniers? It sounds like they have something to say that is worth listening to.

But, Richard, … Harris and NRSP/FOS/Enviroxtruth has the backing, and signature to prove it, from theOregon Institute of Science and Medicine

What more could be needed for scientific credentials?  This trumps the AAAS and Royal Society any day.